06/24/17 Saturday 4:55pm EST  Revised.

In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay  wrote:
> I am interested in what Homer has to say.  Do I expect to agree with
> him?  No.  But I want to understand what it is about these topics
> that holds his interest so strongly.  And Homer has been willing to
> discuss them with me.

     I was and still am a meatball.

     I understand the physical theory very well, educated in math,
logic, biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer science,
electronics, philosophy, government and religion, and I grew up with
academic meatballs of many persuasions, including my father who was a
world reknown physiologist and chairman of the department of physiology
at NYU during the 50-60's.

     He was an agnostic, brought up as a Christian, he kept a scientific
eye out for the need for God, and any evidence there might be for His
existence.  He wrote a book called 'Man and his Gods' with a forward by
Einstein.  My father's view towards Man and his Gods was not kind but
tempered by willing to see evidence if there was any.

     I believe he wanted God to exist, but his experiences with life and
my mother, could not see his way to it.

     He suffered from an excluded middle, he conceived that either the
Christian God existed, which was ludicrous, or there was no God at all.

     He could not concieve that we are all God incarnation.

     Things make sense if we understand that an infinite being did

     What that being did to himself would never be OK if anyone or thing
did it to someone else.  Since people never think they put the universe
upon themselves, their God is always in the dog house.

     He summed up his feelings about God at the end of the book with a
short chapter entitled 'Into whatever abyss...' wherein he wrote "Man as
a fallen angel would be ludicrous." 
     He was a consumate scientist loved by everyone who knew him.

     One night he was sitting by my bed, I was 5 or so, and I asked him
'Daddy where did I come from?' He told me about the willie and the
wendy, and that was that.  I went zooming down my memory track to see if
I could remember being born or concieved or anything before birth and I
couldn't.  That crashed me into being mortal as mortal comes.

     When my father and mother died in the 5th grade or so, I fully
believed I lived but once and that was it bud.  It made me unrecoverably
sour on life.

     Having experienced little to nothing of a mother's love, I
certainly did not consider I had had "time enough for love", and
probably couldn't see ever having such no matter how many life times I

     And I have never been able to accept 'mortality' as a given, even
though I would have bet on mortality up until 1972.

     Nor have I ever been able to accept standard religions, offering a
God that created me against my will, dumped me in this universe to fend
for myself with Godless parents, in order to test me, or whatever his
sick agenda was.

     You know, let the bad bang up on the good, until the good turn bad
out of revenge and let's see how many end up in Heaven.

     You think that once I get to Heaven the sheer beauty of God will
show me the goodness truth and justice of this perverse universe He
created and tossed me into without my permission?


     And although I too wanted some people to enjoy hell forever, I knew
that a God of love would have another solution, and that a God the
Father would actually take care of his kids and not leave them to beat
up on each other, to test the bad and the good by letting the bad bang
up on the good.

     I also have known since I was a kid that there was no experiment I
could do to prove I was or was not dreaming, as I could and had
replicated in a dream anything in the waking state, except a mother's
love, including not being able to wake up when I wanted to, and being
absolutely convinced I was awake when I was still dreaming.

     I knew that I saw the world through the rendition engine of my
consciousness, eyes are not a glass window to the PU (physical
universe), and thus I knew I could never be certain of the PU.

     That's because one can never be certain about A by looking at B no
matter how much B claims to look like A.

     Then in 1972 I had a significant vision, I understood that my
consciousness was capable of perfect certainty of some things.
     I AM, I KNOW, I WANT and I DO,
     And also I had direct perception of color forms like red and green
and all other conscious experiences, and simultaneously I saw very
clearly that a space time gizmo could not do so.

     It became known as the machine certainty theorem (which google) or
The Proof for short.

     Never mind the complexities of that, right or wrong, doesn't
matter, I do presently bet the vision is correct.

     I can be perfectly certain of some things, a machine can't be
certain of anything including its own existence, thus I am not a

     Bet's are bets, not certainties, and when one has to act, one does
have to follow one's gut.

     The vision indicated to me that my consciousness was a zero
dimensional actuality that could be certain of itself and its own color
forms, because it wasn't limited by space or time, but I had an
impenetrably hard time trying to figure out how that zero dimensional
graphics display could be interfaced with a 4D space and time graphics
engine, the brain.

