Significantly clarified and corrected in (( )).

      PERSONAL INTEGRITY version 2.0

      Personal integrity is knowing what you know, and not knowing what
you don't know.

      ((There is a phrase problem here in that

      'Knowing what you do not know' and

      'Not knowing what you do not know'

      can mean the same thing, depending on how you read them.

      We want to people to know what they know, and know what they do not
know as much as possible, but we do not want people pretending to know
things they do not know, we want people to 'not know what they don't
know and stop pretending to know it.'))

      Personal integrity includes NOT knowing what you can't know, and
knowing what is obvious.

      Willfull out personal intengrity is a spiritual High Crime.

      Out personal integrity leads to sickness.

      The sickness is 'Just Desserts' for commission of a High Crime.

      The sickness is not enforced externally, it follows naturally,

      Justice is you get what you postulate.

      People have long known that lying is no good for you.  Generally
lying is considered any form of saying that something is false which is
true, or saying something is true which is false.

      However we wish to draw your attention to a different kind of
lying, namely saying that something which is certainly true or false is
*UNCERTAIN*, or saying something which is uncertain is certainly true or
false.  THESE lies are what make people sick.

      No one has ever told you that before.

      Its the creation of uncertainties from certainties and the
creation of certainties from uncertainies that are the problem.

      Merely reversing the truth of a certainty from true to false
causes little problem in comparison.

      The primary acts of willfull out integrity are

      1.) Enforcing a false certainty.
      2.) Doubting a true certainty


      ((The definition of a false certainty below is unclear.

      It has two distinct meanings.

      1.) A false certainty is something one is certain is true, but
turns out later to be false.  This can not in fact happen, because if
the fact IS false, one could never have been certain it was true in the
first place.

      Thus we say there are 'no false certainties'.

      People get into this trouble by confusing THEORY with direct
perceptions.  Direct percertions are always certain and always right.
THEORY is never certain and can never be known to be right.

      By thinking they are 'certain' a theory is right, people then set
themselves up to be proven wrong later when the theory turns out to be
false, and thus people get the idea that they can be certain of
something that is false.

      2.) A false certainty is something that a person claims to be
certain of but is in fact not a certainty for them, regardless of its
truth value.  A person claims they are certain God exists.  God may
exist but they aren't certain of it.  That's a false certainty.  The
CERTAINTY is false, not the truth of what the certainty is about.))

      It is not possible to have a true certainty turn out false.  If it
turns out false, it was never certain.  But people can enforce an
uncertainty into a certainty, which then becomes a false certainty(2),
even if it turns out later to be true!

      Any 'certainty' that turns out to be false later was never a true
certainty in the first place, but an act of willfull out integrity.
Once false certainties(2) are spotted, the person can tell that he was
never truly certain of it in the first place and knew it.

      Remember that just because a certainty is a false certainty,
doesn't mean the claimed fact is in fact false!  It merely means the
person hasn't reach a true certainty on it yet.


      Doubting a true certainty is a high crime.  Truth is a jealous God.
If something is true, and you know it is true, and there is no
possibility of it being false, then you deserve what you get if you
doubt it willfully.

      Doubt creates evidence in its own favor (self casting), this locks
the person into the doubt.

      Since doubt is self casting, it is easy to doubt a true certainty,
and thus to turn a true certainty into a false uncertainty.

      Turning true certainties(2) into false uncertainties, or turning
true uncertainties into false certainties are both forms of willfull out
integrity and lead ultimately to ludicrous demise.  At the end of the
chain the being will be found in wonder.

      Wondering why he is sick.

      To clear this up find and run the following items per tech of


      Doubted Certainty
      Doubted Uncertainty

      False Certainty
      False Uncertainty

      Making certainties into false uncertainties.
      Making uncertainties into false certainties.

      Making true certainties wrong, and false certainties right.
      Making true uncertainies wrong, and false uncertainties right.

      And full CDEINR scale on certainty and uncertainty, with
particular attention to enforced, inhibited, NO, denied and refused
certainties and uncertanties.

      Remember that 'NO" certainty doesn't mean he's got an
uncertainty, it means he has made nothing out of certainty!

      E/P all personal integrity operatingness nominal again, knows
what he knows, and knows what he doesn't know, and comfortable
not knowing.


      Beings are dramatizing dicoms in ANDS and NEITHERS, not in ORS.

      The basic dicoms are love and hate, beauty and ugly and good and
evil, but there are many more specific to the person such as respect
and contempt, blessingness and damningness, integration and
disintegration etc.

      He won't be dramatizing loving or hating his mother, but loving
AND hating his mother.  This forms a ridge, one effort that does both
at the same time.  Thus when he loves his mother, he will be
dramatizing the effort of the ridge, and when he hates his mother he
will be dramatizing the same effort!

      Aberration is in the illogic of the situtation, loving by hating,
and hating by loving.

      The ridge gets buried in NEITHERS, neither loving nor hating his
mother.  So eventually there is nothing there.

      The person won't feel anything about his mother.  That's a
neither, neither love nor hate.  Once that is removed, the underlying
ridge of LOVE AND HATE will surface with great turmoil and anguish.

      You can't love by hating, and you can't hate by loving, it will
take the person a while to figure this out.

      If you can get the person to separate them in time and effort, he
will start to do better.  Now I love her, now I hate her, now I love
her, now I hate her with a different effort for each one.  That's

      Any serious ridge will be found to be an AND not an OR.  It is
tempting to think that the person is being good and fighting evil, or
being evil and fighting good.

      But if he has a RIDGE on the matter, which includes all GPMS, he
is actually dramatizing both sides at once.  He, as good, can't get
into a fight with evil without being the evil side also, if only to
invite it in and fight it.

      This is a lower harmonic mockery of pandeterminism at work.

      Thus auditing being good or evil won't fly, but auditing good AND
evil will.

      Remember the AND is buried under a NEITHER, being neither good
nor evil, that's a final solution to the problem of the AND.

      Assess for NEITHER, or AND.  Which ever reads find the item pairs
that go with it, and run them as neithers or ands.  Running each side
back and forth as Hubbard originally suggested may not work as well.

      Running what problem did you have with your mother, and then what
problem did your mother have with you is running an OR, its running
either you had a problem with your mother or your mother had a problem
with you.

      Running what is it between you and your mother, is running an
AND, its running what you both did to each other at the exact same
time.  Only these form ridges or any merit to run.

      When did you try to cripple someone?

      When did someone try to cripple you?

      That's an OR you see?

      When did you and another try to cripple each other at the same

      That's an AND.

      Ridges that have different time stamps in either side of the
ridge don't stay together long once the ANDS are run.  Its the AND
ridges that have the same time stamp in both sides that are the
foundation of case.

      What does the guy want AND not want at the same time?  We are not
talking about oscillation, vacilation, indecision, waivering flip
flopping, equivocation, those don't form ridges that have any solidity
to them.

      We want what he wants and doesn't want at the same time.  Thus
his effort to have it will be the same effort to not have it.  THAT
forms a ridge.

      No it is not logical, and yes it is hard to conceive, and perhaps
one won't believe it until one sees it, but that's why case is so
persistent, its nuts.  It exceeds our sensibilities.

      Applied to the above posting on personal integrity, look for
ridges where the guy is both certain AND uncertain at the same time
about the same thing.  That will drive him crazy.


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

Sat Jul 15 15:06:33 EDT 2006
Mon Sep 20 16:25:22 EDT 2010