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 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.
     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 conscieved or anything before 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 infinitely
sour on life.

     But 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 is.

     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 by letting them 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, including not being
able to wake up when I wanted to and being absolutely convinced I was
awake when I was 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.

     Then in 1972 I had a significant vision, I understood that I saw my
consciousness was capable of perfect certainty of some things, I AM, I
KNOW, I WANT and I DO, and 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.

     Bet's are bets, not certainties, and one does have to follow one's

     The vision incicated 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
impentrably hard time trying to figure out how a 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.  Obviously if this were true, the whole of idea of
consciousness and the word itself would never be expressed by the brain
through the mouth!

     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.

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

     Actual 'goings 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.

     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 is not
necessarily desirable for someone out to get what he wants, survial.
For that you need tightly motivated and computed behavior that is right
every time.

     Anyhow as I said above, if consciousness were a full epiphenom,
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 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 reason, because we are now
TALKING about consciousness through our brains, 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 started
talking about it, which is clearly an outflow of cause from conciousness
through the brain into the actual world.

     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 0D 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 understand 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 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 dreamball universe.

     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 experiences, one after the other, each one staggering in
beauty, vertigo and power.  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.

     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.

     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 doers 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

     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.

     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

     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 losers and Christians.

     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.

     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 to 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.

     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.

     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 got it.  It means
knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.

     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

     After a while, they 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