     My Cornell University professors in psych and engineering told me
that consciousness was merely a 'epiphenomenon', meaning a side result
of the brain, but it had no causal agency of it's own and could not
affect anything.

     In otherwords I as a conscious unit was just an observer of things,
but had no causal efficacy myself.  That sent me into a despondancy
about Cornell that I have never gotten over.

     Obviously if this were true, that consciousness was the effect of
the brain, created by or arose out of the brain, but could not itself
effect anything, the whole of idea of consciousness and the word itself
would never be expressed by the brain through the mouth!

     Consciousness has to be cause in order to see itself!  And then it
has to be cause over the brain in order for the brain to report back
that consciousness has seen consciousness!

     What, they think the brain sees consciousness and reports back?

     Ok, that's fine even if abysmally stupid.

     We know from the proof that the only way that B can learn about
A is if A has an effect on B, thus causing a change in state in B.

     B's change in state *IS* its learning about A.
     The the brain can't learn anything unless the BRAIN IS THE EFFECT
OF IT, which means that if the brain (B) can learn about consciousness
(A), then consciousness must be affecting the brain, and thus
consciousness is cause of the brain knowing about it.

     Thus there is no way and no how that consciousness is a pure
epiphenomenon, caused by others things but of no cause in itself.
     Epiphenominalism is brain dead meatballism at its finest.

     There are 3 versions of 'epiphenomenalism'.

     1.) Consciousness is a mere epiphenomena, meaning it can display
what is going on, but can not effect what is going on at all even though
it has the illusion it can, this is called the illusion of agency, free
will, and personal responsibility.

     Agency means cause, who or what is cause around here and why is it
such an asshole?

     This version of epiphenominalism says that cause can flow from the
physical universe to consciousness, but not back again.

     Actual things 'going on' are only the brain responding in a
standard mechanical manner to inputs and outputs.  Consciousness might
be able to see this going on, but could never affect it, change it or
even report back about it.

     Like dominoes falling, if we could know their exact starting state,
we could compute all future outcomes.

     Well plus or minus quantum mechanics :)

     This was the group my profs and many people in scientific
academentia adhere to.

     A few of the more enlightened like to fancy that the randomness
entered by QM allowed for 'free will', but free will is not random
behavior, it is MOVTIVATED behavior, and randomness in free will is not
desirable for someone out to get what he wants, survival.  For that you
need tightly motivated and computed behavior that is right every time,
not randomness.

     The idea that one can not prediect if someone will go right or left
while in the middle of judging, does not mean his decision is random, as
all conscious decisions are based on desire and one's knowledge about
how to get things done.

     If the guy is totally lackadaisical and doesn't care if he goes
left or right, then possibly quantum randomness might have an influence
on which way he turns.  But so might the thought of an OT :)

     Anyhow there are more ways to harm than to help, so flipping a coin
at every choice will not get you anywhere let alone a long and happy
life for you and yours.

     Anyhow as I said above, if consciousness were a full epiphenomenon,
then consciousness would know what was going on in the brain, but the
brain would never know what was going on in consciousness, as cause can
not flow from consciousness to the brain, and certainly therefore the
brain could never express the existence of consciousness for that would
certainly be cause flowing from consciousnes back to the physical

     2.) Consciousness is a partial epiphenomenon, that means it can
cause things into the future in response to brain data coming into it,
but only within itself, it can't cause anything back out into the
physical universe.  It consumes energy to light up, but can't then
redirect energy back into the world.

     This is of course ludicrous for the same reasons above, because we
are now TALKING about consciousness via our brains and our mouths, and
it is unlikely that our BRAINS noticed we were conscious and self aware,
and therefore it must be our consciousness that noticed we were
conscious and self aware and started talking about it, which is clearly
an outflow of cause from conciousness through the brain into the actual

     Conscious self awareness is not the brain noticing it is conscious.

     Conscious self awareness if CONSCIOUSNESS noticing it is conscious!

     Do you see how these guys in white coats and clipboards have made
nothing out of something?
     If a brain is talking about consciousness, the brain has been
affected by that consciousness as cause, or the brain would never know
about it.  A brain might be talking about a consciousness without having
ever experienced one or been the effect of one, but then the brain would
never know if what it was saying were true.

