A PREVIEW ON HUMAN HUNGERS,
AND MORTALITY:
Often in the areas of human hungers, it is a
no win situation where if we do satisfaction
of the hunger, one area benefits while
an other area suffers; but if we abstain,
then this other area benefits while the one
area suffers.
I would argue then that in these situations
the best way to go, is to do a medium or
middle doing of the hunger satisfaction so
that neither directive of either doing, or
abstaining from, the hunger satisfaction is
favored over the other, so that all areas
have something.
Now, this middle or medium level can be
achieved in different ways. One can
cycle about the medium level, by doing
full 'on' of the hunger satisfaction for a time
and then full 'off' for an equal time. And
the cycling frequency can be adjusted so
that one doesn't spend too long in either the
'on' or 'off' part of the cycle so that one is
not hindered excessively by the shortages
created in different areas due to the
unbalanced nature of this no win situation.
Another way to achieve the medium level,
is to do the hunger satisfaction at a constant
or non varying medium level that is mid
way between the full 'on' state and the full
'off' state. These two ways of achieving the
medium level each have their own
advantages and disadvantages. The cycling
on and off way allows one to go to higher
intensity in both 'on' and 'off' areas,
allowing more concentrated attention to
each individual area without being
hindered by the demands of the other areas.
But on the down side, one must work to
regulate this repeating on and off cycle, and
cannot rest or take one's attention off it.
Whereas with the non varying constant
medium level, one can just let it go and not
have to work at regulating it so much. xx
Note that another part of the human
condition is that we all die and are mortal;
-so that activities that we would otherwise
consider as all good and evil free and above
the human condition; are part of the human
condition due to our mortality: and so our
response is to do these things at high
medium or cycling about high medium,
even though we would otherwise do them
at high and full on. Like, even if
what we did was all goodness, when we
died, that goodness would be destroyed and
the people depending on our goodness
would be harmed by our death. However,
if we were mean and cruel, then when we
died, that cruelty would be destroyed,
resulting in a benefit to those who would
otherwise suffer our cruelty. Now, we
should still make a distinction between
actions that are otherwise all good vs those
which have more imperfection and are
based on human hungers; by acting to keep
these somewhat separate from each other
(even though both are mortal actions).
Now, when we do a human hunger in a
cycling mode, we can either cycle it
piecemeal; or all at once. The reason we do
cycling in the first place, is to allow each
component of a thing to have itself
emphasized without the constraints of the
other components so much. So this is a
reason to cycle the sequential components
of a hunger satisfaction as opposed to
cycling the entire hunger satisfaction at
once.
And when we are cycling sequential
components of a hunger satisfaction, our
desires get in the way. You see, each
component contributes its own production,
but also consumes its own specific
supplies. As a whole, there is a balance
where each component produces what
another component needs. So if one
stays too long in any one component,
overproduction of that component occurs
and also shortage of the supplies it uses
also occurs. So that as one does any one
component, ones desire for it (based on
shortages and supplies) is soon met; and as
one continues producing this one
component, one no longer feels it filling
any need or satisfying any desire.
These needs and desires are then based
on the whole hunger satisfaction as a
whole; which can be represented by the
constant medium doing of that hunger
satisfaction. But since we are trying to
express each component as not hindered by
the other components with a cycling mode;
this does not fit. So that when one does a
component to the point one feels satisfied
with that component; that represents the
constant medium level. One should go
beyond that and do that component beyond
the satisfaction of their desire for that
component, in order to facilitate the
excesses that are needed to perform a
cycling mode. So one doesn't do a
sequential component forever, but does
do that component past the satisfaction of
their desire for that component so as to
facilitate a cycling mode, over a constant
medium level mode. xx
Now, even though we are mortal, we can
still do a loose 3 d sorting. We start by
dividing ourself into a higher ability
shepherd or sogp or jesus representation
type entity that will watch over and protect
our human hunger satisfying type entity; vs
the hunger satisfying type entity itself. The
hunger satisfying type entity that we divide
into, we set lower, at medium ability
because that's what is needed in the
imperfect, human, hunger satisfying
environment. Note that this is one degree of
separation, that we do non destructively
unto ourselves so the hunger satisfying part
of us does not reside in the same place or
mind as our higher part which shepherds
over that hunger satisfying part. The
shepherding entity does act to make a
separation between itself and active hunger
satisfying parts.
(The shepherding entity also acts to remove
from off the hunger satisfying entity, any
all-destructive parts which might condemn
or attack that human part, and puts them
into an all-destructive pile which is
separate from the rest.) (Note that the
shepherding action of casting off all
destructive attacks (into the all destructive
pile), tends to be CYCLING about medium
high level as opposed to being at a constant
medium high level, because the nature of
casting off evil is that once it is done, it no
longer needs to be done because the evil
self consumes, boxes itself in, and no
longer needs attention.)
The hunger satisfying part of us, we set at
one (low medium) level; while the part
which shepherds over that, we set at a
higher level, a high medium level. The
shepherding action (set at high medium
level), does a lot of non destructively
sorting, or separating different entities from
each other. And when we need more (low
medium level) hunger satisfying action; the
shepherding entity does another division or
separating action, this time upon itself so as
to split off a part which will become new
hunger satisfying entity material. Now
even though the new split off material will
eventually be at low medium level in its
hunger satisfying environment; the
separation action of splitting off a part of
itself to generate this; itself is an action that
is done, and is at home being done at the
high medium level; along with all the other
separating (or sorting) actions the
shepherding entity does. So that the
shepherding entity not only directs its own
entity, but also directs the initial part of the
hunger satisfying entity, as it splits off part
of itself to deliver new hunger satisfying
entity material.
