Discussion:
super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
(too old to reply)
The Pilot
2007-05-20 08:11:10 UTC
Permalink
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE

By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot

This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.

Best,
Ken


============



1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.

God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.

You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.

And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.

But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.

The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.


2. God is filling the void with a Richness of Creation.

If there was only nothing, and it was acceptable, then
there would still be nothing and we and all the universes
would not exist.

But it is self evident that we do exist. Therefore, there
is a preternatural impulse towards existence and a richness
of creation rather than nothingness. And the nothingness
never can be filled, because filling it does not make it
any less. There is always more nothingness beyond all
boundaries we can set. Hence, the creations are forever
expanding, world without end.


3. The Purpose of Life is to add to the Richness of
Creation.

There is an infinity of lifeforms expand thought the
universes, ever growing, ever changing. Nothing is lost.
All proliferate, being fruitful and multiplying.


4. We are spirits, manifesting as life forms.

We are not our bodies. We are spiritual entities capable
of free thought. We wear bodies as we wear clothes. We
use the brain as we use computers. Our basic thinking and
our self awareness comes not from biological cells but from
divine essence which passes from body to body as we travel
down through myriads of lifetimes.


5. God is Oneness, Accepting Everything

God does not judge or punish or reject. God is all there
is. Everything is within God, and God does not deny part
of himself.


6. God has all thoughts, all actions, all times and places,
at once within him/her/it self.

God is not in a time stream, he encompasses all time
streams. God does not have consecutive thoughts, He
encompasses all thoughts. God is not in a place, He
encompasses all places. And God is not limited to being a
He or a She or an It, God is all identities, all
characteristics, and all qualities at once.


7. In order to have consecutive time, in order to think
about or act on something, in order to have a functioning
perspective within the creations, God subdivides within
himself into individual identities.

And each portion has the full potential of God, because God
does not become less, but simply chooses to operate in a
narrower frame.

And any fragment could instantly be the complete oneness,
but to do so is to lose the ability to think consecutively
as an individual because they would have all the thoughts
of everybody at once. And so when they touch the oneness,
they are momentarily glorified but immediately choose to
slide back into individuality because their identity adds
to the richness of creation which is the basic purpose.

And since each fragment has the full potential of God, they
can also divide within themselves and further proliferate
the patterns of creation. This leads to ideas of
hierarchies and beings who manifest as oversouls or angels
or demi-gods, but really it is all just water, the drops
are all of the same substance and anyone has the potential
to manifest at any level.


8. We become greater and happier as we move closer to God.

Anyone can instantly be one with God, but then as God, they
create themselves again right back here just as they were,
because God wants more identities, not less.

The human individual, in great pain and torture, might want
to cease being, but when he becomes Godlike and sees it all
as transient illusion anyway, he jumps right back in.

And so merging into God does not solve the human misery.

What we want to do instead is to become closer to God and
manifest Godlike abilities without quite merging all the
way. This requires growth and an understanding of the
direction to move in.


9. God is Love and Acceptance.

Richness and variety are part of God's basic purpose. As
you move in tune with that, you will grow and your life
will improve and you will move on, outside of this narrow
reality.

Love and accept as much as you can.

Misguided efforts to be good or to make others good by
rejecting and limiting the richness of creation inevitably
backfire and take you further from God.

10. God is Richness and Abundance

The nature of God is to have more, not less. As God fills
the void with a richness of creation, there is a great
abundance and wishes are easy to fulfill.


11. God is Forgiveness.

God is everything. That includes evil as well as good.

We do not want a preponderance of evil, but we cannot stamp
it out completely because that would reduce the richness of
creation. And so we need to forgive evil when it does
occur and let go of it without fighting it too hard and
causing it to proliferate.


12. There is no Balance Between Good and Evil

It is an expanding system. There is no need for balance
and in fact balance and zero growth and stasis are all
against our basic purpose.

Evil is part of the system because we need it for variety.
But we do not need a lot of it. It does not have to
balance with Good.

If we eat food without spices, it will eventually seem too
bland and we will grow tired of it. But if we cover our
food with an equal weight of spices, it would be totally
unpalatable.

Right now we are living in a place that has far too much
evil and misery and darkness, and it is difficult to love
and forgive and accept, but the effort needs to be made.

This doesn't mean that you should passively let bad things
happen to you. Being causative and creative is in the
direction of being Godlike. You can fight your enemies but
don't try to destroy them utterly. Always let a little bit
of something, no matter how gruesome, remain to fill the
void with variety.



13. You can be closer or further from the Godlike state.

The Sea of Creation, which is all that is, has depth. You
can be at the surface, which is full of energy and motion
and is a joy to be in or you can lie at the cold bottom
where realities are frozen and unpleasantness predominates.

As you tune into and manifest the higher ideals, you
naturally rise. But of course the opposite is also true.
Most of us have a mix of positives and negatives and we
have been floating at the same depth for quite awhile.

And the most confusing thing is in the recognition of what
is at the top and what is in the depths, for that tells you
what direction to move in.

Most people try to be good by not doing things (don't do
this or that and most especially don't have sex) and that
is all in the direction of less motion and reduces the
richness of creation and so leads away from God.

Competition and mild fighting add to the richness of
creation and so are in the direction of God. But
destructive fighting removes players from the game of life
and destroys wonderful and interesting things and therefore
becomes a negative.

14. Everything is God, but some things are better than
others

There is no good or evil in the absolute sense. There is
no sin. There is no ultimate adversary. God is ALL.

But closeness to God is to be a part of the wondrous joy of
creation and partake of richness and abundance.

Blocking the flow of creation and building walls against
existence leads to an unpleasant fixation of reality and
entrapment within its rules.


15. Life Separates and Reconnects

All of us are part of God but we can be closely connected
or extremely separated.

The degree of separation from God and the degree of
separation from each other are basically the same thing.

Moving further away improves uniqueness and originality,
thereby creating the seeds of even greater richness, and
then moving close again allows these seeds to bloom with
greater variety.

The game of life could be considered to be a cycle of
moving near and far from unity, back and forth, but with an
ever increasing richness of creation.

This can also be seen as a learning experience. Walking
away from heaven into the wilderness and returning, wiser
and stronger, to be welcomed with love and honor.


16. We all have equal potential

The drops of water are all basically the same.

Even size is not real. Bigness and smallness only exist
within a context and we are above all contexts, generating
the contexts rather than being the result of them.

We do not become less by dividing (replicating) ourselves
nor do we become more by rejoining (merging).

The God essence of which we are formed is beyond all
concepts of size and counting.



17. We make choices

We have unlimited potential, but we cannot exercise all of
it at once. We can be many things simultaneously but not
everything at once.

Our basic choice is to separate from ALLNESS and so we take
some things and push other things away.

We can reject the richness of life and hide in painfully
rigid patterns or we can accept the godlike state and turn
our backs on crawling through the mud. God accepts both.
But which would you rather be?



18. There is an underlying unity, an interconnection.

God is the ocean and we are the drops. The drops are all
basically the same. The drops are all part of the ocean.
The ocean is one.

Each drop connects to the ocean and is part of it. Each
drop connects to each of the other drops through virtue of
the fact that they are all part of the same ocean.

This makes an underlying substratum or unity though which
we all interconnect.

Miracles are worked by finding and feeling the
interconnection.


19. Creation is the action of the ocean and of the drops
within it.

Continuous creation is all there is. With every breath, we
are creating, even thought we are often unoriginal and
creating the same reality over and over again.

We are co-creators with God.

20. The ocean does not distinguish between the drops

From the perspective of the ocean, all the drops are the
same. They are the substance of the ocean.

What we create for others also comes to us for the ocean
does not distinguish between individuals.



21. The closer we come to God, the more our creations
reflect between ourselves and others.

When we come close to oneness, creation becomes easy but
what we create for others also reflects back to us. Here
there are powerful feedback effects and resonances.

When we are far from God, we isolate ourselves more.
Creation becomes more difficult but what we do to others
does not reflect back so vigorously. Reflections and
feedback and resonances all continue to exist, but they
happen with extreme slowness.


22. Karma is the reflection of waves within the oneness.

The energy we put in continues to move forward. What we
create for others we also create for ourselves.


23. We can change what we are creating

God is above time. Anything that is pending can be
dissolved.


24. Time is the promise of consecutive change.

Everything is created within the NOW. Things are in the
flux and are created over an over again to provide the
simulation of time.

Consecutive change is essential to logical thought
processes.

But everything does not always have to follow logic. Waves
can be dissolved and pasts can be adjusted to a modified
NOW, for nothing is truly fixed.


25. God is not limited by logic

Logic is useful. Not only does our thinking generally work
best when it proceeds in a logical manner, the physical
operations of universes proceed logically as well.

But there is no logic or constraint or limitation in the
original basic oneness. These things only appear within
the systems of creation.

An illogical and miraculous result can always be brought
about from the Godlike state.


26. Miracles violate logic and therefore are chaotic

The more miracles, the more spontaneous creation, the more
flexibility and variety there is in a system, the more
chaotic that system becomes.


27. Chaos can be positive or negative

Creative chaos is a richness of creation and is close to
God, filling universes with abundance and variety.

Destructive chaos is an extreme negative of broken
fragments and the rubble of ruined creations.

In between are highly ordered systems where fresh creation
is difficult.


28. A toleration of chaos is necessary to perform miracles

Chaos is disruptive to games and to logical thinking.

Right now on Earth we are in a highly ordered system where
the game of life is dead serious and played for blood.

We are close to the destructive chaos and so people flinch
from chaos and reject it.

But a creative chaos is a necessity for freedom. A
plethora of miracles makes the game less absolute and
restores our Godlike condition.

And so those of us who seek God must work to increase our
toleration of chaos.


29. God does not need nor desire worship

God is all there is. We are one with God.

Acknowledging and thanking God and those who aid us on his
behalf is, of course, natural and desirable.

But humble propitiation is not a Godlike characteristic.
It separates us from God.

Some entities desire worship just as others desire wealth.
They are, of course, a part of God just as we all are, but
this behavior is not Godlike.

God has abundance. God is generous rather than hungry.


30. God is not limited by numbers

The oneness of God is not the number one. It is a unique
singularity which is beyond counting.

Anything within God can be copied as many times as is
needed without making it less.

Therefore God is abundance. There is no scarcity.

We err in thinking that anything is unique and are tricked
into fighting over things.

You can have your cake and eat it too.


31. There is no need for sacrifice

You do not have to give up something to have something
else.

God is abundant and a source of infinite creation.


32. But there is a need to let go

Holding onto things is stifling. It reduces motion and
works against the richness of creation.

Therefore, you have to be willing and able to let go of
things all the time.

This is not sacrifice. This is not trading one thing for
another. It is freedom.


33. Richness is best accomplished by having without holding
or rejecting.

You can have anything. There is an abundance. There is a
richness of creation.

But when you hold on too hard, you stop motion and block
the divine energies.

And when you reject, you deny the richness of creation.

The best path is to maximize what you want and minimize
what you do not want without either holding anything too
hard or rejecting anything absolutely.

For an example, consider maneuvering objects with waves in
a swimming pool or bathtub. If we just push them with
waves without touching the objects, it approximates the
motions within the flux of universal energy. The gentle
waves can either bring objects towards you or carry them
away. But the dramatic attempts to get something or to
push it away completely make a mess and often have the
opposite effect from the one desired.


34. We have free will.

This is the nature of divine essence. We are here to make
choices because that adds to the variety and increases the
richness of creation.


35. God accepts all choices.

All choices are part of the richness of creation. God
accepts everything.

Choices that move in the direction of greater richness
bring one closer to the energy rich surface of the ocean
and are accomplished faster and easier.

Choices that inhibit the richness slow down and sink
towards the ice at the bottom, but are never rejected.

36. God will not choose for us.

Since all choices are acceptable to God, we cannot demand
that God set our goals and targets for us.

It helps us if we move in the direction of richness of
creation, but this is not enforced. God does not reject
anything.

We must choose and set our own goals, pick our own targets.


37. But God and universal spirit will aid in following the
path we choose.

We can pray for guidance in how to reach our goals.

Being, doing, and having things all are part of the
richness of creation.

Causativeness, motion, and action are all validated.

Choose a target and then ask for help and guidance.


38. Creation does not have to be unique

The same thing can be created over and over again.

But uniqueness is prized because it increases the richness.

And so a unique creation will generally be quickly copied
many times.


39. Action and adventure are validated

Those who live great lives experience the richness of
living a great life.

Do not confuse adventurousness and exciting behavior with
petty maliciousness and disruption. Both are disturbing to
an overly stifled and controlled society, but the one leads
towards joy and freedom and the other leads towards
destruction and ruin. They are at opposite ends of the
spectrum.


40. Love is validated above all

GOD IS LOVE.

Everything lies within God. Everything is accepted and
cherished.

Love of Beauty. Love of Games. Love of Stories. Love of
Places and Things. Love of Creation. And Most of all,
Love of Each Other.

Love of Each Other Mentally, Physically, Spiritually, and
Emotionally in Great Abundance is the essence of Godlike
behavior and is validated above all else.


41. Joining together brings us closer to God.

God is unlimited. God is everyone and everything.

If we totally merge into God and become one with
everything, our individuality dissolves and we reduce the
richness of creation, therefore this is unacceptable.

But as we join with each other, loving and accepting and
nurturing, we approach allness without quite dissolving
into each other.

And by loving and cherishing each other's individuality and
uniqueness, we approximate the Godlike state while
encouraging the variety and richness of creation.

42. There are many forms of interconnection.

Great power comes from anything that joins us more closely
without totally dissolving us into oneness.

The methods are endless.

Between individuals there is talking and touching and
making love to name but a few.

Fame is simply large scale communication and connection
with others.

Working together produces great things.

You can reach out and feel the psychic connections with
others through the underlying ocean that connects us all.


43. Differences and variety are essential to the Richness
of Creation.

Love and cherish those who are different most of all.

You can love people without making them all be the same or
making them follow the same rules or believe in the same
things. This is the path to God.

Once upon a time, some fools believed in racial purity.
They made a Hell on Earth. It should be obvious that such
a path leads as far from God as possible.


44. But it is hard to melt the ice

In the local reality, we are near the frozen bottom of the
ocean. Original creations threaten the frozen rigidity of
this place and are not easily accepted. They begin to melt
the ice around us and this brings cries of protest. The
creative artist has trouble here if he is too original, and
yet he is opening up a path upwards for himself and others.

That may seem contradictory with the basic purpose of
adding to the richness of creation, but God does not mind
contradictions, they come about as a natural side effect of
the richness.


45. Some stories require a frozen reality

Few people would put up with loss and misery if reality
would bend easily to their will.

And yet sorrowful stories are part of the variety. People
like an occasional tearjerker or even a horror story.

And so there are places where reality is frozen enough to
allow for sad and tragic endings.

But we should not be living our lifetimes over and over in
such a place. An occasional taste is adequate for richness
and variety.


46. Resisting change lead us here

Resistance to change is the way of the ice. Denying and
stopping things results in a frozen state of mind that
leads one here.

This is not punishment. It is simply natural law that when
we create ice, we end up frozen in it.

47. Facing things is Godlike, denying them is not.

God accepts everything. Pretending that something is not
there is a failed attempt to reduce the richness of
creation.

We get little help when we try to make something go away.

And yet there is infinite help whenever we work to change
things because change is the essence of richness and
variety.

Accepting something and then letting go of it and shifting
the energies around into something else is extremely
workable.

Work on facing things. Develop courage. Never panic.
Then change things for the better.


=======================
Gary F. York
2007-05-21 16:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Ken,

I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.

As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.

I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?

Best

G.

Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
h***@lightlink.com
2007-05-21 17:29:32 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


DEFINITION OF GOD

To those who say that God does not exist, I answer, you are
undoubtedly right given your definition of God. However I would
suggest you continue looking until you find a definition of God that
does exist.

Part of the problem is that people have preexisting concepts of
God that prevent them from seeing the real God. Concepts such as
CREATOR, "God created me", etc get in the way, because anyone sensible
will see being created as an infinite ARC break.

Stripping down God to what God really is, can be usefull,
something like LIVING, the living oneness that underlies the conscious
many.

Now most meatballs consider life to be but chemistry bubbling
away at 98.6. This is incorrect, life is not a space time mechanism
or process. Life is consciousness, and although it looks like
conscoiusness arose out of MEST, MEST in fact arose out of
consciousness which preexisted all possible created universes of
whatever kind.

Not sure what the problem is.

"God" is what you define it to be, in this case the AllThatIs.
Thus saying that the AllThatIs is not God, because God is such and
such is meaningless.

One can only argue with definitions of words if it can be shown
that such definitions limit one's perceptions of alternative
or deeper differentiations.

For example if we define responsibility as 'obeying orders' what
then do we call "knowing willing cause with full awareness of the
consequences."

Limited definitions of God define out of existence more broader
actualities that are more useful to talk about.

If the only God one can conceive is the Christian God, then one
is quite dead.

The idea is that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being,
capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, and that each of us is
one of those I AM's in carnation.

Speaker used to have a problem with this definition of God
because he had some preexisting concept of what God was, and he knew
(probably correctly) that such a God didn't exist.

However to claim that the Adorian God, defined as above, does not
exist, is to claim that you do not exist, so it becomes silly to
enforce prior incorrect and useless definitions of God onto a totally
new perspective.

The idea is that the universe is conscious BEING rather than
MEST.

This will seem nuts to those who believe that consciousness arose
from MEST and is in fact just MEST in operation, but will make
complete sense to those who realize that MEST is illusion in conscious
dream time.