     To know anything valid about anything you have to be the
effect of it in order to learn about it.

     It's effect on you *IS* your learning about it.

     And therefor what you are learning about IS CAUSE of you learning
about it, and therefor if you are learning about it, it can't be an

     3.) Consciousness is a full blown phenomenon as itself, interfaced
or not with the brain as the case might be.

     My vision indicated that 3 was correct.

     The part of my vision that indicated that consciousness was zero
dimensional FOR SURE, indicated either that the zero dimensional
consciousness was either interfaced with the 4D brain, or that the brain
didn't exist at all, the world really was a dream.

     Suddenly a lot of things made sense from my own life, but more
importantly, once I understood the possibility that the PU was a dream,
then things like past lives, OT powers, who or what is God, all started
to fall in place inside the newly concieved dream ball theory.

     I then ran into two sources of people who basically said the same
thing, one was Mahatma Rajiswar and the other was Ron Hubbard in the
Phoenix Lectures.

     At first when I read the Phoenix lectures I was enraged at
'considerations take rank over the mechanics of existence.'

     I went to the local group of OT's and said, "look you walk out in
front of a car and you die, no consideration is going to change that."

     They said 'The world is a mockup, if you take back the postulate
that it is solid, it won't be solid for you.  It may still be solid for
your body, but you will be able to move through your body and thus
exteriorize, and if you really take back the solidity postulate, your
body will be able to walk through the cars too."

     Well that was it, at that point I understood that LRH was coming
from the dream ball model of existence.  I was in TOTAL SHOCK, I
couldn't believe that anyone else was taking it seriously, and then the
Mahatma said the same thing, "the world is a theory", and people believe
what they want to believe in order to have a game.

     Then I ran into HUNDREDS of books in the library all coming from
the same place.  Old and dusty, as I guessed most wisdom was.

     So my problem as a meatball was finding evidence for this dreamball

meatballs won't admit.

     But I also had no evidence for the absence of the meatball

     So I was at 50/50 on the matter, driving me nuts, as you can all
well attest.

     Over the years after that, I started to have very heavy visions, or
ascension and descension experiences, one after the other, each one
staggering in beauty, vertigo and power, or their opposites.  Like
earthquakes, they came at any time, crossing the street, driving the
car, going to sleep at night, in dreams after dreams, waking up, going
to school, I lived with my seatbelt on.

     Nothing I could show another, never out of my body, but quite
enough to show me that:

     1.) God was divine

     2.) God WAS the AllThatIs

     3.) God was US.

     In otherwords we existed prior to any created condition and thus
either created it ourselves in tandem with others, or agreed to it later
if created earlier by others.

     Further I saw that me, my conscious unit, was eternal, immutable,
and thus not creatable nor destroyable.

     Athough my consciousness is consciousness OF kinetics, my
consciousness itself was static, spaceless, timeless, dimensionless.

     Thus no one made me, I and everyone just simply always ARE.

     Again proof?  You gotta be there to see it.

     I saw levels of divine friendliness to soften the hardest heart,
and divine frostiness to freeze it all over again and enver thaw.

     From there I started to figure out how we may have created and come
into our present condition.

     Our present condition is highly charged, maybe even infinitely
charged due to the losses incurred by our belief we live only once.

     Most meatballs are so charged on the subject of being mortal they
will tell you that mortality is a good thing.

     But anyone who has gotten BY DIRECT VISION even vaguely close to
the freedom, beauty and power of his own indestructable eternality, will
tell you otherwise.

     Sorry, proof is still only for those who have been there.

     What proof of eternality can I show the time bound?

     Now this has been a labor of love for 30 years, I got so sick in
1991 I thought I would never live to see the light of day.  I was in bed
for 6 months, eating a yogurt every 2 days, writing, writing, writing,
cogniting, having 'primal quakes' as I called them, I couldn't get it
all down fast enough.

     I went through crying, vomiting, laughing, crying, vomiting,
laughing, white light blazing out of the center of my body, rose and
golden light in my dreams while angels were talking to me.