Note however that sometimes the opposite
situation is present. Sometimes the hunger
satisfying action tends to take over and be
all that there is so there is no shepherding
entity to watch over the hunger satisfying
entity; so what we want to do is have more
of the shepherding entity. At this point I
note that the higher level shepherding
entity can split some of itself off to be
hunger satisfying entity; but if all of the
shepherding entity moves into hunger
satisfying entity; it cannot easily or
immediately move back to the shepherding
entity position, because of the internal evils
it works with in the hunger satisfying
actions. Only when its material escapes its
internal evils (which it does (to some
degree) when it operates at medium level):
only then can that material populate higher
entities, some of which can move down to
populate the shepherding entity. So that if
the hunger satisfying entity is already of a
good size in comparison to the shepherding
entity; the shepherding entity should clamp
down and do no more splitting more of
itself off to be hunger satisfying entity, nor
move as a whole to be hunger satisfying
entity. So that we have a balanced structure
with both shepherding entity and hunger
satisfying entity. Xx
Now because we are mortal, and contain
the destruction of death over us, we cannot
set any part of us at full on or high level,
because of that; so we might think that
because we have no genuine high parts, we
can have all our parts that are not doing
human hungers, to be acting in shepherd
mode. However, there is something to be
gained by only setting part of this material
of us to be in shepherd mode, while setting
another part of this would be shepherd
material and otherwise all good material, to
be relaxing from the shepherding activities
and not doing them, but instead ruminating
within themselves and enjoying
themselves, (with only a small part not
doing this relaxing so as not to be at full on
with this). And the purpose of such, is to
provide material to be attempting to
generate out of our very mortality and
trying to get into being true high parts by
escaping the destruction of death; as (high)
medium level material will do against this
remote destruction from death we are under
in our mortality. So that this represents
attempting to get into being high parts
when we do not actually have any true high
parts. So we have high part wana be
material, shepherd material, human hunger
satisfying material, and all destructive
material, all separated off within us (with
all the separating or sorting activities being
done by the shepherding entity): and realize
that the all destructive material doesn't last
long in separation; so that we mainly have
high part wanna be material, shepherding
entity material, and hunger satisfying entity
material. And also realize that material can
easily choose to move from a higher entity
to a lower entity, but not so easily move
back from a lower entity to any higher
entity due to the ever greater levels of
destruction that are worked with/against in
the lower entities. So that a cycling stance
is not favored in our structure here, but a
constant level is.
However, a slow cycling is superimposed
upon this. What happens is that when the
hunger satisfying entity is operating at its
medium level, material naturally frees itself
from its internal destructions and escapes to
join higher entities. This loss of material
puts the hunger satisfying entity down from
medium to low ability level, which would
stop further escape of the material there, if
it were not for the shepherding entity
splitting some of itself off to replenish the
hunger satisfying entity back to medium
level. But this brings the shepherding
entity lower in amount of material. The
shepherding entity can then work within
itself to increase growth; and also the
material that escaped its internal evils from
the hunger satisfying entity can move to
higher entities that trickle down to
replenish the shepherding entity. Thus
there is a cycling superimposed on the
constant levels. Just don't forget to
replenish the shepherding entity back to
above its normal level with the material
that has been freed from the hunger
satisfying and has moved/escaped to higher
entities.
Now then, let me interject the factor of
our human mortality
in that we die. -Where we're tied to a
destruction we can't avoid and also that we
can't do a full off stance with. Since we are
forced to live with this destruction, that
makes our every action a human, or gray
action regardless of how otherwise evil free
it is; thus making it wise that we do all our
human actions at high medium level and
not at rich (full on) or barren (off) level.
This is the best we can do at this point.
Now I have kind of used the hunger
satisfying entity interchangeably with also
the entity which works in the area where
death is, where the destruction from death
is and where our mortality is evident; since
both entities are forced to work with a
destruction they can't get away from that is
intertwined with the goodness that is there.
Since we are mortal, we eventually die,
from old age, from diseases, from
accidents, from murders, from natural
disasters, from poisonous snakes scorpions
spiders insects etc. The life that makes us
up is a collection of mostly carbon atoms
arranged just so; and all the things we think
we need in the outside world, just interface
and are limited by that chemical/electrical
structure that makes up our life. And when
that fragile intricate chemical/electrical
structure breaks down; all these other
outside things become meaningless when
we don't have control over our own lives to
prevent the destruction of death.
When other people die from far away
natural disasters, we never really knew
these people, and did not really have an
internal connection to them. But when
someone dies whom you loved, then you
feel much more of a loss. It is not that
these far away people are of any less worth;
it is instead because, although you are
alive, and others are alive; you are not alive
together. It is that when you are alive, you
see others, and they come to have a
representation within your life; but that
they are also alive in their own life (also
with their own representations of others
within themselves); and these two things
are not the same thing, but are individual
entities. So that when a loved one dies, one
of those entities is completely destroyed.
And it is not the person who dies who feels
the loss. It is the other entity that resides in
the surviving person who is still alive
therefore it is still alive, but no longer
receiving stimulation, so that it is now at
barren ability. Because of the destructive
infested nature of life on earth, that
material needs to be at medium ability, not
barren, otherwise at barren, the material
there no longer escapes its earthly evils,
and is trapped by its earthly evils. So what
can we make of these situations? As
humans, we don't even have say over our
own lives, let alone to be able to reverse the
destruction done to these people and bring
them back to life. But to a high powered
force of good, whom some might call God
the father, His problem is having made
things so rich with life, there is a shortage
of voids to make improvements on; so that
the void of a dead person is very attractive
and is a food source to God. The only
reason He would be unable to feed on this
void and put life in its place, would be if
we humans were still working with it. So
we as humans since we are unable
ourselves to bring these people back to life
and reverse the destruction of death that
has befallen them, we should vacate their
actual entity and leave that to someone who
is more powerful than us to have it, as it is
they who can do something with it, not us.
