C. B. Willis (cbwillis@netcom.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>:      There is no evidence that the external universe exists at all

>What could count as said evidence?

     The Proof says that looking at effects do not prove cause.
Therefore since the only way we can know about the alleged physical
universe is through its effects in our consciousnesses, there is no
way to prove with certainty that the physical universe exists.

     The physical universe is therefore at best a theory to explain the
consistency (and horror) of our conscious experiences.

     "Every time I come to this corner, that building is still there,
and when I leave, even though my conscious picture of the building
disappears, the *BUILDING* remains."

     They have posited an external persisting actuality that existed
prior to themselves, of which they are in fact made, and out of which
they arose, and which is the source of their experiences of it when they
are in close causal contact with it, like looking at it and being
impinged upon by its light rays etc.

     They know when they sleep and dream of the same corner, that the
*BUILDING* is not actually there, and there are no light rays etc, but
they can see the picture anyhow, because it is being replayed from
memory etc.  In fact they will say they can't experience anything
without having had it impinge on them first from the external 'actual'
world during the waking state.

     As far as theories goes, it has stood the test of time very well,
and is very useful in predicting things that happen to us.  But that
could be expected of any well designed virtual machine, or Holodeck.

     However this present theory of external mechanics has a very hard
time dealing with exteriorization, materialization, telekinesis, trans
life memory etc.  These violate the very premise that consciousness IS
but a process in the collection of parts called the body/brain system.

     Although it would probably be possible to devise a more complex
physical theory that allowed for the above phenomenon, either through
positing some kind of 'remote reach' on the part of consciousness, or
total independence but cooperation of consciousness and matter, at that
point Occam's Razor would indicate that it might be more fruitful to
pursue the holographic projection theory.

     Meatballs like to think there is only MEST, out of which
consciousness arose, dreamballs like to think there is only
consciousness out of which virtual projections of MEST arose.

     If one assumes for a moment the dreamball theory of virtual
projection, one is immediately faced with the problem of what is the
nature of this thing that projects space and time?  Does it have space
and time itself?  If not, what is it?  How can something exist that has
zero dimensions, no space or time?  Meatballs have a hard time with

     Actually everyone does, because the static can not be concieved, as
conception is inherently a projected phenomenon and must therefore
conceive within the bounds of the nature of projection, which is multi
dimensional kinetics.
     Anything conceived is already a projection on the part of the
     Adore says the static projects what the static is not, at worst a
fanciful assertion, at best an interesting statement of the problem to
be overcome in understanding how the projection works.

     It should be understood that the thetan does not need to understand
how the projection works in order to use it, he is 'skilled' at the
process natively without understanding, he can just DO it.  This is the
total knowingness of LRH, not someone who 'knows about everything' but
someone who can create things to know about, without worrying about how
he does this.

     Just like a child doesn't have to be taught how to breath or cry.

     Thus it is a giant step for a person to finally understand that the
SOURCE of what he experiences can not be described in terms of what he
experiences, space, time, matter, energy, forces, motions, etc.

     He has been thinking for a long time that the pictures in his
consciousness somehow represent the external world that they allgedly
track.  In his conscious experience he sees space and time with objects
in it, so he figures there must be something awfully similar to what he
perceives, namely space and time with objects in it out there to account
for the fact that this is what he sees.

     He thinks his conscious unit is like a video camera, if he sees a
car on the TV screen of his conscious unit, there must be something
very similar out there in the actual world or else why would he be
seeing it?  He knows he is seeing only his conscious experience at all
times, but he figures it was meant to show him the actual world, so
although he is always looking at a TV screen of the world, he figures
it must represent the actual world in some real way.

     He expects geometrical similarity between his conscious experiences,
and the actual world out there.

     If the external physical universe exists, then of course he is

     If its all a virtual projection, then he is dead wrong, because
the source of the projection has none of the qualities demonstrated in
the projection itself, no space, time, mass, movement, force etc.

     The meatball theory thinks that an actual 'out thereness' is
causing him to see an 'out thereness' in his conscious rendition.

     The dreamball theory thinks that an actual 'in hereness' is
projecting a virtually real 'out thereness' with the pretense that the
out thereness is causing him to see it.

     We notice this is not God lying to the Soul, this is the GodSoul
lying to itself.

     Its a major paradigm shift equivalent in magnitude to the shift
that occured when men realized that the Earth was not the center of
the universe, and the Sun did not revolve around the Earth, or that
the Earth was not flat.

     Only now, its "out there ain't out there, out there is a
projection of out there from in here".

     That's a big jump for a stupid PhD.