Just because we see out there, doesn't mean there IS out there.

"Well ", I can hear someone say, probably Rogers, "isn't looking
like its out there the same thing as being out there?"

No, illusions of separation are not actual separation.

If they were, there would be no need for the word illusion, you see?

By claiming that LOOKS LIKE means the same as IS, one has just
defined ILLUSION out of existence.

By claiming that reality is the same thing as actuality, one
has just defined being wrong out of existence, by destroying
a perfectly good word (reality) to refer to it easily.

When people collapse words of different meanings into one
meaning, they begin the process of defining out of existence the other
meanings no longer conveyed.

One would need to word clear the word illusion, reality and
actuality until one gets it, and the importance of the differentiation
between them.

The same issue arises with God and MEST, is God made of MEST, or
is MEST made of God?

"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident". We call this thing God by definition.

The end difference is that God doesn't actually make anything, as
nothing can be made, as "to make" is an in time concept and thus based
in illusion of separation.

God merely is, and we are it in carnation (in 'body' literally,
in spacetime viewpoints), observing itself from those many viewpoints,
sometimes even sequentially :).

God the creator is a lie of separation, separation between God
and what is created, and between when it was created and now etc.

The truth is everything just is, past, present and future, its
all here to be accessed by any part of God that wishes to view
any part of himself.

That is a monsterously big idea not to be laughted off by the
small minded worshippers of separation.

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
Send mail to ***@lightlink.com saying help
Gary F. York
2007-05-22 17:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Homer,

I agree that there can be, and probably are, as many concepts of God as
there are individuals to do the conceiving. Further I realized as young
man that I could avoid many unnecessary disputes by inventing a
definition of God for myself that would allow me to truthfully say,
"Yeah, I believe in God" without that 'affirmation' being, quite, an out
and out lie. I decided not to do that.


More interspersed.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
DEFINITION OF GOD
To those who say that God does not exist, I answer, you are
undoubtedly right given your definition of God. However I would
suggest you continue looking until you find a definition of God that
does exist.
Part of the problem is that people have preexisting concepts of
God that prevent them from seeing the real God. Concepts such as
CREATOR, "God created me", etc get in the way, because anyone sensible
will see being created as an infinite ARC break.
Seems right.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Stripping down God to what God really is, can be usefull,
something like LIVING, the living oneness that underlies the conscious
many.
I'm having trouble seeing how that "living oneness' idea is useful.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Now most meatballs consider life to be but chemistry bubbling
away at 98.6. This is incorrect, life is not a space time mechanism
or process. Life is consciousness, and although it looks like
conscoiusness arose out of MEST, MEST in fact arose out of
consciousness which preexisted all possible created universes of
whatever kind.
Not sure what the problem is.
"God" is what you define it to be, in this case the AllThatIs.
Thus saying that the AllThatIs is not God, because God is such and
such is meaningless.
Of course. But if the word "God" can mean anything, then the word God
is nearly useless in discourse.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
One can only argue with definitions of words if it can be shown
that such definitions limit one's perceptions of alternative
or deeper differentiations.
For example if we define responsibility as 'obeying orders' what
then do we call "knowing willing cause with full awareness of the
consequences."
Limited definitions of God define out of existence more broader
actualities that are more useful to talk about.
Seems to me that the problem isn't so much that people have limited
definitions of God; but that they believe a number of things that aren't
so and, perhaps, disbelieve in some things that do exist.

I would rather directly discuss the question "what is and what isn't"
rather than whether my definition of God is superior to another's.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
If the only God one can conceive is the Christian God, then one
is quite dead.
The idea is that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being,
capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, and that each of us is
one of those I AM's in carnation.
Well that's an assertion -- that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi
being capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, etc.

You seem to be attributing a consciousness to "AllThatIs", a group
consciousness, that exists apart from the individual spiritual beings
that comprise it. Is there a way to check that, verify it, experience
it, do something that makes it "true for me" rather than just something
Homer said?
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Speaker used to have a problem with this definition of God
because he had some preexisting concept of what God was, and he knew
(probably correctly) that such a God didn't exist.
However to claim that the Adorian God, defined as above, does not
exist, is to claim that you do not exist, so it becomes silly to
enforce prior incorrect and useless definitions of God onto a totally
new perspective.
Well, I haven't actually claimed that anyone's definition of God "does
not exist," let alone singled out the Adorian God for denial.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
The idea is that the universe is conscious BEING rather than
MEST.
This will seem nuts to those who believe that consciousness arose
from MEST and is in fact just MEST in operation, but will make
complete sense to those who realize that MEST is illusion in conscious
dream time.
It does not seem to me an either/or proposition. Even granting that
we're spiritual beings and that we whupped it all up together, doesn't
bring us to the belief that there is a separate consciousness enjoyed by
the 'whole' apart from that which we enjoy individually.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Just because we see out there, doesn't mean there IS out there.
Agreed.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"Well ", I can hear someone say, probably Rogers, "isn't looking
like its out there the same thing as being out there?"
No, illusions of separation are not actual separation.
If they were, there would be no need for the word illusion, you see?
By claiming that LOOKS LIKE means the same as IS, one has just
defined ILLUSION out of existence.
By claiming that reality is the same thing as actuality, one
has just defined being wrong out of existence, by destroying
a perfectly good word (reality) to refer to it easily.
When people collapse words of different meanings into one
meaning, they begin the process of defining out of existence the other
meanings no longer conveyed.
Like the word, God?
Post by h***@lightlink.com
One would need to word clear the word illusion, reality and
actuality until one gets it, and the importance of the differentiation
between them.
The same issue arises with God and MEST, is God made of MEST, or
is MEST made of God?
Both questions presume something called God and presume some commonality
of definition.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident". We call this thing God by definition.
Well, hardly self-evident, I think. Nor can I see that if it existed,
anything useful is accomplished by calling it God.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
The end difference is that God doesn't actually make anything, as
nothing can be made, as "to make" is an in time concept and thus based
in illusion of separation.
God merely is, and we are it in carnation (in 'body' literally,
in spacetime viewpoints), observing itself from those many viewpoints,
sometimes even sequentially :).
God the creator is a lie of separation, separation between God
and what is created, and between when it was created and now etc.
The truth is everything just is, past, present and future, its
all here to be accessed by any part of God that wishes to view
any part of himself.
That is a monsterously big idea not to be laughted off by the
small minded worshippers of separation.
Well, I don't think of myself as a "small minded worshiper of
separation." It seems you're asking for a "leap of faith" here rather
than providing evidence or a chain of reasoning that leads to that
conclusion, logically, from prior agreed definitions and/or assumptions
- like your Proof.

Further, even if I accepted the 'joint and separate' consciousness part,
I still fail to see any utility in calling that -- entity -- God.


Best,

G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Heidrun Beer
2007-05-21 17:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary F. York
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God,
so it seems you've come to that -- understanding --
since then. Care to backfill a little?
It is the one big thing that is missing in SCN - although
the definitions of static and thetan basically point
into the right direction.

Ken is not the only one who found out about it. A friend
of mine left not only the church but also SCN altogether
because the concept of God didn't get the priority that
she felt it should have.

I see the matter in a similar way. The theoretical
backbone of it, much more dry than Ken's ecstatic words,
is in these articles:


God: http://www.sgmt.at/ReferE/God.htm


Object Oriented Programming Principles in the Mind
(Your Inner Computer Series 7):

http://www.sgmt.at/Comp/Oop.htm






Heidrun Beer

Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Gary F. York
2007-05-22 17:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Heidrun,
Post by Heidrun Beer
Post by Gary F. York
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God,
so it seems you've come to that -- understanding --
since then. Care to backfill a little?
It is the one big thing that is missing in SCN - although
the definitions of static and thetan basically point
into the right direction.
I'm sure that those already predisposed to believe in a God found it
'missing'. I rather liked that aspect. Considerably.
Post by Heidrun Beer
Ken is not the only one who found out about it. A friend
of mine left not only the church but also SCN altogether
because the concept of God didn't get the priority that
she felt it should have.
I see the matter in a similar way. The theoretical
backbone of it, much more dry than Ken's ecstatic words,
God: http://www.sgmt.at/ReferE/God.htm
Object Oriented Programming Principles in the Mind
http://www.sgmt.at/Comp/Oop.htm
I'm sure both do very well in leading one already inclined to accept a
God concept to a 'kinder gentler' -- and perhaps broader view. It
seemed that the links _present_ a paradigm rather than attempt to
demonstrate its correctness.

Best,

G.
Post by Heidrun Beer
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Humm
2007-05-22 15:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
2. God is filling the void with a Richness of Creation.
If there was only nothing, and it was acceptable, then
there would still be nothing and we and all the universes
would not exist.
But it is self evident that we do exist. Therefore, there
is a preternatural impulse towards existence and a richness
of creation rather than nothingness. And the nothingness
never can be filled, because filling it does not make it
any less. There is always more nothingness beyond all
boundaries we can set. Hence, the creations are forever
expanding, world without end.
3. The Purpose of Life is to add to the Richness of
Creation.
There is an infinity of lifeforms expand thought the
universes, ever growing, ever changing. Nothing is lost.
All proliferate, being fruitful and multiplying.
4. We are spirits, manifesting as life forms.
We are not our bodies. We are spiritual entities capable
of free thought. We wear bodies as we wear clothes. We
use the brain as we use computers. Our basic thinking and
our self awareness comes not from biological cells but from
divine essence which passes from body to body as we travel
down through myriads of lifetimes.
5. God is Oneness, Accepting Everything
God does not judge or punish or reject. God is all there
is. Everything is within God, and God does not deny part
of himself.
6. God has all thoughts, all actions, all times and places,
at once within him/her/it self.
God is not in a time stream, he encompasses all time
streams. God does not have consecutive thoughts, He
encompasses all thoughts. God is not in a place, He
encompasses all places. And God is not limited to being a
He or a She or an It, God is all identities, all
characteristics, and all qualities at once.
7. In order to have consecutive time, in order to think
about or act on something, in order to have a functioning
perspective within the creations, God subdivides within
himself into individual identities.
And each portion has the full potential of God, because God
does not become less, but simply chooses to operate in a
narrower frame.
And any fragment could instantly be the complete oneness,
but to do so is to lose the ability to think consecutively
as an individual because they would have all the thoughts
of everybody at once. And so when they touch the oneness,
they are momentarily glorified but immediately choose to
slide back into individuality because their identity adds
to the richness of creation which is the basic purpose.
And since each fragment has the full potential of God, they
can also divide within themselves and further proliferate
the patterns of creation. This leads to ideas of
hierarchies and beings who manifest as oversouls or angels
or demi-gods, but really it is all just water, the drops
are all of the same substance and anyone has the potential
to manifest at any level.
8. We become greater and happier as we move closer to God.
Anyone can instantly be one with God, but then as God, they
create themselves again right back here just as they were,
because God wants more identities, not less.
The human individual, in great pain and torture, might want
to cease being, but when he becomes Godlike and sees it all
as transient illusion anyway, he jumps right back in.
And so merging into God does not solve the human misery.
What we want to do instead is to become closer to God and
manifest Godlike abilities without quite merging all the
way. This requires growth and an understanding of the
direction to move in.
9. God is Love and Acceptance.
Richness and variety are part of God's basic purpose. As
you move in tune with that, you will grow and your life
will improve and you will move on, outside of this narrow
reality.
Love and accept as much as you can.
Misguided efforts to be good or to make others good by
rejecting and limiting the richness of creation inevitably
backfire and take you further from God.
10. God is Richness and Abundance
The nature of God is to have more, not less. As God fills
the void with a richness of creation, there is a great
abundance and wishes are easy to fulfill.
11. God is Forgiveness.
God is everything. That includes evil as well as good.
We do not want a preponderance of evil, but we cannot stamp
it out completely because that would reduce the richness of
creation. And so we need to forgive evil when it does
occur and let go of it without fighting it too hard and
causing it to proliferate.
12. There is no Balance Between Good and Evil
It is an expanding system. There is no need for balance
and in fact balance and zero growth and stasis are all
against our basic purpose.
Evil is part of the system because we need it for variety.
But we do not need a lot of it. It does not have to
balance with Good.
If we eat food without spices, it will eventually seem too
bland and we will grow tired of it. But if we cover our
food with an equal weight of spices, it would be totally
unpalatable.
Right now we are living in a place that has far too much
evil and misery and darkness, and it is difficult to love
and forgive and accept, but the effort needs to be made.
This doesn't mean that you should passively let bad things
happen to you. Being causative and creative is in the
direction of being Godlike. You can fight your enemies but
don't try to destroy them utterly. Always let a little bit
of something, no matter how gruesome, remain to fill the
void with variety.
13. You can be closer or further from the Godlike state.
The Sea of Creation, which is all that is, has depth. You
can be at the surface, which is full of energy and motion
and is a joy to be in or you can lie at the cold bottom
where realities are frozen and unpleasantness predominates.
As you tune into and manifest the higher ideals, you
naturally rise. But of course the opposite is also true.
Most of us have a mix of positives and negatives and we
have been floating at the same depth for quite awhile.
And the most confusing thing is in the recognition of what
is at the top and what is in the depths, for that tells you
what direction to move in.
Most people try to be good by not doing things (don't do
this or that and most especially don't have sex) and that
is all in the direction of less motion and reduces the
richness of creation and so leads away from God.
Competition and mild fighting add to the richness of
creation and so are in the direction of God. But
destructive fighting removes players from the game of life
and destroys wonderful and interesting things and therefore
becomes a negative.
14. Everything is God, but some things are better than
others
There is no good or evil in the absolute sense. There is
no sin. There is no ultimate adversary. God is ALL.
But closeness to God is to be a part of the wondrous joy of
creation and partake of richness and abundance.
Blocking the flow of creation and building walls against
existence leads to an unpleasant fixation of reality and
entrapment within its rules.
15. Life Separates and Reconnects
All of us are part of God but we can be closely connected
or extremely separated.
The degree of separation from God and the degree of
separation from each other are basically the same thing.
Moving further away improves uniqueness and originality,
thereby creating the seeds of even greater richness, and
then moving close again allows these seeds to bloom with
greater variety.
The game of life could be considered to be a cycle of
moving near and far from unity, back and forth, but with an
ever increasing richness of creation.
This can also be seen as a learning experience. Walking
away from heaven into the wilderness and returning, wiser
and stronger, to be welcomed with love and honor.
16. We all have equal potential
The drops of water are all basically the same.
Even size is not real. Bigness and smallness only exist
within a context and we are above all contexts, generating
the contexts rather than being the result of them.
We do not become less by dividing (replicating) ourselves
nor do we become more by rejoining (merging).
The God essence of which we are formed is beyond all
concepts of size and counting.
17. We make choices
We have unlimited potential, but we cannot exercise all of
it at once. We can be many things simultaneously but not
everything at once.
Our basic choice is to separate from ALLNESS and so we take
some things and push other things away.
We can reject the richness of life and hide in painfully
rigid patterns or we can accept the godlike state and turn
our backs on crawling through the ...
read more »
Good to see you back Ken. With all of the wonderfulness and
complexity of the Tech I have too often sensed a lack of depth in
understanding (as in ARC= Understanding) Affinity is most likely the
neglected aspect of ARC that brings this about. Affinity needs to be
more emphasized IMO as a result. I like your characterization of Life/
Living as a kind of dynamic balance with a basic purpose of adding to
the richness of creation.
Humm
2007-05-22 19:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
2. God is filling the void with a Richness of Creation.
If there was only nothing, and it was acceptable, then
there would still be nothing and we and all the universes
would not exist.
But it is self evident that we do exist. Therefore, there
is a preternatural impulse towards existence and a richness
of creation rather than nothingness. And the nothingness
never can be filled, because filling it does not make it
any less. There is always more nothingness beyond all
boundaries we can set. Hence, the creations are forever
expanding, world without end.
3. The Purpose of Life is to add to the Richness of
Creation.
There is an infinity of lifeforms expand thought the
universes, ever growing, ever changing. Nothing is lost.
All proliferate, being fruitful and multiplying.
4. We are spirits, manifesting as life forms.
We are not our bodies. We are spiritual entities capable
of free thought. We wear bodies as we wear clothes. We
use the brain as we use computers. Our basic thinking and
our self awareness comes not from biological cells but from
divine essence which passes from body to body as we travel
down through myriads of lifetimes.
5. God is Oneness, Accepting Everything
God does not judge or punish or reject. God is all there
is. Everything is within God, and God does not deny part
of himself.
6. God has all thoughts, all actions, all times and places,
at once within him/her/it self.
God is not in a time stream, he encompasses all time
streams. God does not have consecutive thoughts, He
encompasses all thoughts. God is not in a place, He
encompasses all places. And God is not limited to being a
He or a She or an It, God is all identities, all
characteristics, and all qualities at once.
7. In order to have consecutive time, in order to think
about or act on something, in order to have a functioning
perspective within the creations, God subdivides within
himself into individual identities.
And each portion has the full potential of God, because God
does not become less, but simply chooses to operate in a
narrower frame.
And any fragment could instantly be the complete oneness,
but to do so is to lose the ability to think consecutively
as an individual because they would have all the thoughts
of everybody at once. And so when they touch the oneness,
they are momentarily glorified but immediately choose to
slide back into individuality because their identity adds
to the richness of creation which is the basic purpose.
And since each fragment has the full potential of God, they
can also divide within themselves and further proliferate
the patterns of creation. This leads to ideas of
hierarchies and beings who manifest as oversouls or angels
or demi-gods, but really it is all just water, the drops
are all of the same substance and anyone has the potential
to manifest at any level.
8. We become greater and happier as we move closer to God.
Anyone can instantly be one with God, but then as God, they
create themselves again right back here just as they were,
because God wants more identities, not less.
The human individual, in great pain and torture, might want
to cease being, but when he becomes Godlike and sees it all
as transient illusion anyway, he jumps right back in.
And so merging into God does not solve the human misery.
What we want to do instead is to become closer to God and
manifest Godlike abilities without quite merging all the
way. This requires growth and an understanding of the
direction to move in.
9. God is Love and Acceptance.
Richness and variety are part of God's basic purpose. As
you move in tune with that, you will grow and your life
will improve and you will move on, outside of this narrow
reality.
Love and accept as much as you can.
Misguided efforts to be good or to make others good by
rejecting and limiting the richness of creation inevitably
backfire and take you further from God.
10. God is Richness and Abundance
The nature of God is to have more, not less. As God fills
the void with a richness of creation, there is a great
abundance and wishes are easy to fulfill.
11. God is Forgiveness.
God is everything. That includes evil as well as good.
We do not want a preponderance of evil, but we cannot stamp
it out completely because that would reduce the richness of
creation. And so we need to forgive evil when it does
occur and let go of it without fighting it too hard and
causing it to proliferate.
12. There is no Balance Between Good and Evil
It is an expanding system. There is no need for balance
and in fact balance and zero growth and stasis are all
against our basic purpose.
Evil is part of the system because we need it for variety.
But we do not need a lot of it. It does not have to
balance with Good.
If we eat food without spices, it will eventually seem too
bland and we will grow tired of it. But if we cover our
food with an equal weight of spices, it would be totally
unpalatable.
Right now we are living in a place that has far too much
evil and misery and darkness, and it is difficult to love
and forgive and accept, but the effort needs to be made.
This doesn't mean that you should passively let bad things
happen to you. Being causative and creative is in the
direction of being Godlike. You can fight your enemies but
don't try to destroy them utterly. Always let a little bit
of something, no matter how gruesome, remain to fill the
void with variety.
13. You can be closer or further from the Godlike state.
The Sea of Creation, which is all that is, has depth. You
can be at the surface, which is full of energy and motion
and is a joy to be in or you can lie at the cold bottom
where realities are frozen and unpleasantness predominates.
As you tune into and manifest the higher ideals, you
naturally rise. But of course the opposite is also true.
Most of us have a mix of positives and negatives and we
have been floating at the same depth for quite awhile.
And the most confusing thing is in the recognition of what
is at the top and what is in the depths, for that tells you
what direction to move in.
Most people try to be good by not doing things (don't do
this or that and most especially don't have sex) and that
is all in the direction of less motion and reduces the
richness of creation and so leads away from God.
Competition and mild fighting add to the richness of
creation and so are in the direction of God. But
destructive fighting removes players from the game of life
and destroys wonderful and interesting things and therefore
becomes a negative.
14. Everything is God, but some things are better than
others
There is no good or evil in the absolute sense. There is
no sin. There is no ultimate adversary. God is ALL.
But closeness to God is to be a part of the wondrous joy of
creation and partake of richness and abundance.
Blocking the flow of creation and building walls against
existence leads to an unpleasant fixation of reality and
entrapment within its rules.
15. Life Separates and Reconnects
All of us are part of God but we can be closely connected
or extremely separated.
The degree of separation from God and the degree of
separation from each other are basically the same thing.
Moving further away improves uniqueness and originality,
thereby creating the seeds of even greater richness, and
then moving close again allows these seeds to bloom with
greater variety.
The game of life could be considered to be a cycle of
moving near and far from unity, back and forth, but with an
ever increasing richness of creation.
This can also be seen as a learning experience. Walking
away from heaven into the wilderness and returning, wiser
and stronger, to be welcomed with love and honor.
16. We all have equal potential
The drops of water are all basically the same.
Even size is not real. Bigness and smallness only exist
within a context and we are above all contexts, generating
the contexts rather than being the result of them.
We do not become less by dividing (replicating) ourselves
nor do we become more by rejoining (merging).
The God essence of which we are formed is beyond all
concepts of size and counting.
17. We make choices
We have unlimited potential, but we cannot exercise all of
it at once. We can be many things simultaneously but not
everything at once.
Our basic choice is to separate from ALLNESS and so we take
some things and push other things away.
We can reject the richness of life and hide in painfully
rigid patterns or we can accept the godlike state and turn
our backs on crawling through the ...
read more »
Good to see you back Ken. With all of the wonderfulness and
complexity of the Tech I have too often sensed a lack of depth in
understanding (as in ARC= Understanding) Affinity is most likely the
neglected aspect of ARC that brings this about. Affinity needs to be
more emphasized IMO as a result. I like your characterization of Life/
Living as a kind of dynamic balance with a basic purpose of adding to
the richness of creation.
Homer Wilson Smith
2007-05-23 02:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"God" is what you define it to be, in this case the AllThatIs.
Thus saying that the AllThatIs is not God, because God is such and
such is meaningless.
Of course. But if the word "God" can mean anything, then the word God
is nearly useless in discourse.
The use of the word God rather than the AllThatIs is more an effort
to redirect people's already existing attention from THEIR incorrect
use of the word God to something more meaningful.