This however still leaves the entity within
the surviving person that is the
representation of the deceased person. This
is part of us who still live, and will not
receive God's whole activity in, since it is
still part of us. What we need to do with
this, is to do a separation or sorting action,
and split off some (but not all) of our
shepherding entity and deliver that to this
representation entity within ourselves that
still lives but that is at barrenness, so it is
brought up to medium ability again. Once
again, this material frees itself from its
evils. But not only does the shepherding
entity need to split off a part of itself to
bring this representation entity up to
medium; the shepherding entity also needs
to do another sorting/separation action to
move that representation entity away from
the destructions of the death, and also away
from the actual entity of the deceased so
that God may have access to it. When this
is done, then the material of the
representation entity will be able to escape
not only the evils of the death of the actual
entity, but also its own internal evils which
are part of the representation entity as well
as of the surviving person who's life it is
part of. The material escapes these evils to
join higher entities. Once it does so, don't
forget to let some of that trickle down to
replenish the shepherding entity. When that
material escapes, also remember to replace
it with more split off material from the
shepherding entity. Also, when some of
that material escapes to higher entities;
when it escapes to high part wanna be
entity or actual high part; it no longer
avoids the actual entity that death
destroyed, but then acts with God to restore
that void to life much fuller than it was on
earth.
In this way we can help achieve 'death
where is thy victory, where is thy sting?',
and help work to overcome and defeat the
enemy of death.
Now we can be more loving and kind to the
people who are around us and in our
family, as they will no longer be so
devastated when we die. We no longer
have to be so distant and formal in our
relationships, as now we can survive the
loss of a loved one, and no longer need to
depend on degrading that relationship with
formality and distance or even just plain
meanness so that our surrounding kin won't
be devastated when we die. We can be
closer and more loving.
END PREVIEW. Xxxxxxxx
NOTE:
Note that in all writing past this preview,
the term 'shepherding' entity, although never
called 'shepherding' again, is referred to as
'sogp', and jesus representation, and they
are the same entity. End note.
INTRODUCTION:
In this introduction, we see that in contrast
to our stagnant universe that doesn't grow
well; that in an all-good universe with lots
of growth, no one is left behind, but are all
advanced to high levels, in good time. (We
are so used to a stagnant universe devoid of
growth that we loose touch with what we
would do if there was a lot of growth
around.)
(Note: FogoHC means Force of good of
High Capability. And force of good means
to generate positive growth)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When the joint venture of GROWTH and
gripping, does growth and gripping on
itself; there's a circular feedback created
that produces tremendous quantities of
growth. When forces of good are producing
capability (exhibiting growth); they can
either produce new forces-of-good; or new
neutral-capability.
Forces of good are made of capability. And
for one force of good to produce a second
force of good; is a force of good producing
a force of good. A force of good can also
be a force of good, by producing neutral
capabilities. There are great advantages for
forces of good to produce more forces of
good, as opposed to neutral capability. For
one thing, the newly created force of good
can in turn produce force of good of its
own; and an exponential increase in the
production of the force of good will result.
Whereas, with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of capability
increase is achieved, and no new force of
good is produced.
For another thing, the forces of good are
protected by the fogoHC, while neutral
capability is not (not absolutely). Thus
forces-of-good producing forces of good, is
more advantageous than forces of good
producing neutral capability.
However, before something can be a force
of good, it usually has to have some
minimum level of capability. Like, it might
help if something were alive, so it could
reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so
it could rise above random action, which
produces decrease(destruction) as well as
increase(growth). Thus even though the
forces of good may want to increase force
-of-good capability right away, they have to
go through an increase of neutral
capabilities to reach a minimum level,
before forces of good can start increasing
forces of good. (And, a neutral capability
cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it
is produced.) When a force of good that is
able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC),
comes in contact (together) with neutral
capability produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of the
fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a
picture of the fogoHC going about gripping
forces of good and gripping the neutral
capability that all forces of good initially
produce. With more neutral capability
being produced; those forces of good who
can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC),
have more neutral capability to grip, and
thus turn into force of good capability. As
we can see, there is always more and more
neutral capability (to grip) that is being
produced. But where does the capability go
after it has been gripped and is a marginal
force of good? Well, there are 2
possibilities: A) it goes no further and
serves to produce neutral capability for the
fogoHC. it remains at about its original
level of capability and fails to advance:
being frozen at some level of advancement
so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it
advances no further. or possibility B.
B) it could advance in its abilities to first
become alive; then advance in intelligence;
and finally become a fogoHC. it continues
to advance and eventually becomes a
fogoHC itself. With possibility A, more
and more neutral capability is produced.
The amount of it increases exponentially.
But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There
is no growth in the fogoHC because no
lower capabilities are allowed to become
fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more
of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is
taking lower forces of good and advancing
them to be a fogoHC. This is example A
not example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do
this. It finds itself with an ever growing
supply of neutral capability to make contact
with. It might get swamped by the size of
it. It needs to grow in size to match the
growth of the neutral capability. It could try
and make itself more powerful and become
of higher capability within itself. But
whether it could do this or not is uncertain;
whereas the creation of itself has been
proven possible by its own existence. The
fogoHC must increase its own power at an
exponential rate just to keep up with the
neutral capability. But this is unlikely as
the fogoHC would be increasingly more
busy trying to handle the exponential
growth of the neutral capability, that it
would have less and less time to work on
its own advancement. Also, it is into
uncharted areas, as it has never been that
powerful before. It is a driven and
desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up
a growth output and is driven by growth
needs, if it can keep up at all. In this picture
of a universe, it is easy to see how a
fogoHC could become overextended and
how the marginal force of good and neutral
capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and
eventually become unmanageable. It could
cease contacting the neutral capability, but
that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus
the force of evil would step in and
stagnation would result after some point of
expansion.
Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe
where the basic forces of good produced,
do advance to finally become a fogoHC.