     Remember the movie Ghost, those little black guys that come to suck
down the bad guys when they died.  I had them running all over my veins
inside my body, I knew it was time to leave.  I asked Jane for
permission to die, and waited for it to happen.  The crying and laughing
saved me however, as the charge disappeared into peace and physical well

     But not completely, after it was all over I was still a total mess
on the verge of collapse unable to breath.

     That lasted for about 6 months, then I went for auditing with
Filbert which wasn't eactly pleasant, but again I had a visionary
experience that quelled the eternal fear in me about what I had done to

     Anyone who claims to not be afraid of their future is lying.

     I saw an eternal beauty that showed me in the end I am truely a
friend of myself, the AllThatIs, and everyone else, and visa versa.

     But that same self has some very adult tastes in unfriendliness.

     Kind of an friendliness towards unfriendliness FOR A WHILE.

     A willingness to be unwilling.

     Before that moment it was just a phrase from Adore, but after that
it was real to me.

     "Class is an attitude that ALL should live forever and be my
friend." -Adore

     Now you gotta understand something about me, ever since the vision
that perfect certainty was a function of consciousness, I no longer
dealt in faiths or beliefs.

     People ask me if I believe this or that, and I tell them, belief is
for Christians and losers.

     I deal only in perfect certainties, of which there are only a
precious few:


     As for proof of the dreamball theories, I am not sure that can be
proven any more than the meatball theory.

     But I do bet that if one understands how one came into the
dreamtime, one should be able to figure out how to get out.  Dreamtime
seems to be a chinese finger trap of sorts, coming in more puts you out.
Trying to get out, sticks you in.

     Here is a statement of it from future tech that is not yet written.



     Out is always a state of infinite power.

     In is always a state of finite power.

     The infinite can only create the finite.

     Finite means an unlimited finiteness, no upper limit but always

     Since a marble is finite, you can never create an infinite number
of marbles in the same time, but you can create as many as you want at a
time, there is no upper limit, but always a finite number.

     The purpose of the infinite is to create the finite, in the form of
space time whiles, an infinite number of them perhaps over eternity, but
each one always finite, only a finite number at a time, and only for a
finite while.

     Once a while ends, it ends fully, it is gone it is as if never

     Any one finiteness can contain more finite creations inside it,
again an unlimited number, meaning no upper limit, but always finite.

     Thus any particular finite while can become as complex as you wish
but never infinitely complex.

     Using infinite power, beings create finite whiles, and GO INTO
them.  They create them as orientation points and enter them to become
symbols, leaving the while behind to become itself their ultimate
orientation point as a proxy for the truth of themselves being the
actual orientation point for any while.

     An orientation point is a source of symbols.

     Symbols have objects created in a while that have mass, meaning and
mobility in space and time.


     If one is out and wants in, one is using the infinite power of
being out to come in.

     This always works in the mere conception of it.

     If one is in and wants out, one is using the finite power of being
in to get out.

     This never works.

     IT CAN'T

     If you conceive you are in and want to get out, you will be in by
the power of your own conception that you ARE IN, and WILL BE OUT.

     ARE which exists now, overrides WILL BE which doesn't yet exist.
     The now which has not time is always more powerful than time
which will be.

     Now is infinite, time is finite.

     If you conceive you are out and want to come in, you will be out by
the power of your own conception that you ARE out and WILL BE IN.

     In and out are not two different places, but two different ways to
look from the same place, you.

     Thus one can be out looking in, or one can be in looking (and
longing for) out.

     By operating the infinite power to come in, one IS out coming in.

     By operating the finite power to go out, one IS in trying to get
out but never making it.

     This is because infinite power can cause (a transition to) finite
power, but finite power can never cause (a transition to) infinite

     Thus being in the middle of in and out, the struggle to get out
sticks you in.

     But the struggle to get in as deep as you can will put you out.

     You dive in deeper and deeper and deeper, and suddenly you just
find your self out at the first coming in.
     The ludicrosity of coming in can then be enjoyed and continued, or
simply dropped with a change of mind.

     Then you are out for good until next cycle.


     The power of coming in has an anatomy.

     It is a complex movement from Static to Kinetic, Native state to
Manifestation, from Sleep to Dream, from God to Soul, from Author to
Character, from Creator to Creature, from Orientation Point to Symbol,
from Divinity to Humanity.
     Who or what could, would or should conceive and create a human and
then become it not knowing it had done so?