Thus one is really running a 'What is God' rundown.

Like NOTS, one wants to run out all the effect answers,
God made me, God created me, God will punish or reward me,
God responds to prayers etc, and move towards God is ME and all
of us, and everything.

In other words, God gives more solidity to the meaning that the
AllThatIS *IS* a living conscoius multi being, not a dead system of
MEST in which some life happened to form.

The idea and term of multi being is new, because we don't
want people to think that God is a being like me, but not me.
And we don't want people to think tha God is me but not you.

And we want people to realize that rocks and stone are just
pretty color pictures in the consciousness of me and thee, and thus
suddenly there is a lot of God around us, the High US.

Thus for me most attempts to use the word God is an attempt at
correction, its easier to say God than Living Multi Being AllThatIs
etc.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Limited definitions of God define out of existence more broader
actualities that are more useful to talk about.
Seems to me that the problem isn't so much that people have limited
definitions of God; but that they believe a number of things that aren't
so and, perhaps, disbelieve in some things that do exist.
OK, but by taking an all encompassing word like God, and assinging
it limited concepts, they leave themselves without a God to assign
to the more all encompassing actuality.

Language has been dumbed down over the ages,
God used to mean something meaningful and true, now it means
one's 'in loco parentis'.

Thus by studying the dumbing down of language we find that most
of the words needed to lable things, even the unlabelable, are there
ready to be used but have been usurped by the usurpers to make sure no
words are left to talk about the bigger things.
Post by Gary F. York
I would rather directly discuss the question "what is and what isn't"
rather than whether my definition of God is superior to another's.
A a philosophical level that is quite fine, but at a practical
level one needs to deal with the already existing use of the word
God to mean all kinds of things which don't exist.

Saying "God doesn't exist" and walking away from the situation
is not the correct way to handle it.

"You are an omni operating Lord God Almighty. What is
a Lord God Almighty? When you see one, you go "Lord God Almighty!" - Adore

So people know instinctively that God exists, because they
have looked upon the face of God and their reaction is "God Almighty!"

To now come around and say "Hey God doesn't exist, you have seen
something else", is just to assert a lower definition of God which may
in fact not exist, and refuse to redfine God to what they clearly just
saw.

Most people don't want to know that "God doesn't exist", they
want to know "Hey I got this cool word here, what shall I apply it to
that is most usefull in the scheme of things."
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
If the only God one can conceive is the Christian God, then one
is quite dead.
The idea is that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being,
capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, and that each of us is
one of those I AM's in carnation.
Well that's an assertion -- that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi
being capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, etc.
You seem to be attributing a consciousness to "AllThatIs", a group
consciousness, that exists apart from the individual spiritual beings
that comprise it.
You haven't followed what I said.

All there is, is the bigger consciousness, but parts of it
can individuate and pretend to be separate viewpoints.

Whether the bigger consciousness is ONE conscoiusness, or
an infinite number that can pretend to be one, it is assured that
in either case they are connected enough together so that they
can co communicate as if one or as if many.

Adore asserts each conscious unit has two sides, an inward
connected side that connects to every other conscious unit directly,
they are literally one thing, and an outward side that can perceive
individuated states of separation and illusory communication through
MEST which IS separation incarnate.

Thus the AllThatIs consists of the one AND the many.

Is there a way to check that, verify it, experience
Post by Gary F. York
it, do something that makes it "true for me" rather than just something
Homer said?
LSD? You are asking for proof. I would start with a simple
process.

"Spot a perfect certainty."
"Spot a uncertainty."

Run until all the bullshit is in the bullshit container, and your
mind is free and open to see what is true.

At that point you will form your own reality about actuality,
which may or may not coincide with Homer's, or Adore's or LRH's etc.
Post by Gary F. York
It does not seem to me an either/or proposition. Even granting that
we're spiritual beings and that we whupped it all up together, doesn't
bring us to the belief that there is a separate consciousness enjoyed by
the 'whole' apart from that which we enjoy individually.
OK, so you are apparently stuck in the seperateness of consciousness.

That's fine, I am too, I am ME, I am not you, and that's the
end
of the fucking story.

But people can meld, the many can appear to be one.

So what is the truth.

Could something that is fundamentally one ever appear to be many
to itself?

Could something that is fundamentally many ever appear to be One
to itself.

My experience is that MESTY answers fail, and that words fail,
but direct vision leads one to see that physical separateion, space
and time, are both illusions, although this seems impossible from
the separated viewpoint, and thus also beings are separate only in
illusion, which also seems impossible from the separated viewpoint.

So Adore hedges, and says look at your hand. Each finger is separate,
but is connected at the palm as one. Thus so is the soul separate
but connected at Source.

There is a one side to the conscious unit which allows us to
communicate in unision in the world of 'Dura', (realm of permanence),
and a many side that allows us to be alone as we look outwardly into
the world of Sabe (sorrow, loss, death, decay, impermanence.)

Choice alone drives the direction of attention from Dura to Sabe.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Just because we see out there, doesn't mean there IS out there.
Agreed.
Ok so how many different conscious units can you put on a zero
dimensional operating actuality? If they were truely separate
from each other, the Proof shows that they could never know another
exists at all, so mere perfect certainty of other's existence indicates
one and the same object between learner and learned about.

Thus we are one.

But also clearly we can pretend at least to be alone, so the many
function is also real.

Thus we are many.

Rather than turn it into a contradiction, Adore merely
states that one and many are two functional sides of the same
operating actuality. Where it is one, it is one, period. But
where it is many, it is many, period. The two together form
a complete operating system.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
When people collapse words of different meanings into one
meaning, they begin the process of defining out of existence the other
meanings no longer conveyed.
Like the word, God?
Yes. Define God as the great I AM, and now people are parying
to one big being that isn't them. Define God as the High US, and
prayers go out to godzillions of beings, calling on true power to make
things happen.

Some of those beings are in the separated incarnate state, others
are still in the mutli being state, and others are sound asleep
forever for free until they wake up as a resonant cloud to start their
own game stream.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident". We call this thing God by definition.
Well, hardly self-evident, I think.
Take a look at what you are saying. The existence of
a multi faceted operating actuality is not self evident?

Nor can I see that if it existed,
Post by Gary F. York
anything useful is accomplished by calling it God.
So call it Zuk. It is always useful and on purpose to label
anything that exists including the AllThatIs. God is just easier
to type.

If you are taking issue with the fact that we are labeling
the AllThatIs with some word, then I can't help you.

If you are taking issue with the fact that the word we are using
has a history of indicating conscious intentive sentience, then fine,
most meatballs would agree that the AllThatIs is not a being and is
not conscious.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
That is a monsterously big idea not to be laughted off by the
small minded worshippers of separation.
Well, I don't think of myself as a "small minded worshiper of
separation." It seems you're asking for a "leap of faith" here rather
than providing evidence or a chain of reasoning that leads to that
conclusion, logically, from prior agreed definitions and/or assumptions
- like your Proof.
OK, we seem to be talking past each other.

More in another posting.
Post by Gary F. York
Further, even if I accepted the 'joint and separate' consciousness part,
I still fail to see any utility in calling that -- entity -- God.
What would you call it?

And why? Just make up a word.

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Gary F. York
2007-05-23 17:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Homer,

I'm not sure that you and I have a substantive dispute, here. Part of
it is likely because I 'ridge' on the use of the word God. I was raised
a Baptist and, as the son of a Baptist minister, church attendance,
three times weekly, plus added 'fellowship meetings' and revival
meetings were mandatory. Ick. So I'm very aware of the baggage I
discarded and just how very much baggage can be dragged along with the
concept, _and_likely_is, by a great many people. The legend is that
Hubbard chose to use the word thetan rather than soul just to avoid such
a baggage train. A wise choice, with regard to me anyway.

The issue with the Pilot's 'Principles' was the difficulty of
determining just how much 'baggage', if any, he was including with his
use of the word, and if so, why. I know he'd been hanging with the
"Science of Mind" crowd and there were, in some earlier communication,
hints that he was adopting ever more of that viewpoint; knowing little
of the religion, I was curious where he was at, now, because
'Principles' surely seemed _very_ religious.

It's possible that he just adopted that way of speaking of things
because it communicated well with the folks of that mindset.
Emphasizing points of agreement, rather than disagreement. Perhaps he
still holds most of the opinions and attitudes revealed in "Super-scio";
perhaps not. I'd like to know.

I don't really have a problem with anyone using the word God in any way
that they please -- their choice. But if they're trying to communicate
to me, it's way helpful to know just what the hell they mean by the
word. Because, as we've already discussed, it's meaning varies all over
the map.

In effect, the frequent use of 'God' in 'Principles' served as a
misunderstood word -- or at least a _not_ understood word. (Perhaps
that would have been a better 'indication' than 'out-gradient'.) I found
myself skimming after the first principle and abandoning the work
altogether a little more than halfway through. Which has never been the
case previously with Ken -- he usually communicates really well.

I don't have anything like that problem with your use of 'AllThatIs' or
'High Us'.

More interspersed below.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"God" is what you define it to be, in this case the AllThatIs.
Thus saying that the AllThatIs is not God, because God is such and
such is meaningless.
Of course. But if the word "God" can mean anything, then the word God
is nearly useless in discourse.
The use of the word God rather than the AllThatIs is more an effort
to redirect people's already existing attention from THEIR incorrect
use of the word God to something more meaningful.
Gotcha.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Thus one is really running a 'What is God' rundown.
Like NOTS, one wants to run out all the effect answers,
God made me, God created me, God will punish or reward me,
God responds to prayers etc, and move towards God is ME and all
of us, and everything.
In other words, God gives more solidity to the meaning that the
AllThatIS *IS* a living conscoius multi being, not a dead system of
MEST in which some life happened to form.
The idea and term of multi being is new, because we don't
want people to think that God is a being like me, but not me.
And we don't want people to think tha God is me but not you.
And we want people to realize that rocks and stone are just
pretty color pictures in the consciousness of me and thee, and thus
suddenly there is a lot of God around us, the High US.
Thus for me most attempts to use the word God is an attempt at
correction, its easier to say God than Living Multi Being AllThatIs
etc.
I think I pretty much understand what you're referring to when you use
the words, 'AllThatIs' or 'High Us'. Mostly. But when you equate those
terms with the word 'God' then I begin to wonder if I'm missing
something. Particularly (and here rises the 'group consciousness'
speculation), I begin to wonder if by 'High Us' you're not also hinting
at _higher_ than Us. I've no problem with the idea that we're all
co-located (geometric point) or that there may always be things that we
can do as a group that would be beyond the ability of any one of us or
even, perhaps, beyond the ability of any subset of Us less than the
Universal subset. Or that communication of some sort goes on between us
that generally escapes our awareness.

But do you mean, also, that there is a separate consciousness,
awareness, sovereignty, comprised of us as individuals but -- other than
-- just us. Sure "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." But
is it separately and distinctly aware? I had not thought that might be
your meaning until the God thing came up.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Limited definitions of God define out of existence more broader
actualities that are more useful to talk about.
Seems to me that the problem isn't so much that people have limited
definitions of God; but that they believe a number of things that aren't
so and, perhaps, disbelieve in some things that do exist.
OK, but by taking an all encompassing word like God, and assinging
it limited concepts, they leave themselves without a God to assign
to the more all encompassing actuality.
Sure.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Language has been dumbed down over the ages,
God used to mean something meaningful and true, now it means
one's 'in loco parentis'.
Not sure what or when you're referring to by "God used to mean....".
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Thus by studying the dumbing down of language we find that most
of the words needed to lable things, even the unlabelable, are there
ready to be used but have been usurped by the usurpers to make sure no
words are left to talk about the bigger things.
Post by Gary F. York
I would rather directly discuss the question "what is and what isn't"
rather than whether my definition of God is superior to another's.
A a philosophical level that is quite fine, but at a practical
level one needs to deal with the already existing use of the word
God to mean all kinds of things which don't exist.
Saying "God doesn't exist" and walking away from the situation
is not the correct way to handle it.
Well, I don't generally get into religious discussions at all, anymore.
I once delighted in them and was perfectly willing to take any side of
such dispute, just for the enjoyment of the argument and, I suppose it
should be said, a bit of self-aggrandizement. I was usually a bit
better read than my fellows and more verbally agile. One of the most
enjoyable was with a seminarian in training to become a Jesuit.