With possibility B, there would be more
and more fogoHC to keep up with the more
and more neutral capability being
produced. There would be no problem of
the fogoHC getting swamped.
Here, the contacting of the ever-growing
neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC
that is also growing exponentially.
Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in
uncharted areas; only in the replication of
more of itself, which by its existence, has
already been proven possible to do. So it's
very probable that not only does the
fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and
turn them into marginal force of good
capability; the fogoHC also advances these
marginal-good capabilities to be very
intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be
forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)
End introduction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and
demand; as applied to human beings. If
there is a shortage of humans, then they
will have a higher value (and will be treated
better). But if there is a surplus of humans,
then their value will be low, and they will
be treated poorly, according to their low
value according to supply and demand. So
that when women are considering how
many humans to produce in terms of how
large a family to have; collectively, they
have quite an impact on how we're all
treated by those economic forces that rule
over us. Xxxxxxxxxx In response to this,
someone wrote: "According to the law of
supply and demand, a shortage or surplus
of humans would not affect their treatment
but their 'price'. In some cases, a high price
might lead to worse (or better) treatment,
but there is no necessary connection."
xxxxxxx And I responded: -A high price for
humans, means that they are paid a high
wage. A high wage means that they are not
in abject poverty.
Sometimes too much money leads people to
be unhappy. But a little money keeps them
out of the other unhappy extreme of abject
poverty. Another way to look at this, is to
look at Mexico. There the catholic
traditions against birth control and for big
families means that there are always a lot
of little Mexicans running around. And the
resources of the society must be divided up
again and again amongst them all so that
they mostly live lives of abject poverty.
That's not to say one cannot be happy in
abject poverty, it's just that it is a challenge
to overcome. And in a world where there is
destructiveness around; a medium ability
environment is what is needed, not those of
abject poverty, nor richness. Note that
Bible prophecy predicts plagues and
famines for an apocalyptic end to the
world. And if people overpopulate the
world under religious direction, then the
plagues and famines will appear, as
predicted.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And then there is the
conservative, religious rules over our
sexuality. But first let us consider sexual
reproduction in itself. Sexual reproduction
produces offspring that are not exact copies
of their parents but are different from their
parents to some degree. So, sexual
reproduction generates differences between
each of us; it is a generator of differences.
But people who are different, do not hang
together. no, it is people who are alike, who
hang together. And E Harmony matches to
those who are alike, not to those who are
different.
Now, if we were all to have sex with each
other in unrestricted sexual reproduction,
then our genetics would be well mixed; and
those differences would be spread all back
among our population and we would not
build on or accentuate those differences.
But that's not the way sexual reproduction
works in our world. Sexual reproduction is
restricted to one man one woman and to
form a family grouping to raise the
offspring produced. People of like interests
and skills tend to hang around with each
other; and that is where they are likely to
meet a mate, where they will spend a
lifetime together with someone with
common interests. This leaves the people
that are different, as not reconnected
together. So that the genetic differences
generated by sexual reproduction are
preserved and compounded over each
successive generation. Being different,
means that they are good in different areas.
So that different groups of people are
developed, each being good in one
particular area, while not so good in the
other areas (exploring the scope of genetic
differences that human genetics allow). So
that as individuals they cannot function
well, but only as a group can they work
together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal
whole. Thus the rulers of a society have at
their beck and call, all the humans of the
society to do their bidding, because as
individuals they are all unbalanced in their
skills, incapable of being self sufficient as
individuals, who can only survive and
excel by joining the societal group each to
contribute their best skill. So that what the
conservative rules over our sexual
reproduction do is to breed individuals who
are slaves who are easily molded by the
rulers of a society, who are incapable of
much independence as individuals, so that
we are more so a commodity to be used by
those who rule over us.
Human sexuality doesn't stop, but continues
to generate differences in the offspring; and
with the conservative rules remaining in
place, this results in ever increasing
specialization in an individual's best skill
area, while the rest of the individual's areas
lag further and further behind; so that
individuals become more and more
unbalanced so that eventually the
individual becomes a commodity (which is
their best skill), and is not so much alive
anymore in any of the other areas; as
generation after generation of sexual
reproduction under conservative protestant
rule progresses.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In a world where the
force of destruction is a problem, we shall
see that being at medium ability, not at
barren, neither rich ability; is the solution.
Concerning the unbalanced individual;
being at barren ability in all the other areas,
is not good; and the other areas, although
lagging behind, need to be advanced too,
eventually; otherwise it doesn't work out.
However, outside the considerations of
dealing with destruction; what is the best
configuration to have, concerning the
societal entity (which is made up of the
best skills of each individual); and also
concerning the individual entity?
The societal entity, and the individual
entity, are both areas (of value) that can be
grown into and improved. To leave a
vacuum in any one of these areas,
represents an improvement that can be
made and grown into. To act so that either
of these areas is to be sacrificed, is
destructive, and is against the directives of
growth/goodness and love, which God
purportedly is. The force of good-and
-growth needs/is able, to scale and cross
barriers to find raw materials separated by
barriers, so it can continue to grow. This
represents many individuals(representing
the individual position) trying out all the
many different possibilities until one is
found that works; not the elimination of
options(eliminating the individual
positions) and choosing just one (societal)
way; especially before one has found the
answer to the next challenge to growth.
Also there is the consideration of
coordination. As unbalance progresses in
the individual, the individual looses sight
of where its best skill fits into the other
societal areas, as its own 'other areas' are so
feeble. Eventually the societal entity
becomes the individual, as the individual
entity no longer exists. What was the
individual entity, is now like cells of the
body -incapable of any life or action
outside the body
-there is no longer any intelligent life at this
level. The result of all this, is the causation
of a rich area (the societal entity); and a
barren area (the individual entity); from
what used to be a medium ability situation.
What has occurred, is a polarization to
absolutes, by using sexual reproduction and
conservative rules over sexual
reproduction; over the generations. Note
that neither of these absolutes(barrenness
nor richness) is capable of dealing with the
problem and force of destruction; whereas
the medium ability environment is. And
since we live in a world still with the
problem of destruction, we will need to
bring back these medium ability
environments. And this means we at some
point need to interrupt this conservative
breeding program that has been cornering
the effects of human sexuality; and violate
it. Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note
that to actually obey the command to die to
yourself for Christ's sake; that when you
take into and part of yourself (so that it
becomes part of yourself), this action to die
to yourself; that you must also die to this
dying to yourself; so that an incomplete
dying to yourself actually results; which
provides the medium environment needed,
not these absolute polarizations.//) The
religious exhortations to be like a seed and
die to yourself so you can be part of the
great big religion in the sky; so that you
can be part of the body: an arm, a leg, an
eye or an ear or a hand maybe; so that you
can die to yourself and be one(in the
(societal)body): are all leading you down
the wrong path; it seems to me.
Because the appeal of Jesus Christ, and
need that He fulfills, as being part of
humanity; as being in between the
absolutes of highness and lowness,
representing humanity and the in between:
is not found here.
And the creation of a barren area in what
used to be the individual entity, is against
the directives of growth and love. Now, in
response to a totally evil environment, this
would be a good response. Like a case can
be made that the world of the Roman
Empire, needed to be brought to an end.
But life is no longer so much so. Yet the
controls are set on autopilot in this
direction, and need to be changed. A little
bit of this unbalance is OK, because it
causes the individual entity to also share
with the societal entity, so that both entities
can exist and grow. But too much
unbalance forces the individual entity to
death so that only the societal entity
remains. But then I am reminded of the
idea that if high good ways exist, we as
individuals should seek to give up our
individual ways, because individual ways
are fraught with more destruction and are
not as good as the higher ways (of a
societal entity). But wait a minute: this is
not that situation. The directive to bring the
individual entity to nothing as a means of
solving the imperfections of the individual
entity/position; is a different solution than
the solution of having a robust individual
entity lay aside its ways and let the societal
ways fill its needs (with the medium level
Jesus Christ entity as facilitator); because
in this solution, both the societal entity and
the individual entity EXIST and are well
grown into.
(Not all of the individual's actions are
defective; some are wholly good and evil
free.) Now then, not all evils are based on
need. The ones that are, are eliminated by
both these solutions, dealing with the
neediness of the individual position. But
other evils that pop up, well, if there is no
individual position, then they must be dealt
with by the only remaining position -the
high and rich societal position. And as we
shall see, when an evil is put into a rich
environment, a firestorm results and the
whole thing is burnt down. Better to let
evils be worked out in the individual
position, so that the societal position,
(which is made of the best parts of the
individuals collectively and is very rich)
can know how to avoid these evils, having
learned from its individuals. Once again, I
reiterate: we are screwing ourselves if we
continue down this path to death of the
individual entity through conservative
running of our sexual reproduction! Get off
your ass and fuck different people (while
trying to avoid a venereal disease, which is
the weakness of this directive). And have
some, but not too many kids from this.
Otherwise, if you insist on being good and
morally, sexually conservative; you along
with the rest of your kind will be the cause
of the end of the world scenarios that
religious fundamentalists predict.
Because when hatreds are worked out on
the individual levels, it is with guns and
knives and clubs. But when there is no
more individual level, and there are still
hatreds to be worked out; the societal
entities work these out with atom bombs.
And who wants to be responsible for
blowing up the whole world? Who is the
biggest terrorist now? Why it is the
conservative fundamentalists. So, in the
war on terror, we ask you to loosen your
morals a little. Or if you insist on one man
one women, then find a mate who is out of
your class and social group, who is
different from you, to marry and have kids
with. (Stop catering to 'the MAN'(so much
/so absolutely).)
Ending up with a burnt out cinder for a
world after we have committed armageddon
against each other, is really not an
acceptable direction to seek to produce. I
mean, there is certainly no harm in trying
to do better than this. Xxxxxxxxx
Note that we have been handed a legacy
from many generations of mammalian
reproduction; which is that human infants
are very helpless. This is a result of that
good societies are superior to cruel
societies. You see, if a society is cruel, it
won't care for its infants well and they will
die due to their helplessness and put an end
to that cruel society. But good and kind
societies will thrive because the helpless
infant will thrive. This is a legacy we have
from many generations of cave men before
there was organized religion. But now with
our women, (and men) insisting on people
not cheating; a family structure is enforced.
With a family structure where the parents
are made responsible for raising their
offspring; the helpless infant is raised till
they are of age and are no longer helpless;
where they can be fodder for their society
that can be as evil and cruel as it wants,
because the infant is no longer an infant
and is no longer helpless. In this society, if
there is something that is supporting evil
and allowing evil; we usually take action
and stamp it out. What we can do then is to
stamp out this enforcement against
cheating because it is what prevents us
from using our legacy of our helpless
infants to make our societies good. And
we are forced to reprove over and over
again that good societies are superior to all
the evil/cruel societies that we now allow,
that before would have been eliminated. xxxxxxxxxxx
In this insert, let us consider the racial
purity philosophy of Hitler and the Ku
Klux Klan and others. The idea is that one
race is superior and that the other inferior
races need to be exterminated. To
exterminate the differences brought to the
global societal entity by other 'inferior'
races, does curtail and handicap the societal
entity; thus providing some favor to the
individual entity (of the surviving race).
This stops the perpetual advancement of
the societal entity at the expense of the
individual entity under conservative
sexuality. And when genetics under
conservative sexuality causes some
individuals in the master race to be too
different from the standard of the master
race, these individuals too can be
exterminated or sterilized.
Thus the ultra specialization brought by
continued conservative sexuality is
stopped, as individuals who are too
specialized are exterminated. So this
seems to work, theoretically. But getting to
this point is the problem. Not all races are
willing to lay down and be exterminated
without a fight like the Jews in ww2. And
now the Jews of today in Israel are
certainly not going down without a fight.
So that the end of the world will be
achieved by trying to exterminate the other
races in the world war this would cause.
Much better to loose the conservative
sexuality to achieve the same result,
without all the destruction and end to the
world. But perhaps having the different
races intensely prejudice of each other will
keep them from joining together into a
greater societal entity, thus limiting the
societal entity, which is what is needed in
systems of continued conservative
sexuality. Perhaps this may explain why
prejudice exists today, and what function it
serves. However, this is not the best
system that can be. As a better system is
one that puts together the differences of the
races (not all the time), but periodically;
and this would replace systems of eternal
prejudice; and it would not be a system of
eternal conservative sexuality.
End insert.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, with the Amish, individual expression
is stamped out, and everything is plain. So
that when a woman is looking for a mate,
she has a harder time finding someone just
like her, due to them all looking pretty
much the plain same. Thus the Amish may
not have so much of an accentuation of
differences as their generations pass. And
with the Mexicans, the man has a few kids
with one woman and then moves onto the
next woman to do the same, and the next
and the next etc. Thus there is good mixing
of the genetic material, and differences are
put together again. The same is true of the
African American male/ also the gang
banger, who does a bit of philandering and
doesn't spend much time in the home; thus
providing the needed genetic mixing. And
with the Arabs, (and the Mormons) the
harem provides a genetic mixing and
melting pot. And with the Americans, a
melting pot where different types
intermarry, brings genetic differences back
together. But with the conservative
Protestants, no such getting the genetic
differences back together occurs. They may
not overpopulate the world like the
Catholics, but they instead create ever more
unbalanced offspring eventually no longer
capable of any individual existence but
only of a societal existence, resulting in
societal conflicts that will annihilate the
world (as predicted). This is unfortunate for
them (and everybody else). Now, if you go
with the free love of the communes, the
hippies, and the 60's, and Disco 70's, you
can have individual expression as well as
good genetic mixing.
(But what about inbreeders? Since they are
of the same family, there is much similar
genetic material. Here again, it is people
who are the same getting together, but
these people are so much the same
genetically, that weaknesses in genetics are
not complimented by a different partners
genes, and these people often have serious
physical problems due to genetic deficits.
However, the differences generated by
sexual reproduction ARE put back together.
So that if a well balanced well rounded,
self sufficient group of individuals does
this, they preserve themselves. But if an
unbalanced group does this, that is where
the trouble is.)
Of all these things I have spoken against
religion, you might think I am against
Christ. Well, I am not against a Christ who
values both advancing the individual entity
as well as the societal or body-of-Christ
entity. But I am against a Christ who
sacrifices the individual entity completely
and absolutely to the societal entity; who
does not advance the individual entity
along with the societal/christ body entity.
-Because that is extremely
destructive/wasteful as it brings about the
end of human life on earth. And also
hinders the force of good from finding
solutions to barriers to new growth, which
it needs to do to be able to live in a rich
environment without the force of evil. And
I will replace this 'bad' Christ, with the
'good' Christ, who is more fit at being
savior of the world, unlike the 'bad' Christ,
who is unfit to be our savior, but serves
only to be our destructor.
Obviously there is only 1 Jesus Christ, and
reportedly He is still alive, having survived
the crucifixion. But He is now at the right
hand of God, so that we may all have His
Holy Spirit; so that He is not easily
accessible to settle which interpretation of
"die to yourself for Christ's sake" did He
mean. -Did He mean to completely and
absolutely sacrifice the individual entity for
the societal body of Christ? or did He mean
to partially sacrifice the individual entity so
that both the individual and the societal
entities would prosper? Depending on His
answer, is my answer of either support, or a
true need to find a better savior; not only to
save us but also Him. xxx Obviously there
is only one Jesus Christ, but there may be
two answers. Some may claim the Holy
Spirit has led them to one interpretation,
while others, to the other interpretation. I
claim the Holy Spirit, through logic, has
led me to the interpretation that causes both
the advancement of the societal body of
Christ entity, as well as also the
advancement of each individual entity;
(and by doing so, also claim to be a
Christian); albeit a non traditional one:
mainly because of Christ's stand that we
love and be kind to one another. If you
can't stomach that, then I think we need to
be separate from one another.
xxxxxxxx Maybe I just don't get it. I'm still
not going to restrict my sexual lifestyle
according to the conservative Christian
way, which as I have explained is part of
the fallacy of sacrificing the individual
entity absolutely and entirely for the
societal entity. It won't be me who throws
Christ out, but perhaps Christ will throw
me out if it turns out that He is for the
interpretation of absolutely sacrificing the
individual entity for the societal, body of
Christ entity. In that case, there still exists
inside me, a christ like part which functions
to intercede between my absolute, high
good parts and my human parts; which will
continue to act, and will be thrilled to join
with a Christ like savior who is of similar
make up, who actually can function as a
savior. But I have faith, that Christ will
come through for me, and for us all. xxxxx
There is a concern about anybody who is
against Christ, is an anti Christ, and who
could be the big anti Christ who will bring
about the end of the world as predicted in
the Bible. So that we must all be careful to
be just like Christ in our beliefs and actions
to avoid this. Kind of like 'simon says',
except it is 'Jesus says'. So that our
thoughts and beliefs are under societal
control and anything outside of what Jesus
says, is to be eliminated. Thinking for
ourselves is more difficult as anything that
is outside of what Jesus says, must be
disposed of. This may work out if Jesus
always has the correct answer as to how to
think and how to be; but even so, and
irregardless of that; we always have the
enactment of having to compare our
thoughts and actions to that of the current
view of Jesus, and eliminating that which is
not in line with that. The action to
eliminate involves the use of destruction,
(self destruction). That may work well
when what we destroy in ourselves, is also
destructive; but when we make a mistake
and are destructive to that which is not
destructive, then we have become the
perpetrators of destruction. When we use
destruction as a tool, it requires us to know
all and get it right all the time. And that is
a difficult tightrope act that few can follow.