     The antomy of the power of coming in consists of conception,
agency, responsibility, intention, volition, willingness, motivation,
aesthetics, ethics, perfect certainty and logic.

     From unimpingeable peace, to relentless impinging hell fire.

     From adoration to abomination.
     Driven by High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise.

     Do you really want to get out to be that thing again.

     Of course not in, would never want to be out.

     Out wants to be in, and in wants to be in deeper.

     But watch out, once in starts moving in again under
its own power, it will find itself out.

     Then what?

     Who are you going to call?

     So I am still working in this research area, I have made lots of
case gain, most of it no thanks to Ron Hubbard or the Church, but the
basics are all there, and Ron was definitely coming from the same place
I am.

     But Ron is not scientology, Ron merely channeled it from the Gods,
so scientology stands as a thing in its own right, if you can filter out
the ego alloying crap Ron added into it.

     There is a technology for freeing people from the nightmare of the
dream, that technology is built into the very nature, the warp and weave
of the dream itself, the dream tells us how it is going to be.  The way
in, is the way out.

     Whether you call it scientology, or adore, or clearing, or
dreamballology, it doesn't matter, it is all the same thing.

     Chemistry is chemistry no matter where or who you deal with, or
what name they give to it.

     Chemistry is not however Alchemy, and in just such a way
scientology is not christianity, or any other inanity what went before,
or will come after.

     Scientology teaches that WE are responsible for our manifested
existence, WE created it, not some God we do not know and must have
faith in and forgive His trespasses against us, as He forgives our
trespasses against him.

     It is only the non mystical Christians who don't understand that
just because you SEE space, doesn't mean there IS space.

     They can't see that they live in the mind of God, walking around in
the imagination of God.

     It is a short step from there to understand that we ARE that God,
and we each see our own rendition of a shared but virtualized physical
universe, made not of matter, energy, space and time, but of dreamstuff,
hologram stuff, the stuff of which self luminous consciousness is made.

     We share the dream with others not via the outward virtualization
which contains no cause at all, but via the inward connection that
connects all the Many into the One.  Each "I" of the Many is an eye of
the One.

     If your religion teaches you personal responsibility for all that
is manifest, then your religion is scientology by another name, wisdom
comes in many forms.

     If your religion does not teach you that, but teaches you that God
created you, and you must obey God, or else, or that there is no God
except Timestone and Dust in the Wind, then your religion teaches
inanities designed to keep people in the dream rather than get them out.

     God is a blame game that ends in proptiation (prayer).

     There is no compromise with these things, either you are totally
responsible for your condition, or you are not.

     Total responsibility means you made it, you wanted it, you got it.
It means knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.

     Even if only by agreeing with the creations of others.

     Either you are sovereign over yourself or you are not.

     Sovereignty means you want it, you got it.

     What does your religion teach?

     Thus I am an excellent source of just exactly what Scientology
believes and thinks about the world, as long as you remember that
scientology is a completely different subject that the policy wrappers
Ron put around the subject to own it, control it and protect it, and how
the idiots in the Church implement it and the monkeys with e-meters
apply it.

     The joke is almost nobody in the Church really knows what the
underlying philosophy of Scientology is, they just aren't allowed to
talk about it, and they only read what they are told to read for their

     But it is all there in Advanced Procedure and Axioms in one
sentence: The being existed before any created condition and thus has
full responsibility for being that condition.

     "Do not send for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for you."

     After a while, Churchies find themselves getting sick from the
overts they are committing on a full time basis and they leave.

     Thus there is little hope of internal correction because nobody is
there to really understand what to correct it TO.


> Homer may not always be patient and polite, but he is an intelligent
> and decent person who has played a nontrivial role in the Co$ vs the
> internet saga.  One can say the same about plenty of others who have
> posted to ars over the years, but not one of them that I know of has
> defended any aspects of scientology to any significant degree for
> any significant period of time.  In that respect, as far as I know,
> Homer is unique.
> Like I said, I'm interested in what Homer has to say.  There are
> lots of threads and lots of posters on ars that I am not interested
> in.  I generally just ignore them.  If you think this topic is a
> waste of time, might I respectfully suggest that you consider doing
> the same?
> John

Mon Feb  8 00:33:53 EST 2010