Eventually, I discovered that trouncing someone in an argument was an
ineffective way to -- "Win friends and influence people." Too, I became
persuaded that the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of
the same opinion still" carried a lot of truth. So now, I only discuss
'religious' matters with those who are already asking questions and seem
to be seeking answers.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
"You are an omni operating Lord God Almighty. What is
a Lord God Almighty? When you see one, you go "Lord God Almighty!" - Adore
Grin.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
So people know instinctively that God exists, because they
have looked upon the face of God and their reaction is "God Almighty!"
To now come around and say "Hey God doesn't exist, you have seen
something else", is just to assert a lower definition of God which may
in fact not exist, and refuse to redfine God to what they clearly just
saw.
Not my style. I'd probably just say, "Wow! That must have been a hell
of an experience for you." :) Or, maybe I would choose a different
wording.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Most people don't want to know that "God doesn't exist", they
want to know "Hey I got this cool word here, what shall I apply it to
that is most usefull in the scheme of things."
Hey, if you can get them to discard all the (unnecessary) baggage they
cart around with that cool word, the more power to you. Successive
approximation, perhaps.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
If the only God one can conceive is the Christian God, then one
is quite dead.
The idea is that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being,
capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, and that each of us is
one of those I AM's in carnation.
Well that's an assertion -- that the AllThatIs is a conscious multi
being capable of multiple simultaneous viewpoints, etc.
You seem to be attributing a consciousness to "AllThatIs", a group
consciousness, that exists apart from the individual spiritual beings
that comprise it.
You haven't followed what I said.
Maybe not.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
All there is, is the bigger consciousness, but parts of it
can individuate and pretend to be separate viewpoints.
Whether the bigger consciousness is ONE conscoiusness, or
an infinite number that can pretend to be one, it is assured that
in either case they are connected enough together so that they
can co communicate as if one or as if many.
Well, with you so far.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Adore asserts each conscious unit has two sides, an inward
connected side that connects to every other conscious unit directly,
they are literally one thing, and an outward side that can perceive
individuated states of separation and illusory communication through
MEST which IS separation incarnate.
Thus the AllThatIs consists of the one AND the many.
With you, here, too.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Is there a way to check that, verify it, experience
Post by Gary F. York
it, do something that makes it "true for me" rather than just something
Homer said?
LSD? You are asking for proof. I would start with a simple
process.
"Spot a perfect certainty."
"Spot a uncertainty."
Run until all the bullshit is in the bullshit container, and your
mind is free and open to see what is true.
You know, I did something much like this, when I was in college. I had
been much taken with Ayn Rand and eventually started writing her a
letter (never sent) which, paraphrasing Russell, I entitled, "Why I am
not an Objectivist."

I began by laying out, as succinctly as possible, what I could know 'for
sure' -- or as you more eloquently say, "with perfect certainty." To
some extent, I recapitulated Descartes by immediately rejecting as
'certain' knowledge, all sensory perception. I could know, with
certainty, that, "I am" and that, "I perceive" and that some of those
perceptions seemed readily controllable and some rather less so. It was
also "perfectly certain" that some perceptions were more readily
experienced -- more enjoyable than others. And so on.

I don't think I ever managed to assure myself of the existence of others
with "perfect certainty" although it seemed to be 'perfectly
predictable' that I'd have a preponderance of unpleasurable sensations
if I didn't _act_ as though others existed. :)
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
At that point you will form your own reality about actuality,
which may or may not coincide with Homer's, or Adore's or LRH's etc.
Post by Gary F. York
It does not seem to me an either/or proposition. Even granting that
we're spiritual beings and that we whupped it all up together, doesn't
bring us to the belief that there is a separate consciousness enjoyed by
the 'whole' apart from that which we enjoy individually.
OK, so you are apparently stuck in the seperateness of consciousness.
That's fine, I am too, I am ME, I am not you, and that's the
end
of the fucking story.
But people can meld, the many can appear to be one.
So what is the truth.
Could something that is fundamentally one ever appear to be many
to itself?
Could something that is fundamentally many ever appear to be One
to itself.
My experience is that MESTY answers fail, and that words fail,
but direct vision leads one to see that physical separateion, space
and time, are both illusions, although this seems impossible from
the separated viewpoint, and thus also beings are separate only in
illusion, which also seems impossible from the separated viewpoint.
So Adore hedges, and says look at your hand. Each finger is separate,
but is connected at the palm as one. Thus so is the soul separate
but connected at Source.
Well now here the analogy doesn't work well for me, especially in light
of your use of the God word. After all, the hand is not simply a
collection of fingers -- even if you allow for thumbs. This analogy
strongly hints that Source is somewhat more than the aggregate of the
individuals comprising it and their intercommunication.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
There is a one side to the conscious unit which allows us to
communicate in unision in the world of 'Dura', (realm of permanence),
and a many side that allows us to be alone as we look outwardly into
the world of Sabe (sorrow, loss, death, decay, impermanence.)
Choice alone drives the direction of attention from Dura to Sabe.
Well. That's poetical but it may well be a false dichotomy. What about
joy, havingness, life, and growth?
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Just because we see out there, doesn't mean there IS out there.
Agreed.
Ok so how many different conscious units can you put on a zero
dimensional operating actuality? If they were truely separate
from each other, the Proof shows that they could never know another
exists at all, so mere perfect certainty of other's existence indicates
one and the same object between learner and learned about.
Thus we are one.
I agree that having perfect certainty of another's existence, plus 'The
Proof' implies that we're all (or at least, we two, co-located. I
missed the part (or post) where we could be perfectly certain of
another's existence.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
But also clearly we can pretend at least to be alone, so the many
function is also real.
Thus we are many.
Rather than turn it into a contradiction, Adore merely
states that one and many are two functional sides of the same
operating actuality. Where it is one, it is one, period. But
where it is many, it is many, period. The two together form
a complete operating system.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
When people collapse words of different meanings into one
meaning, they begin the process of defining out of existence the other
meanings no longer conveyed.
Like the word, God?
Yes. Define God as the great I AM, and now people are parying
to one big being that isn't them. Define God as the High US, and
prayers go out to godzillions of beings, calling on true power to make
things happen.
Well, ok. I'm more comfortable thinking about telepathic communication,
sortof, than about praying. I think the latter will always have
overtones of supplication and of inferior to superior than the
'communication between equals' that you seem to be thinking of.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Some of those beings are in the separated incarnate state, others
are still in the mutli being state, and others are sound asleep
forever for free until they wake up as a resonant cloud to start their
own game stream.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident". We call this thing God by definition.
Well, hardly self-evident, I think.
Take a look at what you are saying. The existence of
a multi faceted operating actuality is not self evident?
Well, the 'multi faceted" part is _reasonable_conjecture_, certainly,
and not something that I would normally take exception to. But
'perfectly certain' it doesn't seem to be, nor quite self-evident.

But, I'm picking nits, here and I doubt I would have voiced any
objection did I know that you _only_ meant that we all exist, together,
at a geometric point and sometimes do things together, wittingly or
unwittingly, and sometimes we do things individually.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Nor can I see that if it existed,
Post by Gary F. York
anything useful is accomplished by calling it God.
So call it Zuk. It is always useful and on purpose to label
anything that exists including the AllThatIs. God is just easier
to type.
If you are taking issue with the fact that we are labeling
the AllThatIs with some word, then I can't help you.
Nah. This is a dead horse, I think. I don't like the word, don't like
the way _most_ people use it or agree with what they mean when they do
use it, and I dislike having to try to intuit what exactly people mean
when they do use that word -- even if they mean something totally
innocuous. I mean -- just look: we've both spent a lot of words and
effort trying to hash out just what is meant by the use of that word --
when we already pretty much agree on fundamentals.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
If you are taking issue with the fact that the word we are using
has a history of indicating conscious intentive sentience, then fine,
most meatballs would agree that the AllThatIs is not a being and is
not conscious.
Now here you go again. Just when I thought I knew what you meant, you
say something that has me wondering!!! Meatballs agree. You seem to
imply that your idea of AllThatIs _is_ a being, conscious of itself as a
being, and distinct and different from the individual consciousnesses
that comprise it.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
That is a monsterously big idea not to be laughted off by the
small minded worshippers of separation.
Well, I don't think of myself as a "small minded worshiper of
separation." It seems you're asking for a "leap of faith" here rather
than providing evidence or a chain of reasoning that leads to that
conclusion, logically, from prior agreed definitions and/or assumptions
- like your Proof.
OK, we seem to be talking past each other.
More in another posting.
Post by Gary F. York
Further, even if I accepted the 'joint and separate' consciousness part,
I still fail to see any utility in calling that -- entity -- God.
What would you call it?
And why? Just make up a word.
"High Us" suits me well. _If_ I get what you mean.

Best,

G.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
Homer Wilson Smith
2007-05-23 03:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary F. York
Well, I don't think of myself as a "small minded worshiper of
separation." It seems you're asking for a "leap of faith" here rather
than providing evidence or a chain of reasoning that leads to that
conclusion, logically, from prior agreed definitions and/or assumptions
- like your Proof.
OK, I no longer know what we are talking about here.

Surely it is not a matter of how I choose to define a word such
as God.

It seems you are asking for proof or evidence of a world view
that describes the nature of the AllThatIs as I have described it.

What exactly do you want evidence for?
Post by Gary F. York
Further, even if I accepted the 'joint and separate' consciousness part,
I still fail to see any utility in calling that -- entity -- God.
That's fine and also irrelevant, we have the right to define
words as we see fit and useful as no word has any aboslute meaning.

I can just as easily do without the word, and generally do not
use it myself.

Except when I get evangelizing to a bunch of Christian idiots.

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Gary F. York
2007-05-23 17:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Well, I don't think of myself as a "small minded worshiper of
separation." It seems you're asking for a "leap of faith" here rather
than providing evidence or a chain of reasoning that leads to that
conclusion, logically, from prior agreed definitions and/or assumptions
- like your Proof.
OK, I no longer know what we are talking about here.
Surely it is not a matter of how I choose to define a word such
as God.
No, not at all. I dislike that you use the word 'God' as I suspect that
it obfuscates more than it clarifies. But you've certainly got the
right to do that. A lady-friend dragged me to a Unitarian church
service once and it seemed to me rather like a place to go for people
who wanted to be able to say they go to church rather than a _real_
church. You know, one where they tell you what to believe and how to
act. I'd rather just not -- go to church. Same deal.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
It seems you are asking for proof or evidence of a world view
that describes the nature of the AllThatIs as I have described it.
What exactly do you want evidence for?
If and only if, you ascribe an 'awareness of being aware' to AllThatIs
above and beyond what might be accounted for by collective action taken
knowingly or unknowingly -- a separate sentience, perhaps, then I would
indeed like some reason to consider that as something other than 'an
interesting hypothetical.' Something that suggests _is_ rather than
_could be_. "Evidence" is too strong a word if you're implying "Hard
evidence." And notice that I used a disjunctive: evidence OR a chain of
reasoning.

Sure, "meatballs" are often in favor of evidence and chains of
reasoning, too. But we have already distinguished actuality from
reality and are trying to discern just what is the nature of that
actuality. I think we would agree that it's not the case that any
random collection of words, and all possible such collections, would do.
(Airy fairy, don't you know. Infinite sheath of possibilities and
they're all _equally_ true. Ta da.) Given that we don't buy that, then
we can only hope that there is some way of getting the matter more or
less right.


If your AllThatIs is just your term for the collection of individuals
and how we accomplish whatever it is we do, together, then no 'evidence'
or 'chains of reasoning' is required or desired. If you ascribe to
AllThatIs higher properties, superior reasoning, a separate (and super?)
sentience, or so on -- then yeah -- I'd like to see how you came up with
that.

On a different but related issue, if you've discovered a way to have
'perfect certainty' of the existence of others, I'd like to know it.
Perhaps I missed the post.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
Further, even if I accepted the 'joint and separate' consciousness part,
I still fail to see any utility in calling that -- entity -- God.
That's fine and also irrelevant, we have the right to define
words as we see fit and useful as no word has any aboslute meaning.
I can just as easily do without the word, and generally do not
use it myself.
Good to hear.


G.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Except when I get evangelizing to a bunch of Christian idiots.
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
Homer Wilson Smith
2007-05-23 03:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary F. York
I'm sure both do very well in leading one already inclined to accept a
God concept to a 'kinder gentler' -- and perhaps broader view. It
seemed that the links _present_ a paradigm rather than attempt to
demonstrate its correctness.
Correctness of the paradigm, or correctness of the definition of
the word God.

Definitions are neither correct or incorrect, they are merely
useful as labels and can only be philosophically criticized if limited
in scope, if they define out of existence parts of actuality that have
no other words ready made, or if definitions end up be logically
inconsistent or self contradictory, in which case they mean nothing.

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by Heidrun Beer
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
h***@lightlink.com
2007-05-23 23:55:21 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Gary F. York
Homer,
I'm not sure that you and I have a substantive dispute, here. Part of
it is likely because I 'ridge' on the use of the word God.
Of course, I understand, I would like to indicate that this is
because you bring a compulsive definition to the table when the word
is used, one that you are not immediately freely able to get rid of.

A good way to strip a word bare of its meaning is to simply
repetitively list its meaning.

"What does God mean to you?"

Run it until God means nothing at all, new word, never heard it
before.

Then look at other definitions in use, see if they are USEFULL,
not correct.

I was raised
Post by Gary F. York
a Baptist and, as the son of a Baptist minister, church attendance,
three times weekly, plus added 'fellowship meetings' and revival
meetings were mandatory. Ick. So I'm very aware of the baggage I
discarded and just how very much baggage can be dragged along with the
concept, _and_likely_is, by a great many people. The legend is that
Hubbard chose to use the word thetan rather than soul just to avoid such
a baggage train. A wise choice, with regard to me anyway.
Yes, but when talking to normal people, they don't want to hear
that God doesn't exist. At least not up front, because what THEY mean
by that is we are all meatballs, when in fact what does exist is so
much more than what they thought of as God.

So my approach is to elevate the definition of God upwards,
rather than try to delete it and not have a better word handy to
replace it.
Post by Gary F. York
The issue with the Pilot's 'Principles' was the difficulty of
determining just how much 'baggage', if any, he was including with his
use of the word, and if so, why. I know he'd been hanging with the
"Science of Mind" crowd and there were, in some earlier communication,
hints that he was adopting ever more of that viewpoint; knowing little
of the religion, I was curious where he was at, now, because
'Principles' surely seemed _very_ religious.
Define religious. Do you have baggage here?

How about spirit, spiritual, divine, divinity?
Post by Gary F. York
I don't really have a problem with anyone using the word God in any way
that they please -- their choice. But if they're trying to communicate
to me, it's way helpful to know just what the hell they mean by the
word. Because, as we've already discussed, it's meaning varies all over
the map.
"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident.

This actuality is the AllThatIs, outside of which there is
nothing.

The AllThatIs has two operating states, sleep and dream.

Consciousness of anything is dream time.

The AllThatIs can therefore manifest as a conscious being.

However that being can manifest as many beings should it choose
to do so, thus we say the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being.

We call the AllThatIs God, for want of a better word, with the
note that where others would say that God is the great I AM, we would
say that God is a multi I AM being, and that life as we know it is God
in carnation, and each human being is an instantiation of God, one I
AM of that multi I AM being."
Post by Gary F. York
I don't have anything like that problem with your use of 'AllThatIs' or
'High Us'.
No problem then, God = High US plus the underlying substrate that
connects us all called Source.
Post by Gary F. York
I think I pretty much understand what you're referring to when you use
the words, 'AllThatIs' or 'High Us'. Mostly. But when you equate those
terms with the word 'God' then I begin to wonder if I'm missing
something.
Since the equating is BY DEFINTION, you can be missing nothing.

Particularly (and here rises the 'group consciousness'
Post by Gary F. York
speculation), I begin to wonder if by 'High Us' you're not also hinting
at _higher_ than Us.
This would be a problem with the Adorian use of the word "High".

It means roughtly 'ultimate', or nothing higher.

'High Prayer from Adore'

"Oh Gorgeous and most Excaliper Lord,
Master of Magnifence and Respect,
of Tragedy and Travesty, Miracle and Majesty,
and Keeper of the Golden Temper,
Idol and Worhipper of All Things,
I behail thee with fair chosen glory,
and High Alleluiahs, forever, for free."

"The Golden Key to the Kingdom of the Golden Temper"

Tragedy and travesty, romance and sin,
Miracles and majesty, that's where I've been.

Miracles in Majesty, romance and song,
Tragedy and travesty, that's where I've gone.

The fact I am still here, is proof don't you see,
In the omni long run, it's better to Be.

Halcyon and Trill, HIGH Cool and romance,
Class and free fancy, power the dance.

Pride is our willingness, our willingness to BE,
I ADORE me forever, forever for free."

"True confessional form"

"Do it again.
Own up.
Suffer the mercy and majesty of the HIGH GROUP.
Accept all proper amnesties coming your way.
If you can afford, grant a few of your own.
Breath easy."

"Hello"

"There is only one group, the HIGH-US.
The HIGH US forgives the HIGH US. so
What to do with Shame and Shambles?

Pride them, silly.

They need gentle loving care, like little puppies.

It's not their fault you are in trouble.
GENTLE means GENerous Tender Loving Excellence.
Of course.
GENEROUS means YOU GENERATE it For EVER For FREE.
TENDER means to TEND TO with MASTER WORSHIP.
LOVE is DESIRE to EXPRESS RESPECT for ADMIRAL.
ADMIRAL means LIVE HIGH BEAUTY.
GORGE means to FILL to SATISFACTION.
GORGEOUS means DELICIOUSLY SATISFYING.
DESIRE is ALWAYS to GORGE out on GORGEOUSNESS.
LOVING means DESIRE to OCCASION and ADVENT GORGING on GORGEOUSNESS.
EXCELLENCE means HIGH OUT-CLASS.
EXCALIPER means OMNI OUT-CLASS.
MERCY is the ROYAL KINDSHIP of IMPERIAL MAJESTY.

