The below AODRE14 is not clear.

       If God is 'good', then God couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't do bad.

      If God then creates man who can do 'bad', then it must have been
'good' for God to do so.

      But it would be 'bad' of a human to create humans who could do

      Thus we have a double standard, and possibly a confusion of
definitions of 'good', for virtue for the Author (God) is not virtue for
the Character.

      People like to think of God as a perfect human, something for the
human to aspire to.  Yet they never ever want the human to act as a God,
because what God does is scary as hell, namely make humans and dump them
into meat grinders.

      So in that sense God is way beyond simply a perfect human, and
humans don't really want to be like God in His entirety at all.

      If we take the literal definition of inhuman, not human, then it is
contradictory to claim that humans can act in an inhuman way.

      Humans will and can do what humans can do, which includes what we
call 'good' and 'bad/evil', but which really comes down to willingness
to be sensitive to other's pain.

      Thus we can properly say that all humans are 'good' but conceive
that other's are evil and thus try to be evil to those they consider
evil in order to teach them a lesson, or vanquish them entirely.

      But a God, who can would and should do things that humans never
would, might properly be called inhuman in the wider sense of Authorship
of a good story, which includes human elements of good, bad, evil, and
redemption or not.

      No human would write the story of humanness and then force other
humans to play it out.

      At the top of the tone scale, there are no mistakes, thus even the
idea of mistakes must be created to give randomity, thus there is only
authorship with no possibility of a negative value judgement, because if
the OT doesn't like something he can veto it in the making of it.

      But lower down, the OT has created a dependency condition upon
others, with agreements on rights and duties, mostly geared around
production and consuption of survival assets like food, shelter and

      Thus it becomes possible to do bad by breaking agreements, or
making mistakes unintentionally (from that lower point of view), or by
outright 'cussedness'.

      Thus we have accidental overt acts, unprovoked but intentional
overt acts (DEDs), and provoked overt acts (motivators).

      Since the being can feel regret on all 3, he becomes his own

      The being in these lower conditions has definitely taken sides,
namely the sides of survival for himself, his family, his group,
mankind, life, mest, spirits and infinity.

      However he has to act against subsets of these which are acting
against him, viruses, raiding hoardes, etc.

      This is a dog eat dog world, and thus various sectors of life form
alliances against other sectors of life.

       When he turns against his own fair chosen team mates for whatever
reason, he becomes 'culpable', and his team mates feel justifed in
turning against him as a matter of necessity for their own survival.

       A clear will be an optimum game player at these lower levels, but
an OT is a God, a game CREATOR, the OT can move the mountain sideways
because he can MAKE the mountain where ever wants.

      Thus which side in any conflict he takes is undetermined, because
his existence is expressed by the existence of the GAME, not the
existence of any particular side.

      Thus if human kind were to try to wipe out the mosquito or malaria,
there will be OT's fighting the good fight for the underdog.

      To the degree that in this life an OT has a human body, one might
hope that they side with the survival of human life, but free of the
biases of a human body, OT's go back to doing what they do best, defend
the GAME and length of play, and not the side.

      To the degree that humans would never defend the game to the
exclusion of the side, in particular games of good vs evil, survival vs
succumb for humanity, one could rightly say that a free OT was inhuman,
or had transcended humanness as we understand it.

      The Author is not the Character.

      As for ethics, as defined by LRH, ethics is REASON applied towards
a known goal in a universe of conditions.

      If you have to plant a seed to get some growth, planting stones
instead would be 'unethical' as the conditions of the universe dictate
certain failure.

      Out ethics then is a form of mental irrationality or
shortsightedness for the greatest good of the greatest number.

      Ethics is thus an issue for game players and not game creators.

      Ethics for humans is about how to win and not lose long term, not
about how to extend playing as no one in their right mind would do that.
in a serious survive/succumb scenario.  (Hey man, be a sport, give the
deer a head start!)

      The ethics of how to win is not the same as the ethics of how to
extend the game, although both may involve reason applied against the
conditions of the universe.

      The ethics of CREATING the conditions of the universe in the first
place, might also involve reason towards the goal of having sustainable
games.  With wrong conditions, games won't last.


Clearing Archive Roboposter  wrote:
> CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>Let's review, what's the difference between your defn of OT,
>>and inhuman?   Or should I say, does your defn of OT preclude inhumanity?
>     Common usage of inhuman means evil, cruel, heartless TO OTHERS.
>     And OT is an author, he creates characters of great humanness and
> inhumaness, and then jumps into the game to play the roles HIMSELF.
> Humans can consider this inhuman because it involves creating
> inhumans, they forget it also includes creating humans!
>>Does it make sense to say ethical OT or unethical OT, on your view?
>     Existence has its basic mechanic, that which is not duplicated
> persists.  Thus all persistance is of persisting lies.
>     The very decent into dream time is an act of unethics, because it
> is a creation of persisting lies 'all consciousness is a pock mark on
> the face of God' -old Sufi saying.
>     The basic mechanism then of out ethics for an OT is to fail to
> recast what has been casted and then return it to the void.  Anything
> else but perfect recasting of a casted object is Q&A with it, 'Let's
> see what solutions we can come up with to deal with that!'
>     So of course he gets stuck with it forever for free.
>     Since all of existence then is out ethics to an OT, there is no
> should or should not associated with it, because basically
> manifestation is a 'should manifest', ALL OF IT.  Including the
> creations of humans and inhumans, and the little dance they do with
> each other.
>     The purpose of manifestation is to manifest OT out ethics, by
> which we mean manifesting persistent tapestries of human and inhuman.
>     The out ethics is not related to WHAT is being manifested, only
> that once manifested it is then persisted.
>     Thus a more sensible definition of out ethics for an OT is
> relative to what he wants to accomplish.
>     If an OT wants to withdraw back into the void, then out ethics is
> Q&A which causes persistence.  If an OT wants to manifest more, then
> out ethics is to recast properly which causes vanishment.
>     Ethics is optimum reason towards a given goal.  The two possible
> goals are persisting manifestation or vanishing manifestation.
>     It is not possible for an OT to cast something bad or wrong, they
> can only do what comes naturally which is manifest from source the
> outflowing of tapestry of good and evil.
>     And OT looking upon a human and an inhuman dancing with each
> other, is just as likely to polish up the story line a bit, than take
> sides with one or the other.  If he does decide to take sides, he can
> freely take either side.
>>Is an unethical OT one who is inhuman?
>     Domain error.  OT's can not act unethically, except relative to
> their desire to manifest or unmanifest.
>     If an OT desires to manifest, then taking on the good guy or the
> bad guy is an even toss, he is free to create the story, and do with
> it what he will.  If one OT takes over the good guy, and the other
> takes over the bad guy, why then they can dance together in love of
> hatred and fear.
>     Homer
>>- CBW
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith   Clear Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Wed Oct 26 12:06:02 EDT 2011
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore14.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Wed Oct 26 14:09:55 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar  6 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore880.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
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)

Tue Mar  6 14:30:15 EST 2018