Suppose I grab a red plastic ball and put it on a table and sit
down to observe it.

     I see a red plastic ball.

     Then I mockup an identical red plastic ball right next to it, to a
point where I can not tell the difference between them from the visual

     Now the first ball is made of plastic.

     What is the second ball made of?  Well there is no second ball you
see, only my mockup of it.

     In both cases I have a mockup of the ball, but in only one case is
a plastic ball there.

     My mockup of either ball certainly is not made of plastic.

     What are mockups made of?  Let's call it rettam (REE-TAM), to
distinguish it from physical matter.

     The two mockups of rettam are both actual objects, albeit conscious
objects that only I can see, not physical universe objects.

     One of my rettam mockups overlays a matter plastic ball in space
and the other doesn't.  The plastic ball is a DIFFERENT object than
either of my two mockups.

     My two mockups made of rettam have various qualities, they are red,
they are spherical and they are 'out there'.

     The plastic ball that is on the table is also an actual object with
its own qualities.  It too is spherical, 'out there,' but it is not red,
as redness is a quality of rettam not of matter, but the ball is made of
plastic which is a quality of matter and not of rettam.

     The red quality of my mockup is used to refer to another quality
the matter ball has which is reflecting light of 5000 angstroms

     My mockup made of rettam doesn't not reflect any light and itself
does not need any light in order to be seen, it is self luminous.

     So we have two very different objects, made of different materials,
with differing qualities where the rettam one is used to refer to the
matter one.

     Now take a sleep dream.  Again the red ball is on the table and I
am sitting observing it.

     The dream as a whole is made of rettam, and the red self luminous
ball sits on the table without any plastic matter ball referent that
existed in the waking state.

     Again I can mockup a second red ball next to the first one, and
both are made of rettam, and neither have a matter ball acting as

     If I don't know I am dreaming, I may believe the matter ball
referent exists too, but if I know I am dreaming, I realize that only
red balls made of rettam exist in this dream.

     Now in the dream if I turn off the lights, the dream may go dark,
but it just as easily may not go dark at all.

     Have you ever had a dream where you turned off the desk light and
the light turned off but the desk and the room remained lit?

     So what lights the room in a dream?

     Certainly not the light bulb on the desk in the dream.

     The dream lights itself, rettam is *SELF LUMINOUS*.

     No part of rettam ever lights any other part of rettam.

     In a dream, if there is a light on the desk and the light is on,
that's cool, but irrelevant to why the dream is lit up.

     That is very different than matter, which always needs some other
kind of matter, namely light waves, to illuminate it.

     There is the issue of whether the waking world is a dream or not.

     The meatballs say it isn't a dream, and the dreamballs say it is.

     By dream we mean that pictures made of rettam exist of the world,
but although the illusion is very strong, there are no objects made of
matter underlying the rettam projections.

     That is quite absurd you say, ok maybe it is, but we need to study
the possibility.

     One argument against the dreamball theory is that without having
been impinged upon by a red ball in the matter world, the conscious mind
would never have known what a red ball would look like, and thus could
never have dreamed one up.

     We find this argument lacking as it implies that God, the Supreme
Consciousness, could never have created a world without first having
been impinged upon by that world to know what a world would look like.

     Now admittedly there may not be a God, the world may have arisen
out of the background atomic soup that pervades all of prior existence,
but then we have to admit that the world could arise without itself
knowing what a world was before it arose.

     If we admit therefore that things can arise without knowing before
hand what such a thing might be, we must admit that whether the world
arose by mathematical necessity from 'mud' or by sentient invention from
the mind of God, it doesn't make much difference, neither knew before
hand what a world might be like until it was first created of mud or
conceived of in the mind of God.

     Thus if God can create things without first having had them impinge
on Him, surely the Conscious Unit, which is an 'I' of God, can do the
same thing.

     Thus the mere existence of objects (mockups) in rettam do not prove
the existance of objects in matter.

     Another argument against the dreamball theory asserts that without
matter, there would be no base to create or hold the process of
consciousness.  In other words first there must be matter, before there
can be rettam.

     This theory states that consciousness arose out of matter, and in
fact is merely a process in matter.  Once the matter is busted apart or
destroyed, the process of consciousness goes with it, and thus we are
mortal and had no prior existence to the present process of matter that
supports our conscious existence, and will have no later existence once
the present process of matter (in our brain) is gone.

     First the assertion that consciousness is MERELY a process in
matter is untrue, consciousness is its own thing quite apart from any
process in matter.  One has to know the proof to see this, but that will

     Thus at worst consciousness is its own process that is connected to
or interfaced with the process of matter (the brain).

     It is true that when we poke at the brain we can affect our
consciousness, but this does not prove that consciousness can not exist
independent of the brain and is only temporally connected to the brain
for a while.

     Heresay evidence indicates that the consciousness can leave the
brain and see the world anyhow without eyes or lens or lightwaves,
through a process more related to the nature of rettam than to matter
mechanics, so one needs to pursue the possibility of this further to see
what might account for it.

     It is possible that if the consciousness can see the world without
the brain, that it is in fact seeing the world without the brain even
while occupying a brain, even though it does seem to limit itself to
seeing what the brain can see at any time.

     For example if you close your eyes, the brain can not see any more,
and so neither can the consciousness.

     It is tempting to say therefore the consciousness is getting its
data of what to see FROM the brain, but it may be seeing by a parallel
rettam path to the world that is independantly and arbitirarly throttled
to match what the brain is seeing from the matter world.

     One might be tempted to say, but this is absurd, 'Man as a fallen
angle would be ludicrous!' (Man and His Gods, Homer William Smith)

     The world is much too serious a place for God to be playing jokes
of this magnitude on his creatures.

     Yes Daddy, but God might be playing these jokes on Himself.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty