Certainty is generally considered a gradient scale going from 0 to

     At 100, we have a perfect certainty that something is true.

     At 0, we have a perfect certainty that something is false, or that
the opposite is true.

     At 50/50 we don't know whether something is true or not and we
wouldn't hazard a guess.

     At less than 50/50 we would bet that something is false.

     At more than 50/50 we would bet that something is true.

     If a person says "I don't bet" he is hiding in self deceit.

      A perfect certainty is more than a belief, for beliefs can be
wrong, as can theories.

      All those 'certainties' that later turned out to be wrong were in
fact mere theories.

      A perfect certainty by definition can not be wrong, as the truth
can be directly perceived.

      A person should be EASILY willing to bet his AND everyone else's
eternity in hell forever on a perfect certainty.

      If there is the slightest hesitation in the matter then it is not a
perfect certainty but a theory.

      If a person is certain of something, then he is CERTAIN that he is
certain of it.

      If a person is uncertain of something, then he is CERTAIN he is
uncertain of it.

      There is no such thing as uncertain certainty, or uncertain

      Uncertainty can exist.  To doubt this is to prove it, certainly.

      Therefore certainty also exists.

      The first certainty is certainty of uncertainty.

      If a person doubts that he doubts, then he is mind broke hiding in
self deceit.  This is a dharmically criminal condition.

      The second certainty is certainty of certainty.

      If a person says "Well I don't know if I am certain or uncertain"
again he is hiding in a self deceit, it is not possible to not know if
you know or don't know.

      It is possible to not know if you KNEW.  Memory is not a perfect
certainty.  Thus if the guy is wondering if he knew at one time and has
forgotten, he is certainly uncertain in present time.

      A perfect certainty is in present time, "I am certain NOW that I am
certain", or "I am certain NOW that I am uncertain."

      If someone says "I am uncertain if I am certain" or "I am uncertain
if I am uncertain" they are dharmically criminal and mind broke on
either or both accounts.

      Personal integrity is KNOWING what you know and KNOWING what you
don't know.

      "I KNOW I know this, and I KNOW I don't know that."

      There is no "I don't know" without an "I KNOW I don't know" in
front of it.

      Of course your average honest person knows full well that there are
things he doesn't know, questions he hasn't asked, so he also knows that
he doesn't know how much he doesn't know.

      It is thus possible to be ignorant of how much you don't know.

      A question arises as to what is a perfect UNCERTAINTY.

      It can have two possible definitions.

      The first is anything that is 50/50.  This is not acceptable
because it is almost impossible to tell if you are at 50/50 on any
matter.  It's like sitting on the head of pin and asking which way are
you falling.  This would make it near impossible to be perfectly certain
if you were perfectly uncertain.  Thus the concept of a perfect
uncertainty is wasted.

      This doesn't mean that claiming you are 50/50 on a subject is
wasted, it only means that you have a right to not claim you are
perfectly certain you are 50/50!

      The second and correct answer is a perfect uncertainty is anything
you are not perfectly certain of.

      This implies that when you are uncertain of anything, you ARE
perfectly certain that you ARE NOT perfectly certain of something.

      So that includes anything between 0 and 100 that is not 0 or 100.

      Notice that all theories are between 0 and 100 because they are
inherently not statements of truth, but statements of dependable
workability.  Thus adherence to a theory is always a bet greater than 0
and less than 100 that the outcome will be as predicted.  Thus theories
can always be proven wrong, and the mere fact that they haven't yet been
proven wrong, doesn't mean they are 'right.'

      Rightness doesn't apply to theories anyhow, theories are models of
truth, not truth.  Theories work or don't work, truth is right or wrong.
The untrained mind confuses these two concepts easily.

      But a direct observation is not a theory, either you see it or you
don't, end of story.  Even if what you see is a hallucination, a
misrepresentation of 'what is really out there', the hallucination is
not a hallucination, you SEE that for sure.

      Our conscious experiences of things are absolute, 'what is really
out there' is always a theory because we can never see them directly.

      So with this understanding we need to run the following very
dangerous process.  It will release TREMENDOUS amounts of charge, enough
to harm the body if you do it with full but messy intent, so watch out.

       Run round robin,

       Spot NO   perfect certainty.  (NO means pretended no)
       Spot SOME perfect certainty.

       Spot NO   perfect uncertainty.
       Spot SOME perfect uncertainty.

      E/P 1 Can handle perfect certainty and uncertainty.

      E/P 2 No longer doubts he doubts, no longer wonders if he wonders.

      E/P 3 No longer suffering from false 'certainties', or
'certainties' that can later turn out wrong.

      E/P 4 Knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know.  May or
may not know there are things he hasn't thought of.

      E/P Certain awareness that consciousness is capable of perfect
certainty on some things.

      E/P 4 Certain awareness that something exists.

      E/P 5 Certain awareness of self luminousness.

      E/P 6 Certain awareness of personal agency.