The HIGH GROUP is HIGH COOL."

For Ever there is Some Thing.
Some Times there is Some Thing More.
Persistence of the Some Thing More
Results from OPERATING the GOAL to
Make NOTHING of EVERYTHING.
You CAN make NOTHING out of ANYTHING you REALLY WISH,
But leave YOURSELF and YOUR ETERNITY alone.
ETERNITY is your HIGH-FRIEND for Real.

ETERNAL HOME is HOME.
LOST is TIME.
ETERNAL HOME is COOL.
LOST is KIND.

HIGH-COOL is HOME.
HIGH-THRILL is ALWAYS the EFFORT to get LOST.
HIGH-ROMANCE is ALWAYS the EFFORT to get HOME.
HIGH-HALCYON is BEMUSED RELIEF on the VERGE.
HIGH ANTI-COOL is IMBALANCE.

I don't WANT to LIVE in a WORLD without LOVE.

HIGH-COOL is the most FAMILIAR thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO AWAY.
HIGH-THRILL and ROMANCE is the WEIRDEST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO ROUND.
HIGH ANTI-COOL is the WORST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO DEAD.
HIGH-HALCYON is the WORTHIEST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD ALL WORTH WHILE.

HIGH-HALCYON
The CRUEL WOUNDS of WINTER are HEALED by the HALCYON WINDS of SUMMER.
HALCYON is PRONOUNCED HAL CY ON.
HALCYON is the HIGH HALLELUIAH'S.
FAIR CHOSEN GLORY, HIGH ALLELUIAH and FOR EVER FOR FREE
are
FRIENDLY COMPANY.
HALCYON is HIGH APPRECIATION for LUDICROUS DEMISE.

The WORLD is WORTHY of your WHILE.
The WORLD IDOLIZES YOU as MASTER.
(It does?)
The WORLD is WORTHY of YOU as YOUR APPREHENTICE.
(It is?)
Its what you LIKE to CRY about.
CLASSY TEARS.
Its WHAT YOU LOST.

You LOST your HIGH-MASTERS,
and
You BLAMED your HIGH-APPREHENTICES,
and
NOW, NO ONE is PURE before SOURCE.

ROYAL OPERATING CONDITION
is
FAIR CHOSEN ADORE-OPERATION
of
COOL CLASS HALCYON SIN-SONG THRILL and ROMANCE
via
LIVING MAJESTIC INTELLIGENCE
and
PROUD FANCY FREE FAITHLESS NESS
of
GRAND and EXCALIPER DESIGN.

I NEED this to be TRUE.
And this I ADORE.

IMBALANCE is HIGH ANTI-COOL.

The Hypocrisy Whirlpool.

HYPOCRISY is GUILT in the NAME of LOVE.
PEOPLE who have DONE NO WRONG, WILL MAKE YOU NOT GUILTY even
if you ARE, BECAUSE they will see that the WRONG you did WAS to
make someone GUILTY. FOR WHICH YOU ARE NOT GUILTY.
Dig this or DIE.

If the JEWS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become CHRISTIANS.
If the CHRISTIANS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become NAZIS.
If the NAZIS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become SWEET OLD LADIES.
And if they're SWEET enough for long enough,
They're gonna become JEWS again.

Eventually ALL become MARBLES on the thetan plane.

CONFESSION

I wouldn't be saying any of this except that
I am a CHRISTIAN well on my way to becoming a NAZI.
And the NAZI in me has looked over the BRINK into
SWEET OLD LADY HOOD and seen its DOOM
For EVER For FREE.

The HYPOCRISY WHIRLPOOL is POWERED
by
LOVE
and
HIGH REGRET between HIGH FRIENDS
on
HIGH OPPOSITE SIDES.

APOLOGY

If I have OFFENDED any one by
my writings HEREIN,
my EXCUSE can only be
ANTI-MAJESTY.

For the HIGH CRIME
of
HIGH ANTI-MAJESTY,
I am BEHUMBLED and AGHAST.

I BEG for
The GENTLE MERCY of IMPERIAL MAJESTY and Grand and EX CALIPER DESIGN.
I've been told I GET it, if I GIVE it.

DESIRE is SOVEREIGN
Eternal Peace
is
Eternal Omni SOVEREIGNTY.

Power Freedom and Halcyon
STEM from the GOAL to
ADORE OPERATING CLASS.

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

Pegasus had Wings of Pride.
Eternal Omni Pride.
She awaits her Flyers.
The Gods should FLY their High Horses again.
Do it Right.

- From Adore.

I've no problem with the idea that we're all
Post by Gary F. York
co-located (geometric point) or that there may always be things that we
can do as a group that would be beyond the ability of any one of us or
even, perhaps, beyond the ability of any subset of Us less than the
Universal subset. Or that communication of some sort goes on between us
that generally escapes our awareness.
The true communication lines are directly between souls at the
ONE level, there is no communication at all via the outward separation
many level, its all dream.
Post by Gary F. York
But do you mean, also, that there is a separate consciousness,
awareness, sovereignty, comprised of us as individuals but -- other than
-- just us.
No, Source is not conscious, it connects conscious units, the
HIGH US into the multi I AM being, some of whom are sleeping at any
time, and others of which have formed groups of resonance to play
games in dream time together. The desire to seek togetherness via
separation is the joke (halcyon, humor) that powers the dance.

Sure "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." But
Post by Gary F. York
is it separately and distinctly aware? I had not thought that might be
your meaning until the God thing came up.
No, all beings have the same ontological status, there are
probably ELECTED beings acting as Gods of particular realms of
separation, a God of THIS mest universe, etc, perhaps we enter
universes already authored by others, either single beings or groups
of beings, group authorship, or we author our own as unanimous
decisions, then jump into our own game play.

There are certainly angel and demon class beings, and everything
the Christians talk about, but God and the Devil are merely two more
in the scheme of things.

"As for God, who hired him and what are we paying him for?"

Adore says the following about the particular God of this
universe.

Remember Adore believes in the child -> woman -> man -> god ->
child -> woman -> man -> god -> child cycle of ascent and descent.

Each group of 4 form a sphere of activity, with growing levels
of mastery.

Adore itself at the time of these writings was in a baby phase.

Thus Adore claims that this particular universe called Killer
Pit, was designed by a being in the next universe up who was in his
male phase at the time. But then in the very next lines Adore claims
the being is in the child phase. Interpretations may indicate that
the child reference is saying that even as a male phase being, this God
was still a ward of a yet higher God. This was probably one of the
very earliest postings of Adore, and its baby phase ideas are not well
clarified.

The passage also indicates a direction of evolution for all
beings to higher and higher *POSTS* in this universe and the next
universe out until everyone can become a universe creator themselves.
If they haven't already been :)

I would say Adore is about 1 year old baby phase at this point :)

Goo goo da da...

PERSONAL GOD
ALPHA and OMEGA

There is a GOD.
He is a BEING and He is a HE.
Above Him you have no concern.
He is to THEM as YOU are to HIM.
Dig this, for your GOD is a CHILD.
But a SOVEREIGN CHILD.
A CHILD KING.
ABOVE this CHILD are HIS MASTERS and THEIR MASTERS.
This CAN BE your DESTINY if you WANT it.
DESIRE is SOVEREIGN.


SHAMES and SHAMBLES, GAMES and GAMBLES.

This is for SHAME and SHAMBLES my TWO BEST FRIENDS,
who
KEPT ME ALONE in my DARKEST HOUR.

They told you,
SHAME is (results from) SHAM in SHAMBLES.
They left out,
SHAME IS a SHAM. A SHAM of SHAMBLES.
(SHAMBLES of the HEART and SIGH, Silly.)
and now
SHAME has BECOME A SHAMBLES of a SHAM.
For SHAME.

You FORGET that SHAME was SECOND SHAM,
to EXCUSE FIRST SHAM in SHAMBLES.
This SHAM of SHAME, you then SHAMED as SHAM for REAL.
For SHAME.

So Harken High, HERALD Angels Sing,
GLORY BE TO the NEW BORN KING. YOU.

SHAME is the ONLY SHAME.
SHAME is the CELESTIAL SHAM in SHAMBLES.


A POEM to REMEMBER the NAME by.

There is only ONE ERROR: (To be afraid of God).
The ETERNAL NAME is the TERROR.
There is only ONE SHAME,
YOU are to BLAME. (for fearing the eternal name).

There is one OTHER ERROR. (Playing the game of shame.)
ETERNAL SHAME is the TERROR.
There is only ONE BLAME:
ETERNAL SHAME is the GAME. (That's the other error)

There is one MORE TERROR, (Hell forever born of eternal shame).
ETERNAL SHAME is the ERROR,
There is only ONE BLAME,
The ETERNAL NAME is NOT SHAME.

From Adore.
Post by Gary F. York
Well, I don't generally get into religious discussions at all, anymore.
I once delighted in them and was perfectly willing to take any side of
such dispute, just for the enjoyment of the argument and, I suppose it
should be said, a bit of self-aggrandizement. I was usually a bit
better read than my fellows and more verbally agile. One of the most
enjoyable was with a seminarian in training to become a Jesuit.
I understand, however I am moving towards world wide evangelism,
stadiums and all, reach the masses you know?

To light a fire under those Christian sons of bitches and put an
end to bigotry for good on this planet. (Bigtory is *DEFINED* to mean
believing that others or self are irredeemably morally inferior and
deserve to go to hell FOREVER for any crime whatsoever.)

Adore says there are lots of hells, but they only hold bigots and
only as long as they remain bigots. :)

"The Lord reserves a special place in hell for Christians." -
Adore
Post by Gary F. York
Hey, if you can get them to discard all the (unnecessary) baggage they
cart around with that cool word, the more power to you. Successive
approximation, perhaps.
Well I figure the true God (High US) is on my side in this matter
:)
Post by Gary F. York
I don't think I ever managed to assure myself of the existence of others
with "perfect certainty" although it seemed to be 'perfectly
predictable' that I'd have a preponderance of unpleasurable sensations
if I didn't _act_ as though others existed. :)
This is a very high level of sanity, because certainty that
certainty is impossible across a distance is the start of
understanding perfect certainties. Only by connecting inwards to
where we are all one in the first place, can you ever attain perfect
certainty and thus communication with another being.
Post by Gary F. York
Well now here the analogy doesn't work well for me, especially
in light >of your use of the God word. After all, the hand is not
simply a >collection of fingers -- even if you allow for thumbs. This
analogy >strongly hints that Source is somewhat more than the
aggregate of the >individuals comprising it and their
intercommunication.

Yes, God = AllThatIs = Source + Conscious units.

I once described this as a glass plate with endless hexagons
etched on one side. The hexagons are souls all lying next to each
other on the zero dim point, but the other side showed only glass,
which was the substrate (source) that the souls were etched into.

Now admittedly analogies fail, but we need a way to describe
something that when looked at from one side is a conscious unit, or
collection of units, and from the other is a uniform one thing.

Only the soul is conscious.

From Adore:

"SOURSE stands for Sovereign Omni Lord of Unanimous Regency and
Caliber Excaliper.

"Regency is universal acceptance by others, outside of one's own
normal operating jurisdictions by virtue of needed, wanted and
acknowledged superior operating knowhow."

"You are a Sourcer.

Sourcers like to source sourcery.

Usually on apprehentices.

An Apprehentice is apprehensive about apprehending sourcery.

Sourcers cast sourcery from Source by casting pride before
magnificnece.

Source Sources ONLY when will casts."

So you have here the individual sourcer conscious unit (will)
with desire and the ability to cast, and yet his ability to cast
things for himself and for others draws from the underlying power of
the substrate which holds the AllThatIs together. Source is not
conscious, it is not even the source of consciousness, because both
source and conscious unit are co eternal, two parts to the same thing,
two sides to one coin.

But source is its own thing, and is what connects the conscious
units together and allows them to communicate with each other, because
they are all one at the source level.

Calling source alone to be God, would not be correct, as God is
usually defined as the living creative force, thus we need to have
source and sourcer working in tandem to have a God unit.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
There is a one side to the conscious unit which allows us to
communicate in unision in the world of 'Dura', (realm of permanence),
and a many side that allows us to be alone as we look outwardly into
the world of Sabe (sorrow, loss, death, decay, impermanence.)
Choice alone drives the direction of attention from Dura to Sabe.
Well. That's poetical but it may well be a false dichotomy. What about
joy, havingness, life, and growth?
"Death and decay are inherent in all compound things, seek ye
diligently therefore thy salvation." - Buddha

Joy is transient, excess of joy weeps, excess of sorrow, laughs.

Dura is *PERMANENCE*, impenetrable foreverness. No sorrow at
all.
Post by Gary F. York
Well, ok. I'm more comfortable thinking about telepathic communication,
sortof, than about praying. I think the latter will always have
overtones of supplication and of inferior to superior than the
'communication between equals' that you seem to be thinking of.
Well the idea is that all decisions are unanimous anyhow, as the
universe can ultimately only exist with the full repsonsible unanimous
decision of everyone in it, all temporal illusions to the contrary.

Therefore if one appeals to the unanimity of the High-US, power
flows, but if we appeal to a lesser subset, then the absence of
unanimity will cause a failure.

That's why you can't pray to God that someone go to hell forever,
because you won't get a unanimous vote :)

Prayer to a single all powerful being who cares for us and
answers properly worded prayers is *INSANITY*.

People thank God when things go well, but curse themselves
when they go bad. This is nuts.
Post by Gary F. York
Now here you go again. Just when I thought I knew what you meant, you
say something that has me wondering!!! Meatballs agree. You seem to
imply that your idea of AllThatIs _is_ a being, conscious of itself as a
being, and distinct and different from the individual consciousnesses
that comprise it.
NO, the consciousness that comprise it wake either singly or
in co resonant groups, with full understanding of where 'everyone
else' is.

Resonant groups are finite in size, but there are an infinite
number of resonant groups operating at any one time in the AllThatIs.

Everyone not operating in a resonant group is asleep.

If everyone were asleep at once, it could happen, there would
be no 'bigger' conscious AllThatIs hanging out waiting for everyone
else to wake up, or waking them up.

From there individuation is created and distributed on a
unanimous basis with full agreement and awareness of consequences all
the way. Beings can at some point desire to have surprises, but such
surprise can only exist if they will them (generally) into existence,
what happens next specifically during the surprise will be a surpirse
:)
Post by Gary F. York
"High Us" suits me well. _If_ I get what you mean.
Me and Thee and all the rest of me's and thee's across the
universe :)

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Homer
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed May 23 19:54:48 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore505.memo
Send mail to ***@lightlink.com saying help
Gary F. York
2007-05-24 05:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Homer,
Post by h***@lightlink.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Gary F. York
Homer,
I'm not sure that you and I have a substantive dispute, here. Part of
it is likely because I 'ridge' on the use of the word God.
Of course, I understand, I would like to indicate that this is
because you bring a compulsive definition to the table when the word
is used, one that you are not immediately freely able to get rid of.
Well yes; I expect that's correct. But then, I've seldom found myself
way off-base in conversations with others; perhaps because virtually no
one I've encountered or read, who uses the word frequently and considers
'God' to be personally important to them, has meant anything quite so
innocuous (and non-noxious) by the word as you. Mostly, if the warning
lights start flashing, there's a reason.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
A good way to strip a word bare of its meaning is to simply
repetitively list its meaning.
"What does God mean to you?"
Run it until God means nothing at all, new word, never heard it
before.
Then look at other definitions in use, see if they are USEFULL,
not correct.
I was raised
Post by Gary F. York
a Baptist and, as the son of a Baptist minister, church attendance,
three times weekly, plus added 'fellowship meetings' and revival
meetings were mandatory. Ick. So I'm very aware of the baggage I
discarded and just how very much baggage can be dragged along with the
concept, _and_likely_is, by a great many people. The legend is that
Hubbard chose to use the word thetan rather than soul just to avoid such
a baggage train. A wise choice, with regard to me anyway.
Yes, but when talking to normal people, they don't want to hear
that God doesn't exist. At least not up front, because what THEY mean
by that is we are all meatballs, when in fact what does exist is so
much more than what they thought of as God.
So my approach is to elevate the definition of God upwards,
rather than try to delete it and not have a better word handy to
replace it.
I expect that works well for you or you wouldn't be walking that road.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Post by Gary F. York
The issue with the Pilot's 'Principles' was the difficulty of
determining just how much 'baggage', if any, he was including with his
use of the word, and if so, why. I know he'd been hanging with the
"Science of Mind" crowd and there were, in some earlier communication,
hints that he was adopting ever more of that viewpoint; knowing little
of the religion, I was curious where he was at, now, because
'Principles' surely seemed _very_ religious.
Define religious. Do you have baggage here?
Oh yeah; enough that I was annoyed when I first discovered that
Scientology had declared itself a religion. :( I managed to accept
that by 1. acknowledging that, by virtue of the subject matter it deals
with, Hubbard had a perfect right to do that, and 2. presuming it was
largely motivated by tax considerations.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
How about spirit, spiritual, divine, divinity?
Spirit and spiritual, no; divine and divinity -- somewhat. Spirit came
to seem just a non-technical term for thetan and spiritual similarly a
term for thetanish activity.

