People will tell you this or that is an illusion.

      Often they will confuse illusion with hallucination.

      For example I am seeing a little green martian that no one else
sees.  That would be either imagination, dream or hallucination, all the
same thing functionally.

      The implied martian guy doesn't exist, but my hallucination that he
exists certainly does exist.  The *HALLUCINATION* is not an illusion,
but the implied martian's existence may be.

      The fact that I consciously see something that other's don't,
doesn't mean I am hallucinating something non actual, they may merely be
blind or not tuned into my wavelength for co resonation.

      But take a simpler example, a common illusion is that the size of
the moon is bigger when its on the horizon than when not.  But hold a
micrometer upto it at arms length and you will quickly find the size
does not actually change.

      So we can correctly say that the change in size is an illusion.

      But notice the illusion is about something that is actual, the

      The illusion is merely the assertion that SOME of the perceived
qualities of the moon are not accurate, not that the moon doesn't exist
or is an 'illusion' itself.

      Now MEST is in fact a mass co hallucination in the fullest sense of
the word, we see conscious pictures together of an external universe,
that exists only in the seeing of it, like a sleep dream.

      I may see and even play a piano in a sleep dream, but there is no
piano made of wood in the dream, only a piano made of conscious picture

      Same is true for the waking state, MEST is a shared CO dream
amongst many dreamers having the same dream at the same time from
different viewpoints in space.

      However the dream IS actual, and so is the I which perceives the
dream.  To assign more actuality to that which is perceived than to the
perceiver is an inversion, and results in insanity.

      Thus those who claim that 'I' is an illusion but 'MEST' is actual
are nuts.

      Some will try to get around this by saying that BOTH perceived and
perceiver are illusions, but then what is actual?



      The stupider ones will say everything is an illusion, there is no

      Define actual as what is true.

      Define real as what people think is true, its not actual but it is
real to them.

      The smarter ones will run

       "What is actual?"
       "What is real?"

       until they get it squared away with perfect certainty.


       "Get the idea of something actual."
       "Get the idea of something real to you."

      For example the existence of the colorform panoply we see around us
is actual, however the apparency that IT IS OUT THERE is an illusion.
Close one eye, that's more the truth.

      Bigger joke is that the conscious unit can see perfect stereo
without eyes or having two different view points, dreams are a case in
point, so is good imagination.

      Hubbard said that 'space is a viewpoint of dimension'

      The viewpoint or conscious unit has no spatial dimension, but can
view conscious experiences OF dimension, which experiences also do not
have any dimension!

      In other words, the hologram allows us to see space out there, but
the holographic film or substrate does not take up any space itself.

      Thus the hologram projecting space is actual, but space itself is
an illusion.

      Remember our definitions of reality and actuality.

       Reality is what people think is true, what is real to them.

       Actuality is what IS true.

       Reality measn Illusion

       Non Lucid means Delusion about Illusion, that Reality = Actuality.


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

Sun Dec  9 00:04:17 EST 2007

================ ====================
Thu Dec  3 12:06:01 EST 2015
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Thu Dec  3 22:22:19 EST 2015