      E/P 7 Certain awareness of I AM, I WANT, I CARE, I HURT, I KNOW, I
CAUSE, I DO, and I HAVE restored.

      E/P 8 Has a perfect standard of perfect certainty against which all
other certainties or uncertainties can be compared.

      E/P 9 Certain Awareness of perfection.

      E/P 10 Certain awareness of OT shimmer, that is awareness of OT
power in operation creating the apparency of no OT power.


      Power means ability, ability means able to cause or not cause, to
start, stop and change.

      In this context power and ability are synonymous.

      Power does not mean controlling power over others against their

      Power does mean creative, controlling and destructive power, over
one's self, one's future and other's if they wish it or have agreed to

      Power comes in a power package.

      A power package is a constellation of abilities that work together
to allow a person's present beingness to play it's games well.

      Power packages can be disabilitated, made disabled, but it takes
power to do so.

      The ability to be unable.

      One has to be able to make oneself unable in order to make oneself
unable!  And therefore one has to be able to make one's self unable in
order to UNDO such inabilities that were created, because one undoes any
creation by doing it again.  Thus practice at making one's self unable
will enable one to stop making one's self unable.

      Restoring the ability to be unable, restores the ability to be

      Power packages can be rehabilitated by auditing out the reasons for
the disabilitation.

      Power packages can also be changed, decreased or increased if a new
beingness and game to play is created to suit it.

      It is not possible to change one's operating power package without
also changing one's beingness and the game it is playing.

      Restoring a disabilitated power package to full operating ability
does not involve changing beingness or the game it is playing other than
to remove the 'crippled' from infront of its name.

      A chess player may never use his knight, say, due to some

      If you rehabilitate the player so he can use his knight and all his
other pieces to full potential, he is still a chess player playing
chess, although he may start winning more often.

      However if you CHANGE the player's power package, by for example,
allowing a pawn to move like a queen, or limiting a rook to move like a
knight, then you are no longer a chess player playing chess, as both
power package, beingness and game have changed.

      Power packages of all kinds come with Power Protocols, or Prime
Directives, essentially the rules by which one agrees to play even
though one might do so differently.  A chess player CAN move chess
pieces in violation of the rules but is constrained by his agreements
not to do so, lest other's become unwilling to play with him or do the
same against him.

      A game with random shifting rules is a bear to play.

      So a chess player is constrained by the chess player's power
protocol or prime directive.

      In other words, some people may have power packages wider and more
able than many of the lesser games they are presently playing, and thus
they are able to cheat or force their way to a win at the cost of
affinity with other players.

      Thus not only do games have specific power use protocols, the
entire power package of a being across all games, also has a governing
power use protocol.

      One will find that much power disabilitation arises from violations
of power use protocols and the regret that ensues.  Thus auditing the
power use protocol directly will go a long ways towards restoration of
existing power packages, and eventually to the ability to change
packages entirely.

      However if you are going to move the marble, you must ask "What
beingness, what purpose, what game?"

      In other words you can't just add the ability to move the marble to
the power package called a human being.

      The power package that includes being able to move the marble, kill
at a distance, form a group mind, have telepathic communications travel
faster than the speed of cause in this universe, is not called a human
being but something else.

      Telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation, and telecommunion are the
Big 4.

      For the purposes of this discussion a power use protocol and a
prime directive protocol are synonymous.

      Thus power packages have power protocols.

      You audit the protocol to audit the power package.

      A power protocol is a governing list of where, when and why to use
those powers.

      A power package without a reigning power protocol, results in chaos
and the pollution and destruction of all playing fields.

      You will not be able to change a power package until you have
rehabilitated the power package you are in, because the ability to PUT a
new power package into play, in fine operating shape, involves being
able to put your present power package into play, in fine operating

      The following will not run unless perfect certainty and
uncertainty, as run above, is flatter than a one sided pancake and OT
shimmer is in evidence.

      One audits the power package and protocol rundown as follows:

       Spot NO   power protocol
       Spot SOME power protocol

       Spot NO   protocol violation
       Spot SOME protocol violation

       Spot NO   power
       Spot SOME power

       Spot NO   power disabilitation.
       Spot SOME power disabilitation.

       When flat and present power package working properly, then run,

       Spot a power you would like to have.
       Spot something you would do with it.
       Spot a consequence of doing that.
       Spot how you would FEEL about that.

       Spot a power you would NOT like to have.
       Spot something you WOULD NOT do with it.
       Spot a consequence of NOT doing that.
       Spot how you would FEEL about that.

      E/P able to rehabilitate existing power packages and protocols, and
able to create and put into play new ones.

      E/P no longer are power and its protocol in conflict; able, eager
and willing to operate a power package within its protocol.


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Wed Dec 23 15:51:28 EST 2009

================ ====================
Sat Jun  9 12:00:02 EDT 2018
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)

Sat Jun  9 15:46:04 EDT 2018