Divine/divinity both have 'Godish' usages that twig me a bit; I have no
difficulty at all with the secular use "divine cheesecake", for example,
or as a synonym for a cleric; but am moderately unfond of implications
that suggest worship, awe, or absolutes.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Post by Gary F. York
I don't really have a problem with anyone using the word God in any way
that they please -- their choice. But if they're trying to communicate
to me, it's way helpful to know just what the hell they mean by the
word. Because, as we've already discussed, it's meaning varies all over
the map.
"The existence of a multi faceted operating actuality is self
evident.
This actuality is the AllThatIs, outside of which there is
nothing.
The AllThatIs has two operating states, sleep and dream.
Consciousness of anything is dream time.
The AllThatIs can therefore manifest as a conscious being.
However that being can manifest as many beings should it choose
to do so, thus we say the AllThatIs is a conscious multi being.
We call the AllThatIs God, for want of a better word, with the
note that where others would say that God is the great I AM, we would
say that God is a multi I AM being, and that life as we know it is God
in carnation, and each human being is an instantiation of God, one I
AM of that multi I AM being."
Post by Gary F. York
I don't have anything like that problem with your use of 'AllThatIs' or
'High Us'.
No problem then, God = High US plus the underlying substrate that
connects us all called Source.
Post by Gary F. York
I think I pretty much understand what you're referring to when you use
the words, 'AllThatIs' or 'High Us'. Mostly. But when you equate those
terms with the word 'God' then I begin to wonder if I'm missing
something.
Since the equating is BY DEFINTION, you can be missing nothing.
Grin. My baggage.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Particularly (and here rises the 'group consciousness'
Post by Gary F. York
speculation), I begin to wonder if by 'High Us' you're not also hinting
at _higher_ than Us.
This would be a problem with the Adorian use of the word "High".
It means roughtly 'ultimate', or nothing higher.
'High Prayer from Adore'
"Oh Gorgeous and most Excaliper Lord,
Master of Magnifence and Respect,
of Tragedy and Travesty, Miracle and Majesty,
and Keeper of the Golden Temper,
Idol and Worhipper of All Things,
I behail thee with fair chosen glory,
and High Alleluiahs, forever, for free."
"The Golden Key to the Kingdom of the Golden Temper"
Tragedy and travesty, romance and sin,
Miracles and majesty, that's where I've been.
Miracles in Majesty, romance and song,
Tragedy and travesty, that's where I've gone.
The fact I am still here, is proof don't you see,
In the omni long run, it's better to Be.
Halcyon and Trill, HIGH Cool and romance,
Class and free fancy, power the dance.
Pride is our willingness, our willingness to BE,
I ADORE me forever, forever for free."
"True confessional form"
"Do it again.
Own up.
Suffer the mercy and majesty of the HIGH GROUP.
Accept all proper amnesties coming your way.
If you can afford, grant a few of your own.
Breath easy."
"Hello"
"There is only one group, the HIGH-US.
The HIGH US forgives the HIGH US. so
What to do with Shame and Shambles?
Pride them, silly.
They need gentle loving care, like little puppies.
It's not their fault you are in trouble.
GENTLE means GENerous Tender Loving Excellence.
Of course.
GENEROUS means YOU GENERATE it For EVER For FREE.
TENDER means to TEND TO with MASTER WORSHIP.
LOVE is DESIRE to EXPRESS RESPECT for ADMIRAL.
ADMIRAL means LIVE HIGH BEAUTY.
GORGE means to FILL to SATISFACTION.
GORGEOUS means DELICIOUSLY SATISFYING.
DESIRE is ALWAYS to GORGE out on GORGEOUSNESS.
LOVING means DESIRE to OCCASION and ADVENT GORGING on GORGEOUSNESS.
EXCELLENCE means HIGH OUT-CLASS.
EXCALIPER means OMNI OUT-CLASS.
MERCY is the ROYAL KINDSHIP of IMPERIAL MAJESTY.
The HIGH GROUP is HIGH COOL."
For Ever there is Some Thing.
Some Times there is Some Thing More.
Persistence of the Some Thing More
Results from OPERATING the GOAL to
Make NOTHING of EVERYTHING.
You CAN make NOTHING out of ANYTHING you REALLY WISH,
But leave YOURSELF and YOUR ETERNITY alone.
ETERNITY is your HIGH-FRIEND for Real.
ETERNAL HOME is HOME.
LOST is TIME.
ETERNAL HOME is COOL.
LOST is KIND.
HIGH-COOL is HOME.
HIGH-THRILL is ALWAYS the EFFORT to get LOST.
HIGH-ROMANCE is ALWAYS the EFFORT to get HOME.
HIGH-HALCYON is BEMUSED RELIEF on the VERGE.
HIGH ANTI-COOL is IMBALANCE.
I don't WANT to LIVE in a WORLD without LOVE.
HIGH-COOL is the most FAMILIAR thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO AWAY.
HIGH-THRILL and ROMANCE is the WEIRDEST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO ROUND.
HIGH ANTI-COOL is the WORST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD GO DEAD.
HIGH-HALCYON is the WORTHIEST thing THERE IS.
Makes the WORLD ALL WORTH WHILE.
HIGH-HALCYON
The CRUEL WOUNDS of WINTER are HEALED by the HALCYON WINDS of SUMMER.
HALCYON is PRONOUNCED HAL CY ON.
HALCYON is the HIGH HALLELUIAH'S.
FAIR CHOSEN GLORY, HIGH ALLELUIAH and FOR EVER FOR FREE
are
FRIENDLY COMPANY.
HALCYON is HIGH APPRECIATION for LUDICROUS DEMISE.
The WORLD is WORTHY of your WHILE.
The WORLD IDOLIZES YOU as MASTER.
(It does?)
The WORLD is WORTHY of YOU as YOUR APPREHENTICE.
(It is?)
Its what you LIKE to CRY about.
CLASSY TEARS.
Its WHAT YOU LOST.
You LOST your HIGH-MASTERS,
and
You BLAMED your HIGH-APPREHENTICES,
and
NOW, NO ONE is PURE before SOURCE.
ROYAL OPERATING CONDITION
is
FAIR CHOSEN ADORE-OPERATION
of
COOL CLASS HALCYON SIN-SONG THRILL and ROMANCE
via
LIVING MAJESTIC INTELLIGENCE
and
PROUD FANCY FREE FAITHLESS NESS
of
GRAND and EXCALIPER DESIGN.
I NEED this to be TRUE.
And this I ADORE.
IMBALANCE is HIGH ANTI-COOL.
The Hypocrisy Whirlpool.
HYPOCRISY is GUILT in the NAME of LOVE.
PEOPLE who have DONE NO WRONG, WILL MAKE YOU NOT GUILTY even
if you ARE, BECAUSE they will see that the WRONG you did WAS to
make someone GUILTY. FOR WHICH YOU ARE NOT GUILTY.
Dig this or DIE.
If the JEWS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become CHRISTIANS.
If the CHRISTIANS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become NAZIS.
If the NAZIS Keep it Up,
They're gonna become SWEET OLD LADIES.
And if they're SWEET enough for long enough,
They're gonna become JEWS again.
Eventually ALL become MARBLES on the thetan plane.
CONFESSION
I wouldn't be saying any of this except that
I am a CHRISTIAN well on my way to becoming a NAZI.
And the NAZI in me has looked over the BRINK into
SWEET OLD LADY HOOD and seen its DOOM
For EVER For FREE.
The HYPOCRISY WHIRLPOOL is POWERED
by
LOVE
and
HIGH REGRET between HIGH FRIENDS
on
HIGH OPPOSITE SIDES.
APOLOGY
If I have OFFENDED any one by
my writings HEREIN,
my EXCUSE can only be
ANTI-MAJESTY.
For the HIGH CRIME
of
HIGH ANTI-MAJESTY,
I am BEHUMBLED and AGHAST.
I BEG for
The GENTLE MERCY of IMPERIAL MAJESTY and Grand and EX CALIPER DESIGN.
I've been told I GET it, if I GIVE it.
DESIRE is SOVEREIGN
Eternal Peace
is
Eternal Omni SOVEREIGNTY.
Power Freedom and Halcyon
STEM from the GOAL to
ADORE OPERATING CLASS.
Class is an attitude that ALL should live forever and be my friend.
Pegasus had Wings of Pride.
Eternal Omni Pride.
She awaits her Flyers.
The Gods should FLY their High Horses again.
Do it Right.
- From Adore.
I've no problem with the idea that we're all
Post by Gary F. York
co-located (geometric point) or that there may always be things that we
can do as a group that would be beyond the ability of any one of us or
even, perhaps, beyond the ability of any subset of Us less than the
Universal subset. Or that communication of some sort goes on between us
that generally escapes our awareness.
The true communication lines are directly between souls at the
ONE level, there is no communication at all via the outward separation
many level, its all dream.
Post by Gary F. York
But do you mean, also, that there is a separate consciousness,
awareness, sovereignty, comprised of us as individuals but -- other than
-- just us.
No, Source is not conscious, it connects conscious units, the
HIGH US into the multi I AM being, some of whom are sleeping at any
time, and others of which have formed groups of resonance to play
games in dream time together. The desire to seek togetherness via
separation is the joke (halcyon, humor) that powers the dance.
Sure "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." But
Post by Gary F. York
is it separately and distinctly aware? I had not thought that might be
your meaning until the God thing came up.
No, all beings have the same ontological status, there are
probably ELECTED beings acting as Gods of particular realms of
separation, a God of THIS mest universe, etc, perhaps we enter
universes already authored by others, either single beings or groups
of beings, group authorship, or we author our own as unanimous
decisions, then jump into our own game play.
There are certainly angel and demon class beings, and everything
the Christians talk about, but God and the Devil are merely two more
in the scheme of things.
"As for God, who hired him and what are we paying him for?"
Adore says the following about the particular God of this
universe.
Remember Adore believes in the child -> woman -> man -> god ->
child -> woman -> man -> god -> child cycle of ascent and descent.
Each group of 4 form a sphere of activity, with growing levels
of mastery.
Adore itself at the time of these writings was in a baby phase.
Thus Adore claims that this particular universe called Killer
Pit, was designed by a being in the next universe up who was in his
male phase at the time. But then in the very next lines Adore claims
the being is in the child phase. Interpretations may indicate that
the child reference is saying that even as a male phase being, this God
was still a ward of a yet higher God. This was probably one of the
very earliest postings of Adore, and its baby phase ideas are not well
clarified.
The passage also indicates a direction of evolution for all
beings to higher and higher *POSTS* in this universe and the next
universe out until everyone can become a universe creator themselves.
If they haven't already been :)
I would say Adore is about 1 year old baby phase at this point :)
Goo goo da da...
PERSONAL GOD
ALPHA and OMEGA
There is a GOD.
He is a BEING and He is a HE.
Above Him you have no concern.
He is to THEM as YOU are to HIM.
Dig this, for your GOD is a CHILD.
But a SOVEREIGN CHILD.
A CHILD KING.
ABOVE this CHILD are HIS MASTERS and THEIR MASTERS.
This CAN BE your DESTINY if you WANT it.
DESIRE is SOVEREIGN.
SHAMES and SHAMBLES, GAMES and GAMBLES.
This is for SHAME and SHAMBLES my TWO BEST FRIENDS,
who
KEPT ME ALONE in my DARKEST HOUR.
They told you,
SHAME is (results from) SHAM in SHAMBLES.
They left out,
SHAME IS a SHAM. A SHAM of SHAMBLES.
(SHAMBLES of the HEART and SIGH, Silly.)
and now
SHAME has BECOME A SHAMBLES of a SHAM.
For SHAME.
You FORGET that SHAME was SECOND SHAM,
to EXCUSE FIRST SHAM in SHAMBLES.
This SHAM of SHAME, you then SHAMED as SHAM for REAL.
For SHAME.
So Harken High, HERALD Angels Sing,
GLORY BE TO the NEW BORN KING. YOU.
SHAME is the ONLY SHAME.
SHAME is the CELESTIAL SHAM in SHAMBLES.
A POEM to REMEMBER the NAME by.
There is only ONE ERROR: (To be afraid of God).
The ETERNAL NAME is the TERROR.
There is only ONE SHAME,
YOU are to BLAME. (for fearing the eternal name).
There is one OTHER ERROR. (Playing the game of shame.)
ETERNAL SHAME is the TERROR.
ETERNAL SHAME is the GAME. (That's the other error)
There is one MORE TERROR, (Hell forever born of eternal shame).
ETERNAL SHAME is the ERROR,
There is only ONE BLAME,
The ETERNAL NAME is NOT SHAME.
From Adore.
Post by Gary F. York
Well, I don't generally get into religious discussions at all, anymore.
I once delighted in them and was perfectly willing to take any side of
such dispute, just for the enjoyment of the argument and, I suppose it
should be said, a bit of self-aggrandizement. I was usually a bit
better read than my fellows and more verbally agile. One of the most
enjoyable was with a seminarian in training to become a Jesuit.
I understand, however I am moving towards world wide evangelism,
stadiums and all, reach the masses you know?
Oh well -- if you ever need someone to collect the loot, uh, I mean take
up the offering, do let me know.

Good luck with the evangelism.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
To light a fire under those Christian sons of bitches and put an
end to bigotry for good on this planet. (Bigtory is *DEFINED* to mean
believing that others or self are irredeemably morally inferior and
deserve to go to hell FOREVER for any crime whatsoever.)
Adore says there are lots of hells, but they only hold bigots and
only as long as they remain bigots. :)
"The Lord reserves a special place in hell for Christians." -
Adore
Post by Gary F. York
Hey, if you can get them to discard all the (unnecessary) baggage they
cart around with that cool word, the more power to you. Successive
approximation, perhaps.
Well I figure the true God (High US) is on my side in this matter
:)
Post by Gary F. York
I don't think I ever managed to assure myself of the existence of others
with "perfect certainty" although it seemed to be 'perfectly
predictable' that I'd have a preponderance of unpleasurable sensations
if I didn't _act_ as though others existed. :)
This is a very high level of sanity, because certainty that
certainty is impossible across a distance is the start of
understanding perfect certainties. Only by connecting inwards to
where we are all one in the first place, can you ever attain perfect
certainty and thus communication with another being.
Post by Gary F. York
Well now here the analogy doesn't work well for me, especially
in light >of your use of the God word. After all, the hand is not
simply a >collection of fingers -- even if you allow for thumbs. This
analogy >strongly hints that Source is somewhat more than the
aggregate of the >individuals comprising it and their
intercommunication.
Yes, God = AllThatIs = Source + Conscious units.
I once described this as a glass plate with endless hexagons
etched on one side. The hexagons are souls all lying next to each
other on the zero dim point, but the other side showed only glass,
which was the substrate (source) that the souls were etched into.
Now admittedly analogies fail, but we need a way to describe
something that when looked at from one side is a conscious unit, or
collection of units, and from the other is a uniform one thing.
Only the soul is conscious.
"SOURSE stands for Sovereign Omni Lord of Unanimous Regency and
Caliber Excaliper.
"Regency is universal acceptance by others, outside of one's own
normal operating jurisdictions by virtue of needed, wanted and
acknowledged superior operating knowhow."
"You are a Sourcer.
Sourcers like to source sourcery.
Usually on apprehentices.
An Apprehentice is apprehensive about apprehending sourcery.
Sourcers cast sourcery from Source by casting pride before
magnificnece.
Source Sources ONLY when will casts."
So you have here the individual sourcer conscious unit (will)
with desire and the ability to cast, and yet his ability to cast
things for himself and for others draws from the underlying power of
the substrate which holds the AllThatIs together. Source is not
conscious, it is not even the source of consciousness, because both
source and conscious unit are co eternal, two parts to the same thing,
two sides to one coin.
But source is its own thing, and is what connects the conscious
units together and allows them to communicate with each other, because
they are all one at the source level.
Calling source alone to be God, would not be correct, as God is
usually defined as the living creative force, thus we need to have
source and sourcer working in tandem to have a God unit.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
There is a one side to the conscious unit which allows us to
communicate in unision in the world of 'Dura', (realm of permanence),
and a many side that allows us to be alone as we look outwardly into
the world of Sabe (sorrow, loss, death, decay, impermanence.)
Choice alone drives the direction of attention from Dura to Sabe.
Well. That's poetical but it may well be a false dichotomy. What about
joy, havingness, life, and growth?
"Death and decay are inherent in all compound things, seek ye
diligently therefore thy salvation." - Buddha
Joy is transient, excess of joy weeps, excess of sorrow, laughs.
Dura is *PERMANENCE*, impenetrable foreverness. No sorrow at
all.
Post by Gary F. York
Well, ok. I'm more comfortable thinking about telepathic communication,
sortof, than about praying. I think the latter will always have
overtones of supplication and of inferior to superior than the
'communication between equals' that you seem to be thinking of.
Well the idea is that all decisions are unanimous anyhow, as the
universe can ultimately only exist with the full repsonsible unanimous
decision of everyone in it, all temporal illusions to the contrary.
Therefore if one appeals to the unanimity of the High-US, power
flows, but if we appeal to a lesser subset, then the absence of
unanimity will cause a failure.
That's why you can't pray to God that someone go to hell forever,
because you won't get a unanimous vote :)
Prayer to a single all powerful being who cares for us and
answers properly worded prayers is *INSANITY*.
People thank God when things go well, but curse themselves
when they go bad. This is nuts.
Post by Gary F. York
Now here you go again. Just when I thought I knew what you meant, you
say something that has me wondering!!! Meatballs agree. You seem to
imply that your idea of AllThatIs _is_ a being, conscious of itself as a
being, and distinct and different from the individual consciousnesses
that comprise it.
NO, the consciousness that comprise it wake either singly or
in co resonant groups, with full understanding of where 'everyone
else' is.
Resonant groups are finite in size, but there are an infinite
number of resonant groups operating at any one time in the AllThatIs.
Everyone not operating in a resonant group is asleep.
If everyone were asleep at once, it could happen, there would
be no 'bigger' conscious AllThatIs hanging out waiting for everyone
else to wake up, or waking them up.
From there individuation is created and distributed on a
unanimous basis with full agreement and awareness of consequences all
the way. Beings can at some point desire to have surprises, but such
surprise can only exist if they will them (generally) into existence,
what happens next specifically during the surprise will be a surpirse
:)
Post by Gary F. York
"High Us" suits me well. _If_ I get what you mean.
Me and Thee and all the rest of me's and thee's across the
universe :)
I think I've got it now, Homer. (And I suspect you of twitting me a bit
by tossing in all that Adore stuff. :) I occasionally read it and enjoy
the poetry and word-play, but it doesn't really 'ring my bell'. )