But that is not what this anti Christ idea is
all about in reality, although it is what it
has become-that is Christianity patrolling
and policing your thoughts and dictating
how you are to think, lest you be labeled
and anti-Christ, and be disposed of.
Just what does it mean to be against Christ,
which is to be anti-Christ? When Christ
was alive, they condemned him and
persecuted him and his followers. That is
what it means to be an anti-Christ: that is to
condemn and do harm (to Christ and his
followers). If I discuss the pros and cons,
mainly cons of some of the sexual
regulations; that doesn't mean I have
condemned Christ.
Now there are those who condemn and do
harm to Christ and his followers, and there
are also religious people who condemn and
do harm to those who they may say are
anti-Christ or who they may say are
heathen or blasphemers (recall the
inquisition). And I guess we could call
these people anti anti-Christs. What I
would like to point out is where does Christ
fit into this picture? Christ never
condemned anyone. That is a line that can
be drawn. All these people, the anti
-Christs, and the anti anti-Christs all
condemned someone. But there is another
position outside of both of these; and that is
to not condemn and not to be destructive to
another, which by the way is the side of the
line Christ is on. Any of these (either the
anti-Christs or the anti anti-Christs) could
be the big anti-Christ. But by choosing to
not condemn or be destructive to others,
including any 'bad Christ', I put myself
outside this anti-Christ, and anti anti-Christ
destructiveness.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
One can find Biblical condemnations of
how God condemns homosexuals, and
fornicators and adulterers, and how any
lustful feelings are guilty of adultery. So I
could say it seems God condemns all forms
of human sexuality. And if we look at it
from this angle, there may be some truth in
it. You see, in order for a part of us to
become a high part and to join God, it
would have to outgrow and escape the
imperfect human sex drive. So that
perhaps what is being said here is that God
condemns these forms of sexuality from
Himself: -that anyone who would claim to
be God, or a high part in God would be
required to have gotten beyond the
imperfect human sex drive. And this is
true, that imperfect human activities are to
be kept separate from perfect high parts.
But if a person is willing to come out and
admit that they are not God; that they are
less than God, that they are not perfect, and
that they are instead human; then I think it
might be possible that these condemnations
do not apply to them, as they were only
meant for those who would be God, or part
of the high God. Yes, it is not totally
inaccurate to say that a God who condemns
forms of sexuality in just the Godly area, is
a God who has condemned these forms of
sexuality (without mentioning it is just over
the Godly area, and does not include the
human area). Because if one says that God
condemns forms of sexuality in the human
area, then it draws God into being part of
the imperfect human area by this need to
police the human area; and that just doesn't
happen. And it is instead the Jesus entity
who acts to keep the human stuff away
from the high parts, and also casts off all
bad parts off of the human stuff in a 3
dimensional sorting.
For the Jesus entity to
condemn human sexuality in humans as all
bad, is just inaccurate because human
sexuality from the human sex drive, is one
of those human things that is neither all
destructive nor all good. -That even we
weak and imperfect humans can see that
the sexuality that comes from within us
imperfect humans, is neither all destructive
nor all good. And that to label it as such, is
just inaccurate, and is part of the 2
dimensional sorting that is flawed. So that
when some religious humans claim these
things about God condemning human
sexuality in humans; even we weak and
imperfect humans know this is inaccurate,
and if we believe it were true then we
thereby believe that God is also inaccurate
and flawed, giving us a queezy feeling, and
an aversion to these religious people. So
that my interpretation of these
condemnations of sexuality in the Bible, is
that it is for marking off a separation
between that which is high Godly area, and
that which is human area; and that this part
of the human area is to stay away from the
high Godly area; and that is all it is for.
And that within the human area, these
sexual things are in their place and are, as
all human things are -neither all bad nor all
good; and are certainly not absolutely
condemned. -that this Biblical
condemnation does not apply here and was
not meant to apply here. And to those who
would insist that it does apply to us as
humans; just shows me how 2 dimensional
they are and how I do not go along with
that, because if I did, that would just
degrade and defile God, the persona and
attributes of the most high God. Because
God does not act 2 dimensionally as these
do. Xxxxxxx
At first we start with a kind and gentle man,
Jesus Christ, who reportedly healed many
of sickness, and overcame death.
How then does that translate into this end
where we end up with a controlling
influence over us all whereby if we don't
do and think the way Jesus says, then we
are condemned? Now this forces Jesus to
get it right every time. -(And apparently,
the right response is to remove oneself and
become separate from the evils in worship
and religion; and to contact one's followers
through one's spirit; outside the evils of
worship and religion: and that is where
love, God's love is.) -(This is an example of
how God does not condemn these
imperfect human things in the human area
(that is, religion and worship) and allows
them to exist in the human area, while still
keeping them out and away from the Godly
area.)
