It's a common assertion by people that all certainties are

      Like the certainty that certainty is impossible, the certainty that
all certainties are untrustable is illogical.

      The certainty that all certainties are untrustable implies this
certainty is untrustable.

      This opens the door to the possibility that some certainties are

      This is in fact the truth.

      It behooves the auditor to help the pc to a state where he knows
what certainties are trustable and which aren't.  Otherwise there is no
personal integrity to be had.

      If the pc can't know what he knows and not know what he doesn't
know, then what hope is there of him ever drawing a correct conclusion
about anything?

      It is commonly accepted that being "certain" of various things is
dangerous, because these 'certainties' turn out to be wrong.

      (This is true, meatballs claim certainty on all kinds of things
that are in fact unknowable.  Meatballs claim they are certain of
THEORIES which can never proven 'right' and thus can never be called a
perfect certainty.  Only an untrained slob of a mind would make this

      It is therefore considered 'best practice' to consider all
certainties untrustable.

      This is called a safe solution.

      There is nothing more dangerous in the universe than a safe

      Particularly when the light of consciousness is living certainty

      In fact every consciousness-of is a perfect certainty.

      The perfect certainties of consciousness are perfect because they
are continuously reverifiable, and thus can not be wrong.

      Does anything exist?  Yes?  Good.  Now let's check it out again.
      Does anything exist?  Yes?  Good.  Now let's check it out again.
      Does anything exist?  Yes?  Good.  Now let's check it out again.

      Do you see two different colors in present time?  Yes?  Are you
sure?  Would you bet your eternity in hell on it?  Easily?  Good.  Now
let's check it out again...

      The fact that you see a car doesn't mean that there IS a car, you
may be hallucinating.  But the fact that you see a car does mean that
you see a car.  People have their symbols and referents confused.

      What you SEE is the symbol for a car in your consciousness.

      What you believe is out there is what you hope the symbol refers
to, the referent, but there is no evidenced at all that such a thing
actually exists beyond your personal dream of it, and everyone else's in
sync with yours.

      That's not evidence of the objective external world, that's
how mass hallucination works, and how the AllThatIS works, as
actuality is virtual reality dream machine.

      It's easy and trivial to 'prove', just get out of your body.

      The fact of the hallucination and the hallucinators are not

      The LOOKER, the LOOKED THROUGH and the LOOKED AT are not
hallucinations, they are actual.

      The existence of implied referents is always uncertain, and can not
be otherwise.  The external world is a theory.  Consciousness however is

      The conscious experience of a car is a symbol for the referent
which is the alleged actual car 'out there'.

      A hallucination is a symbol without a referent.  The symbol is
always perfectly certain as it is a conscious experience.  The referent
is never certain, as the existence of a symbol does not prove the
existence of a referent.  No one has ever seen an actual car, they have
only ever seen their own personal conscious color form picture of a car.

      There is in fact no evidence at all that an actual car exists out
there.  Most people simply can't conceive of the alternative, that
matter energy space and time are dreams in the self luminous light of an
infinite number of consciousnesses.

      Its an emotional thing for them.

      No one wants to be the fool on the hill, and besides they enjoy the
game of death.

      Only an Eternal sunk to the level of an Immortal could.

      A conscious unit, which thinks that all certainty is untrustable,
is untrusting of its own existence, agency and care.

      This is called 'mind broke'.

      CERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY     is sanity.
      CERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINY    is sanity.
      UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY   is insanity.
      UNCERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINTY is more insanity.

      That last one is "I don't know if I don't know!"

      We are not talking about MEMORY here, "Well maybe I KNEW, I just
can't remember.  On the other hand maybe I never knew, I just don't know
if I know!"

      All certainty and uncertainty is in present time.

      If you don't know something NOW, then you are certainly uncertain
of it NOW.  Now is a stream of conscious perfect certainties.

      A thetan however can doubt anything, even that he is doubting.

      This is willfull out integrity.

      Personal integrity is:

      "I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could never wonder
if it was a nothing or a something."  -- Descartes


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Plate 1: Party Line

      A party line is a fixed idea, pet theory, or other philosophical
vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over
rules that evidence or reason.

      People may be stuck in one or more party lines.

      The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty
is impossible, untrustable, undesirable, unimportant, dangerous or

      We call this 'mind broke'.

      Perfect certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of personal


      Plate 2: Logic

      Logic is the ethics of language, a description of IS AND IS NOT.

      If you say "All dogs are animals, and Joey is an animal, but Joey
is not a dog", what have you said?

      If you say "All that comes from God is good, and Man came from God,
but Man is not all good," what have you said?  It is good that Man is
not all good?

      Logic means:

      IS is IS.             IS means IS.
      IS is not IS NOT.     IS does not mean IS NOT.
      IS NOT is IS NOT.     IS NOT means IS NOT.
      IS NOT is not IS.     IS NOT does not mean IS.

      Bi valued logic means:

      A is A.
      A is not not A.
      Its never the case that A and not A.
      It is always the case that A or not A.

      Any use of the word IS and all of its grammatical equivalents
(namely all of the possible conjugations of the finitive TO BE) is a use
and assertion of the validity of bi valued logic.

      For example the statement "Logic IS invalid", is nuts, as it is
using logic to deny logic.

      Some would assert that multi or infinite valued logic IS a superset
of bi valued logic, but the assertion that infinite valued logic *IS*
anything, automatically makes it a subset of bi valued logic.

      To assert that infinite valued logic *IS* better than bi valued
logic is to use bi valued logic to make the assertion.


Sat Sep 24 00:41:56 EDT 2016