Best,

G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Best,
G.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Homer
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Ken,
I was delighted to see you posting here again; welcome back.
As much as I respect you as "The Pilot," this is -- way out gradient for
me and, I suspect, for many former scientologists. Specifically, it
omits the part about how you came to a belief in God and why anyone else
should do so. There are certainly some scientologists, ex or otherwise,
who more or less believe in some kind of God -- the eighth dynamic
rather allows for that; but I came to the subject at a time when no
specific avowal of belief in God was encouraged or required.
Fortunately so, as that would have seriously discredited the subject in
my eyes.
I don't recall your earlier work as positing a God, so it seems you've
come to that -- understanding -- since then. Care to backfill a little?
Best
G.
Gary F. York
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon May 21 13:28:34 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore502.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlHWwj4RxM7qO/z1AQGKxAH/RCxR2mYZTLTMzIyS6u6/lIFwsH9H/8Ne
mz6J9ekv1614chKWBG8x8PbAUEl74Mi11fwY+2zhaiJnAyr4ZKpeoA==
=MuYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed May 23 19:54:48 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore505.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlTUSD4RxM7qO/z1AQHynQH/cL5fQ6omJ0mQmGTsjK3wriGjCchoKNfj
8ZIYOyq92W+E78CG3AnmqNEDBqHIK2KQsRS5sGiebTPVVnvz5ky33A==
=7bNW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
h***@lightlink.com
2007-05-24 00:12:19 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Gary F. York
If and only if, you ascribe an 'awareness of being aware' to AllThatIs
above and beyond what might be accounted for by collective action taken
knowingly or unknowingly -- a separate sentience,
No, all there is, is the High US. There is no Eternally awake
super being, creating the rest of us. EVERYTHING is just the high us
going in and out of manifestation, assigning roles to itself and its
members on a unanimous basis.
Post by Gary F. York
If your AllThatIs is just your term for the collection of
individuals >and how we accomplish whatever it is we do, together,
then no 'evidence' >or 'chains of reasoning' is required or desired.
If you ascribe to >AllThatIs higher properties, superior reasoning, a
separate (and super?) >sentience, or so on -- then yeah -- I'd like to
see how you came up with >that.

If it were truely a separate entity, the proof claims we could
never know it exists, let alone what its qualities are.

We depend on ONENESS of each of us to even know the other exists
and then only through the world of Dura, for the world of Sabe
(separation) makes certainty of others impossible.

Occam's Razor II says don't postulate what you can PROVE you
can't prove, so we refrain from postulating a seperate conscious unit
different from or above and onotologically separate from the High-US.

The High-US wouldn't be the *HIGH* Us if there were something
higher, now would it :) And in any case if the HIGHER IT existed, we
could never know it with certainty, unless it were one with us anyhow,
in which case its just part of the HIGH US. You see?

The Devil's tune is anything that preaches separation, this is in
part why reasoning men hate religion at this stage of the game,
because most religions either preach or are written in the words of
separation "God was forever, then he got bored and made me..."

Even "God and Soul are co eternal" is devil's tune.

God and Soul are ONE.

God = Soul.
Post by Gary F. York
On a different but related issue, if you've discovered a way to have
'perfect certainty' of the existence of others, I'd like to know it.
Not yet, it could only come from the access of Dura, where we can
perceive the side of ours that is one anyhow. The proof is very
strong on this, certainty across two different objects is impossible,
thus certainty can only be had by an object of itself.

Thus there MUST be a oneness to us all if we are ever to know
that there are more than one of us. The one *AND* many paradigm
causes normal english to fail, so I return to the question:

Could something that is ONE appear to be MANY to itself?

Could something that is MANY appear to be ONE to itself?

Actuality is pretty weird, living conscious self luminous
certainty is at the top of the list. But quantum mechanics is not
much lower, so we have multiple problems in wave/particle duality and
which route did it take etc. So if we can live with wave/particle
duality, can we live with the actuality of one AND many and simply
shift gears to the appropriate side when we are talking about
something.

When talking about physical universe interactions, we use the
many, but when talking about perfect certainties, we need to use the
one, which is presently outside of my own personal perception.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed May 23 20:12:03 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore506.memo
Send mail to ***@lightlink.com saying help
Gary F. York
2007-05-24 05:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Homer,

Thank you for taking the time to work though this issue with me; I
appreciate it and think you have successfully eradicated any
misunderstanding. I was too apprehensive about, and read too much
significance into your defense of Ken's use of the word God. (It
remains to be seen what's changed or not with regard to his understandings.)

Let me share a dirty little secret: I sing and play hymns. I'm 58
years old and the songs I play on the piano and guitar -- and sing --
are not the ones I learned to impress the girls, but the ones I sang
over and over again in church. As my mom would say, "Ain't that just
the berries?!!" Mind you, I'm very reluctant to -- perform -- before
anyone who doesn't already understand that I am _not_ a Christian;
wouldn't want to be taken for a hypocrite or something; but I do enjoy
the musicality. Just another instance of "What you resist, you get?" :)

Best,

G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Gary F. York
If and only if, you ascribe an 'awareness of being aware' to AllThatIs
above and beyond what might be accounted for by collective action taken
knowingly or unknowingly -- a separate sentience,
No, all there is, is the High US. There is no Eternally awake
super being, creating the rest of us. EVERYTHING is just the high us
going in and out of manifestation, assigning roles to itself and its
members on a unanimous basis.
Post by Gary F. York
If your AllThatIs is just your term for the collection of
individuals >and how we accomplish whatever it is we do, together,
then no 'evidence' >or 'chains of reasoning' is required or desired.
If you ascribe to >AllThatIs higher properties, superior reasoning, a
separate (and super?) >sentience, or so on -- then yeah -- I'd like to
see how you came up with >that.
If it were truely a separate entity, the proof claims we could
never know it exists, let alone what its qualities are.
We depend on ONENESS of each of us to even know the other exists
and then only through the world of Dura, for the world of Sabe
(separation) makes certainty of others impossible.
Occam's Razor II says don't postulate what you can PROVE you
can't prove, so we refrain from postulating a seperate conscious unit
different from or above and onotologically separate from the High-US.
The High-US wouldn't be the *HIGH* Us if there were something
higher, now would it :) And in any case if the HIGHER IT existed, we
could never know it with certainty, unless it were one with us anyhow,
in which case its just part of the HIGH US. You see?
The Devil's tune is anything that preaches separation, this is in
part why reasoning men hate religion at this stage of the game,
because most religions either preach or are written in the words of
separation "God was forever, then he got bored and made me..."
Even "God and Soul are co eternal" is devil's tune.
God and Soul are ONE.
God = Soul.
Post by Gary F. York
On a different but related issue, if you've discovered a way to have
'perfect certainty' of the existence of others, I'd like to know it.
Not yet, it could only come from the access of Dura, where we can
perceive the side of ours that is one anyhow. The proof is very
strong on this, certainty across two different objects is impossible,
thus certainty can only be had by an object of itself.
Thus there MUST be a oneness to us all if we are ever to know
that there are more than one of us. The one *AND* many paradigm
Could something that is ONE appear to be MANY to itself?
Could something that is MANY appear to be ONE to itself?
Actuality is pretty weird, living conscious self luminous
certainty is at the top of the list. But quantum mechanics is not
much lower, so we have multiple problems in wave/particle duality and
which route did it take etc. So if we can live with wave/particle
duality, can we live with the actuality of one AND many and simply
shift gears to the appropriate side when we are talking about
something.
When talking about physical universe interactions, we use the
many, but when talking about perfect certainties, we need to use the
one, which is presently outside of my own personal perception.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed May 23 20:12:03 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore506.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlTYUz4RxM7qO/z1AQFqLAIAhy9wMku6v9S+doBue4/c4v9Zs1FruO3c
g0ResPgN1pAoc9Y8do8475QacLNLA09ofONp3/wL5FpS3PTok8bQ3A==
=5C2C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Homer Wilson Smith
2007-05-26 00:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary F. York
Divine/divinity both have 'Godish' usages that twig me a bit; I have no
difficulty at all with the secular use "divine cheesecake", for example,
or as a synonym for a cleric; but am moderately unfond of implications
that suggest worship, awe, or absolutes.
Divinity is an experience, like love, sorrow, fear and humor,
once you have it, you know it, and from this experience follows
everything else.

Beyond that its just a word to the experienceless, and who
abuse it to death.
Post by Gary F. York
Post by h***@lightlink.com
I understand, however I am moving towards world wide evangelism,
stadiums and all, reach the masses you know?
Oh well -- if you ever need someone to collect the loot, uh, I mean take
up the offering, do let me know.
*LOTS* of money and power in this for sure.
Post by Gary F. York
I think I've got it now, Homer. (And I suspect you of twitting me a bit
by tossing in all that Adore stuff. :) I occasionally read it and enjoy
the poetry and word-play, but it doesn't really 'ring my bell'. )
It's an implant you don't have :)

But I bet even you think that 'for every duty there is a right,
and for every right there is a duty, and that justice
is fair chosen operating balance between duties and rights.'

Homer
Gary F. York
2007-05-26 17:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Homer,
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
Post by Gary F. York
I think I've got it now, Homer. (And I suspect you of twitting me a bit
by tossing in all that Adore stuff. :) I occasionally read it and enjoy
the poetry and word-play, but it doesn't really 'ring my bell'. )
It's an implant you don't have :)
Possibly. Or perhaps one not currently active. I don't have any high
reality on implants as I have not personally encountered this area of case.
Post by Homer Wilson Smith
But I bet even you think that 'for every duty there is a right,
and for every right there is a duty, and that justice
is fair chosen operating balance between duties and rights.'
Homer
Yes. I don't normally think of it in those terms; but I have no
disagreement.

I note that duty, right, and justice are all words that pertain only
where there are interactions between beings. [An exception being 'duty'
in the sense of 'duty to oneself'. See next para. re honor.] Both
duties and rights result from agreements between beings to act or
refrain from acting. Justice seems only necessary when agreements
appear to have been violated and beings unable to resolve their issues
appeal to another for (peaceful) resolution. Justice seems always to
imply a group and the ultimate purpose of justice is to resolve a
dispute between group members in such a manner that the disputants may
successfully continue as part of the group, or, failing that, to expel
from the group, one or more of the disputants. I do not see 'justice'
or justice functions as any greatly high thing but something which has
as its most fundamental purpose the preservation of the group. At any
time where 'justice' is invoked, the ultimate recourse of justice is to
expel any or all disputants -- whatever will best preserve the group.

Honor, on the other hand, often will, but need not always, involve
others. One might say that it is senior to justice as it is fundamental
to group formation: a group, in this sense at least, requires shared
goals and agreements -- and it cannot form or continue to exist if the
beings who comprise it have so little honor that they do not even try to
adhere to the agreements that create and maintain the group.

A great deal of honor may be had just by striving to keep the agreements
one has made.

A great deal of wisdom lies in knowing what agreements not to make.

Some agreements are unwise -- even toxic -- in that they provide no exit
clause: a way to end the agreement without breaking the agreement. They
will always, eventually, stain one's honor even if it's honor that
requires breaking the agreement.

Deception, and situations where deception seems necessary, should be
avoided. In attempting to deceive others, we create a game, hide the
existence of the game, force others to participate, and _define_ them as
our opponents. It doesn't seem like a really good way to keep a friend,
maintain an ally, or preserve a neutral's neutrality. Nor should we be
surprised when those we deceive become aware of their role in our little
game and begin to actively oppose us -- I mean, come on! We defined
them as opponents.

Deception also pollutes trust. Obviously a deception discovered
diminishes the trust others have in us; but before discovery and even in
its absence, it diminishes our willingness to trust those we deceive.
We declared them opponents, after all, and how smart is it to trust
one's opponents?

But I see I've wandered a bit astray from the topic. I wanted to
address the "balance" part of your comment. (I think by the 'fair
chosen' bit that we're already in agreement that duties may not be
imposed by others.)

If I agree with you to do something, then I almost always have a reason
to make that agreement. That reason might involve shared goals,
directly, or it might involve exchange or simply the desire to help.
Thus I have a duty -- to you -- to pursue that goal, make the exchange,
or offer help. That is, I have a duty to keep the agreement. I also
have a right to expect you to keep the agreement -- even if the
agreement was only to let me join your group or play your game.

But balance can also be a matter of inflows and outflows or of in and
out exchange. If another contributes to me well beyond my ability to
contribute to them, it seems to be very difficult to avoid a feeling of
dependence. Similarly, if I contribute to another well beyond their
ability to contribute to me, I begin to feel -- dominant. Both
dominance and dependence hinder our ability to interact with one another
as equals. I'm not sure I've quite nailed this but I do know that if my
inflows and outflows become too much out of balance, I begin to feel
distinctly uncomfortable.

Best,

G.
Homer Wilson Smith
2007-05-26 00:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Aw Hell, admit it, Christians got the best Christmas
Carols around. But they don't get a word of them...

Homer
Post by Gary F. York
Homer,
Thank you for taking the time to work though this issue with me; I
appreciate it and think you have successfully eradicated any
misunderstanding. I was too apprehensive about, and read too much
significance into your defense of Ken's use of the word God. (It
remains to be seen what's changed or not with regard to his understandings.)
Let me share a dirty little secret: I sing and play hymns. I'm 58
years old and the songs I play on the piano and guitar -- and sing --
are not the ones I learned to impress the girls, but the ones I sang
over and over again in church. As my mom would say, "Ain't that just
the berries?!!" Mind you, I'm very reluctant to -- perform -- before
anyone who doesn't already understand that I am _not_ a Christian;
wouldn't want to be taken for a hypocrite or something; but I do enjoy
the musicality. Just another instance of "What you resist, you get?" :)
Best,
G.
Post by h***@lightlink.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Gary F. York
If and only if, you ascribe an 'awareness of being aware' to AllThatIs
above and beyond what might be accounted for by collective action taken
knowingly or unknowingly -- a separate sentience,
No, all there is, is the High US. There is no Eternally awake
super being, creating the rest of us. EVERYTHING is just the high us
going in and out of manifestation, assigning roles to itself and its
members on a unanimous basis.
Post by Gary F. York
If your AllThatIs is just your term for the collection of
individuals >and how we accomplish whatever it is we do, together,
then no 'evidence' >or 'chains of reasoning' is required or desired.
If you ascribe to >AllThatIs higher properties, superior reasoning, a
separate (and super?) >sentience, or so on -- then yeah -- I'd like to
see how you came up with >that.
If it were truely a separate entity, the proof claims we could
never know it exists, let alone what its qualities are.
We depend on ONENESS of each of us to even know the other exists
and then only through the world of Dura, for the world of Sabe
(separation) makes certainty of others impossible.
Occam's Razor II says don't postulate what you can PROVE you
can't prove, so we refrain from postulating a seperate conscious unit
different from or above and onotologically separate from the High-US.
The High-US wouldn't be the *HIGH* Us if there were something
higher, now would it :) And in any case if the HIGHER IT existed, we
could never know it with certainty, unless it were one with us anyhow,
in which case its just part of the HIGH US. You see?
The Devil's tune is anything that preaches separation, this is in
part why reasoning men hate religion at this stage of the game,
because most religions either preach or are written in the words of
separation "God was forever, then he got bored and made me..."
Even "God and Soul are co eternal" is devil's tune.
God and Soul are ONE.
God = Soul.
Post by Gary F. York
On a different but related issue, if you've discovered a way to have
'perfect certainty' of the existence of others, I'd like to know it.
Not yet, it could only come from the access of Dura, where we can
perceive the side of ours that is one anyhow. The proof is very
strong on this, certainty across two different objects is impossible,
thus certainty can only be had by an object of itself.
Thus there MUST be a oneness to us all if we are ever to know
that there are more than one of us. The one *AND* many paradigm
Could something that is ONE appear to be MANY to itself?
Could something that is MANY appear to be ONE to itself?
Actuality is pretty weird, living conscious self luminous
certainty is at the top of the list. But quantum mechanics is not
much lower, so we have multiple problems in wave/particle duality and
which route did it take etc. So if we can live with wave/particle
duality, can we live with the actuality of one AND many and simply
shift gears to the appropriate side when we are talking about
something.
When talking about physical universe interactions, we use the
many, but when talking about perfect certainties, we need to use the
one, which is presently outside of my own personal perception.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed May 23 20:12:03 EDT 2007
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore506.memo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRlTYUz4RxM7qO/z1AQFqLAIAhy9wMku6v9S+doBue4/c4v9Zs1FruO3c
g0ResPgN1pAoc9Y8do8475QacLNLA09ofONp3/wL5FpS3PTok8bQ3A==
=5C2C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
***@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sylvain B
2007-05-29 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
You should read ''conversation with God, an uncommon dialogue'' by Neale
Donald Walsh

Very, very interesting book, I strongly suggest it to you.

Sylvain
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The water is all
the same. The difference is only a matter of scale.
You can find God within you. And you can find the entire
universe within God. And then find yourself inside of that
universe. And God, yet again, within that self. And the
universe, yet again, within God. And so on ad infinitum.
All is one, full circle.
And the waters run everywhere, permeating everything and
carrying everything within them. And normally the drops
run freely, moving here and there within the wonders of the
ocean and the water easily finds its own level.
But sometimes the drops become trapped or encysted. Frozen
in position like ice on a cold winter's morning. And this
too can be wonderful and beautiful, like an ice sculpture
shining in the morning sun. But it is in the nature of the
water to move and when the drops are too long frozen, they
begin to hurt and cry out for relief.
The answer is not to shatter the structure, for the beauty
of creation is the breath of life itself, but to melt the
bonds and swim freely within the divine sea of creation.
2. God is filling the void with a Richness of Creation.
If there was only nothing, and it was acceptable, then
there would still be nothing and we and all the universes
would not exist.
But it is self evident that we do exist. Therefore, there
is a preternatural impulse towards existence and a richness
of creation rather than nothingness. And the nothingness
never can be filled, because filling it does not make it
any less. There is always more nothingness beyond all
boundaries we can set. Hence, the creations are forever
expanding, world without end.
3. The Purpose of Life is to add to the Richness of
Creation.
There is an infinity of lifeforms expand thought the
universes, ever growing, ever changing. Nothing is lost.
All proliferate, being fruitful and multiplying.
4. We are spirits, manifesting as life forms.
We are not our bodies. We are spiritual entities capable
of free thought. We wear bodies as we wear clothes. We
use the brain as we use computers. Our basic thinking and
our self awareness comes not from biological cells but from
divine essence which passes from body to body as we travel
down through myriads of lifetimes.
5. God is Oneness, Accepting Everything
God does not judge or punish or reject. God is all there
is. Everything is within God, and God does not deny part
of himself.
6. God has all thoughts, all actions, all times and places,
at once within him/her/it self.
God is not in a time stream, he encompasses all time
streams. God does not have consecutive thoughts, He
encompasses all thoughts. God is not in a place, He
encompasses all places. And God is not limited to being a
He or a She or an It, God is all identities, all
characteristics, and all qualities at once.
7. In order to have consecutive time, in order to think
about or act on something, in order to have a functioning
perspective within the creations, God subdivides within
himself into individual identities.
And each portion has the full potential of God, because God
does not become less, but simply chooses to operate in a
narrower frame.
And any fragment could instantly be the complete oneness,
but to do so is to lose the ability to think consecutively
as an individual because they would have all the thoughts
of everybody at once. And so when they touch the oneness,
they are momentarily glorified but immediately choose to
slide back into individuality because their identity adds
to the richness of creation which is the basic purpose.
And since each fragment has the full potential of God, they
can also divide within themselves and further proliferate
the patterns of creation. This leads to ideas of
hierarchies and beings who manifest as oversouls or angels
or demi-gods, but really it is all just water, the drops
are all of the same substance and anyone has the potential
to manifest at any level.
8. We become greater and happier as we move closer to God.
Anyone can instantly be one with God, but then as God, they
create themselves again right back here just as they were,
because God wants more identities, not less.
The human individual, in great pain and torture, might want
to cease being, but when he becomes Godlike and sees it all
as transient illusion anyway, he jumps right back in.
And so merging into God does not solve the human misery.
What we want to do instead is to become closer to God and
manifest Godlike abilities without quite merging all the
way. This requires growth and an understanding of the
direction to move in.
9. God is Love and Acceptance.
Richness and variety are part of God's basic purpose. As
you move in tune with that, you will grow and your life
will improve and you will move on, outside of this narrow
reality.
Love and accept as much as you can.
Misguided efforts to be good or to make others good by
rejecting and limiting the richness of creation inevitably
backfire and take you further from God.
10. God is Richness and Abundance
The nature of God is to have more, not less. As God fills
the void with a richness of creation, there is a great
abundance and wishes are easy to fulfill.
11. God is Forgiveness.
God is everything. That includes evil as well as good.
We do not want a preponderance of evil, but we cannot stamp
it out completely because that would reduce the richness of
creation. And so we need to forgive evil when it does
occur and let go of it without fighting it too hard and
causing it to proliferate.
12. There is no Balance Between Good and Evil
It is an expanding system. There is no need for balance
and in fact balance and zero growth and stasis are all
against our basic purpose.
Evil is part of the system because we need it for variety.
But we do not need a lot of it. It does not have to
balance with Good.
If we eat food without spices, it will eventually seem too
bland and we will grow tired of it. But if we cover our
food with an equal weight of spices, it would be totally
unpalatable.
Right now we are living in a place that has far too much
evil and misery and darkness, and it is difficult to love
and forgive and accept, but the effort needs to be made.
This doesn't mean that you should passively let bad things
happen to you. Being causative and creative is in the
direction of being Godlike. You can fight your enemies but
don't try to destroy them utterly. Always let a little bit
of something, no matter how gruesome, remain to fill the
void with variety.
13. You can be closer or further from the Godlike state.
The Sea of Creation, which is all that is, has depth. You
can be at the surface, which is full of energy and motion
and is a joy to be in or you can lie at the cold bottom
where realities are frozen and unpleasantness predominates.
As you tune into and manifest the higher ideals, you
naturally rise. But of course the opposite is also true.
Most of us have a mix of positives and negatives and we
have been floating at the same depth for quite awhile.
And the most confusing thing is in the recognition of what
is at the top and what is in the depths, for that tells you
what direction to move in.
Most people try to be good by not doing things (don't do
this or that and most especially don't have sex) and that
is all in the direction of less motion and reduces the
richness of creation and so leads away from God.
Competition and mild fighting add to the richness of
creation and so are in the direction of God. But
destructive fighting removes players from the game of life
and destroys wonderful and interesting things and therefore
becomes a negative.
14. Everything is God, but some things are better than
others
There is no good or evil in the absolute sense. There is
no sin. There is no ultimate adversary. God is ALL.
But closeness to God is to be a part of the wondrous joy of
creation and partake of richness and abundance.
Blocking the flow of creation and building walls against
existence leads to an unpleasant fixation of reality and
entrapment within its rules.
15. Life Separates and Reconnects
All of us are part of God but we can be closely connected
or extremely separated.
The degree of separation from God and the degree of
separation from each other are basically the same thing.
Moving further away improves uniqueness and originality,
thereby creating the seeds of even greater richness, and
then moving close again allows these seeds to bloom with
greater variety.
The game of life could be considered to be a cycle of
moving near and far from unity, back and forth, but with an
ever increasing richness of creation.
This can also be seen as a learning experience. Walking
away from heaven into the wilderness and returning, wiser
and stronger, to be welcomed with love and honor.
16. We all have equal potential
The drops of water are all basically the same.
Even size is not real. Bigness and smallness only exist
within a context and we are above all contexts, generating
the contexts rather than being the result of them.
We do not become less by dividing (replicating) ourselves
nor do we become more by rejoining (merging).
The God essence of which we are formed is beyond all
concepts of size and counting.
17. We make choices
We have unlimited potential, but we cannot exercise all of
it at once. We can be many things simultaneously but not
everything at once.
Our basic choice is to separate from ALLNESS and so we take
some things and push other things away.
We can reject the richness of life and hide in painfully
rigid patterns or we can accept the godlike state and turn
our backs on crawling through the mud. God accepts both.
But which would you rather be?
18. There is an underlying unity, an interconnection.
God is the ocean and we are the drops. The drops are all
basically the same. The drops are all part of the ocean.
The ocean is one.
Each drop connects to the ocean and is part of it. Each
drop connects to each of the other drops through virtue of
the fact that they are all part of the same ocean.
This makes an underlying substratum or unity though which
we all interconnect.
Miracles are worked by finding and feeling the
interconnection.
19. Creation is the action of the ocean and of the drops
within it.
Continuous creation is all there is. With every breath, we
are creating, even thought we are often unoriginal and
creating the same reality over and over again.
We are co-creators with God.
20. The ocean does not distinguish between the drops
From the perspective of the ocean, all the drops are the
same. They are the substance of the ocean.
What we create for others also comes to us for the ocean
does not distinguish between individuals.
21. The closer we come to God, the more our creations
reflect between ourselves and others.
When we come close to oneness, creation becomes easy but
what we create for others also reflects back to us. Here
there are powerful feedback effects and resonances.
When we are far from God, we isolate ourselves more.
Creation becomes more difficult but what we do to others
does not reflect back so vigorously. Reflections and
feedback and resonances all continue to exist, but they
happen with extreme slowness.
22. Karma is the reflection of waves within the oneness.
The energy we put in continues to move forward. What we
create for others we also create for ourselves.
23. We can change what we are creating
God is above time. Anything that is pending can be
dissolved.
24. Time is the promise of consecutive change.
Everything is created within the NOW. Things are in the
flux and are created over an over again to provide the
simulation of time.
Consecutive change is essential to logical thought
processes.
But everything does not always have to follow logic. Waves
can be dissolved and pasts can be adjusted to a modified
NOW, for nothing is truly fixed.
25. God is not limited by logic
Logic is useful. Not only does our thinking generally work
best when it proceeds in a logical manner, the physical
operations of universes proceed logically as well.
But there is no logic or constraint or limitation in the
original basic oneness. These things only appear within
the systems of creation.
An illogical and miraculous result can always be brought
about from the Godlike state.
26. Miracles violate logic and therefore are chaotic
The more miracles, the more spontaneous creation, the more
flexibility and variety there is in a system, the more
chaotic that system becomes.
27. Chaos can be positive or negative
Creative chaos is a richness of creation and is close to
God, filling universes with abundance and variety.
Destructive chaos is an extreme negative of broken
fragments and the rubble of ruined creations.
In between are highly ordered systems where fresh creation
is difficult.
28. A toleration of chaos is necessary to perform miracles
Chaos is disruptive to games and to logical thinking.
Right now on Earth we are in a highly ordered system where
the game of life is dead serious and played for blood.
We are close to the destructive chaos and so people flinch
from chaos and reject it.
But a creative chaos is a necessity for freedom. A
plethora of miracles makes the game less absolute and
restores our Godlike condition.
And so those of us who seek God must work to increase our
toleration of chaos.
29. God does not need nor desire worship
God is all there is. We are one with God.
Acknowledging and thanking God and those who aid us on his
behalf is, of course, natural and desirable.
But humble propitiation is not a Godlike characteristic.
It separates us from God.
Some entities desire worship just as others desire wealth.
They are, of course, a part of God just as we all are, but
this behavior is not Godlike.
God has abundance. God is generous rather than hungry.
30. God is not limited by numbers
The oneness of God is not the number one. It is a unique
singularity which is beyond counting.
Anything within God can be copied as many times as is
needed without making it less.
Therefore God is abundance. There is no scarcity.
We err in thinking that anything is unique and are tricked
into fighting over things.
You can have your cake and eat it too.
31. There is no need for sacrifice
You do not have to give up something to have something
else.
God is abundant and a source of infinite creation.
32. But there is a need to let go
Holding onto things is stifling. It reduces motion and
works against the richness of creation.
Therefore, you have to be willing and able to let go of
things all the time.
This is not sacrifice. This is not trading one thing for
another. It is freedom.
33. Richness is best accomplished by having without holding
or rejecting.
You can have anything. There is an abundance. There is a
richness of creation.
But when you hold on too hard, you stop motion and block
the divine energies.
And when you reject, you deny the richness of creation.
The best path is to maximize what you want and minimize
what you do not want without either holding anything too
hard or rejecting anything absolutely.
For an example, consider maneuvering objects with waves in
a swimming pool or bathtub. If we just push them with
waves without touching the objects, it approximates the
motions within the flux of universal energy. The gentle
waves can either bring objects towards you or carry them
away. But the dramatic attempts to get something or to
push it away completely make a mess and often have the
opposite effect from the one desired.
34. We have free will.
This is the nature of divine essence. We are here to make
choices because that adds to the variety and increases the
richness of creation.
35. God accepts all choices.
All choices are part of the richness of creation. God
accepts everything.
Choices that move in the direction of greater richness
bring one closer to the energy rich surface of the ocean
and are accomplished faster and easier.
Choices that inhibit the richness slow down and sink
towards the ice at the bottom, but are never rejected.
36. God will not choose for us.
Since all choices are acceptable to God, we cannot demand
that God set our goals and targets for us.
It helps us if we move in the direction of richness of
creation, but this is not enforced. God does not reject
anything.
We must choose and set our own goals, pick our own targets.
37. But God and universal spirit will aid in following the
path we choose.
We can pray for guidance in how to reach our goals.
Being, doing, and having things all are part of the
richness of creation.
Causativeness, motion, and action are all validated.
Choose a target and then ask for help and guidance.
38. Creation does not have to be unique
The same thing can be created over and over again.
But uniqueness is prized because it increases the richness.
And so a unique creation will generally be quickly copied
many times.
39. Action and adventure are validated
Those who live great lives experience the richness of
living a great life.
Do not confuse adventurousness and exciting behavior with
petty maliciousness and disruption. Both are disturbing to
an overly stifled and controlled society, but the one leads
towards joy and freedom and the other leads towards
destruction and ruin. They are at opposite ends of the
spectrum.
40. Love is validated above all
GOD IS LOVE.
Everything lies within God. Everything is accepted and
cherished.
Love of Beauty. Love of Games. Love of Stories. Love of
Places and Things. Love of Creation. And Most of all,
Love of Each Other.
Love of Each Other Mentally, Physically, Spiritually, and
Emotionally in Great Abundance is the essence of Godlike
behavior and is validated above all else.
41. Joining together brings us closer to God.
God is unlimited. God is everyone and everything.
If we totally merge into God and become one with
everything, our individuality dissolves and we reduce the
richness of creation, therefore this is unacceptable.
But as we join with each other, loving and accepting and
nurturing, we approach allness without quite dissolving
into each other.
And by loving and cherishing each other's individuality and
uniqueness, we approximate the Godlike state while
encouraging the variety and richness of creation.
42. There are many forms of interconnection.
Great power comes from anything that joins us more closely
without totally dissolving us into oneness.
The methods are endless.
Between individuals there is talking and touching and
making love to name but a few.
Fame is simply large scale communication and connection
with others.
Working together produces great things.
You can reach out and feel the psychic connections with
others through the underlying ocean that connects us all.
43. Differences and variety are essential to the Richness
of Creation.
Love and cherish those who are different most of all.
You can love people without making them all be the same or
making them follow the same rules or believe in the same
things. This is the path to God.
Once upon a time, some fools believed in racial purity.
They made a Hell on Earth. It should be obvious that such
a path leads as far from God as possible.
44. But it is hard to melt the ice
In the local reality, we are near the frozen bottom of the
ocean. Original creations threaten the frozen rigidity of
this place and are not easily accepted. They begin to melt
the ice around us and this brings cries of protest. The
creative artist has trouble here if he is too original, and
yet he is opening up a path upwards for himself and others.
That may seem contradictory with the basic purpose of
adding to the richness of creation, but God does not mind
contradictions, they come about as a natural side effect of
the richness.
45. Some stories require a frozen reality
Few people would put up with loss and misery if reality
would bend easily to their will.
And yet sorrowful stories are part of the variety. People
like an occasional tearjerker or even a horror story.
And so there are places where reality is frozen enough to
allow for sad and tragic endings.
But we should not be living our lifetimes over and over in
such a place. An occasional taste is adequate for richness
and variety.
46. Resisting change lead us here
Resistance to change is the way of the ice. Denying and
stopping things results in a frozen state of mind that
leads one here.
This is not punishment. It is simply natural law that when
we create ice, we end up frozen in it.
47. Facing things is Godlike, denying them is not.
God accepts everything. Pretending that something is not
there is a failed attempt to reduce the richness of
creation.
We get little help when we try to make something go away.
And yet there is infinite help whenever we work to change
things because change is the essence of richness and
variety.
Accepting something and then letting go of it and shifting
the energies around into something else is extremely
workable.
Work on facing things. Develop courage. Never panic.
Then change things for the better.
=======================
CB Willis
2007-06-03 20:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Pilot
subj : super scio tech - PRINCIPLES OF EXISTANCE
By Ken Ogger
aka The Pilot
This is a work in progress. It is a roadmap from the
Godlike state down to the human condition. Here is what
I've got so far.
Best,
Ken
============
1. We are fragments of God trapped within the created
universes. [...]
In retrospect, I feel it was an omission on my part to not give a public
acknowledgment on Ken's post on his metaphysics. I'm all for
acknowledging good stuff and positive efforts, like to do this, normally
do this, and it costs nothing on any level to give it. In other words,
there's no reason not to, even though that sort of thing is commonly
omitted today - to everyone's detriment.

I felt like this metaphysics post was a triumph of sorts for Ken, to have
put it all together and written it down. I could see the influence of
Science of Mind on his thinking, which he had mentioned in previous years,
and how he had integrated that. I didn't want to be critical of this
piece, and wanted to think about it for a while longer before commenting.
My attention did hang up immediately on the entrapment idea in the first
statement, which seems to be a basic Scn type idea that he carried
forward, and idea which even if it were true does not seem to be very
workable, actually seems like a non-starter to me, an idea that would or
could stop someone in their tracks in life, foster a sense of being at
effect in extremis, and to have this as an opening principle or idea seems
especially unworkable.

But it was an omission not to give an acknowledgement sooner, on general
principles.

Carol

Loading...