Because of this
threat of condemnation over our head all
the time, a destructive factor is placed upon
us to eliminate all that is outside of what
Jesus says. Because destructiveness is used
against that which is bad (ie, that which is
outside of Jesus), this forces Jesus to get it
right all the time, otherwise destruction is
done to us. And when there comes up
issues about what Jesus wants for our
sexuality where on one hand some say
Jesus condemns human sexuality, but
others say, no, Jesus just keeps human
sexuality away from entering into the
kingdom of heaven. Well, the idea is that
when the Bible says the adulterers,
fornicators, homosexuals, idolaters, etc
won't enter the kingdom of heaven; some
people react to that to think that these
people will be condemned because
everybody wants to get into heaven, and if
you don't make it to heaven then you are
then going to hell where you will be
tortured and tormented for eternity -a fate
worse than death. But on the other hand;
this same denial of fornicators, adulterers,
etc, from entering heaven, can just be a
separation of that which is godly, from that
which is imperfectly human (and of course,
fornication, adultery, etc, represents the
imperfect human sex drive, which is part of
human things). Some people apply a 2
dimensional sorting to this, but with a 3
dimensional sorting of this, things work out
quite differently. The fact that imperfect
human things are sorted away from perfect
heaven and God, does not condemn them,
but helps them. So that in one way of
thinking, one may think Jesus wants us to
eliminate these imperfect human activities
of the human sex drive; while in another
way of thinking, one may think it is best to
allow a medium amount of these imperfect
human sexual things in a human area, as
the best way for these things to escape their
imperfect humanity and pass to perfect
heaven and God; and think that this is the
way Jesus wants it. So that if we don't
know exactly what Jesus wants here, then
we are always in risk of being condemned
according to this condemning paradigm
that has grown up around Jesus for not
aligning yourself completely with Jesus.
What I say is a problem, is this
condemning paradigm about aligning
yourself completely with Jesus, itself. The
problem is due to the destructiveness it
holds near to us all. It is destructiveness
itself that is the enemy and the problem;
and this condemning paradigm contains a
heavy use of destructiveness, and is
therefore part of the problem. Remember,
Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who had
nothing to do with terrorizing people with
destructiveness if they didn't do what he
wanted. Now, on the contrary, roman
emperors WERE people who would cause
excessive destructivenesses to be done to
those who didn't do exactly what they said.
It appears that a roman influence has
overtaken the worship of this kind, gentle
and loving man, Jesus Christ, has taken
place. And if I were a follower of Jesus
Christ, (and I'm not saying I'm not), I
would be kind of upset, and would act to
remove (as non destructively as possible)
this destructive thing that surrounds
my(and perhaps your) fellowship/oneness
with this kind and gentle, loving man/God.
(Note that total oneness can be achieved
when we have all shared what we have
gained and are in the all equal and all self
sufficient part of a cycle. But when we are
in an unbalanced part of a cycle, that
oneness must be limited to a partial
oneness where there is some presence of an
individual entity for each individual.) xx
When the Bible says fornicators, adulterers,
homosexuals, etc won't enter the kingdom
of heaven; that is one action of sorting (into
two tiers or dimensions). The imperfect
human sex drive is kept separate from the
perfect Godly material, presumably by the
perfect human, Jesus. In a two dimensional
sorting, this leaves the imperfect human
material (that has both goodness and
destruction intertwined), to be together
with/tormented by the all-destructive
material. But if we go a step further and do
a 3 dimensional sorting, Jesus can do
another sorting action to sort the all
destructive material away from the
imperfect human material(which is partly
good and partly destructive), into a third
pile or tier. In this 3 dimensional sorting,
the human material isn't tormented, (and I
say, generates material that escapes the
human area, finds perfection, and joins
God; a small percentage of that material
coming back down and joining Jesus): and
the all destructive material self eliminates.
Because when the all-destructive material
(that was sorted off the human material in
the 3 dimensional sorting) doesn't have the
good from human material to feed off of, it
self eliminates. Xx
Some of us discover that we are humans
and not Gods, and that we have imperfect
sexual things from our imperfect sex drive
in us that we were born with. We then think
and fear that we won't make it into heaven
(because of them); so try to hide and
eliminate this very human part of
ourselves; and this reflects the two
dimensional sorting mentality where that
which doesn't make it into heaven is
tormented and eternally burned in hell. But
with a 3 dimensional sorting mentality; if
one happens to be an imperfect human, one
needn't fear what and who they are, but can
allow the 3 dimensional sorting actions to
act positively and beneficially upon them;
and not suffer blame and torment for who
they are; and not to be scapegoated as the
cause of the entire human condition as a
response to that condition(their only crime
being born into it as an imperfect human);
-scapegoating, which does nothing to fix or
improve that condition; as opposed to
fixing and improving that condition (which
is what 3 dimensional sorting does)!
Shame on you two dimensional religious
people. Xxx
And then it is these same two dimensional
people who think you are a lower life form
than they are because you appear not to
have left your imperfect human things,
while they are therefore above you;
themselves being more Godly. And they
then try to treat you lower on an economic
scale by suggesting that you have had your
fun and now its their turn for you to serve
them and be their servant so that they can
have their fun, (as we are all allocated
equal shares of fun), in an economic
system.
They further emphasize that they are a
superior being over you by pointing out
how since you haven't left your human
things, that you are devoid of godly things
and are thus a burden and a freeloader on
the rest of godly society, and how much
you owe and are indebted to them.
Well, speaking of voids; we humans use
those human things to partially fill those
voids; and when they try to point out that
we have voids in the godly area, because
we have been sorted out of the godly area
due to our mild use of human things; we
just realize the inaccuracy of this
by realizing that not only can we enjoy life
on the human plane, (because our Jesus
representation has cast off any all-evils that
would attack us in our mild use of human
things); that we also generate a robust
amount of material into the godly plane
from the material that naturally escapes
there from our mild doing of human things;
(which also delivers its small percentage to
our Jesus representation which then keeps
our human plane safe from attacks from
all-evils). So that it is actually these poor
sorry saps who are into holier than thou 2
dimensional sorting, that find themselves
wanting, who are now NOT able to turn that
lack of satisfaction into an advantage by
trying to convince us it is their turn over us
because they have refrained from enjoying
any human things. We realize now that
what they need to do, is just help
themselves and indulge in a mild doing of
human things also, and quit trying to
achieve this holier than thou status through
as humans, eliminating of all doing of
human things from the human area.
Important insert:
In Christianity, mention is made of those
with eyes who do not see, and those with
ears who do not hear. But coming to
Judism, Christianity, Islam, and secular
tabloid newspapers with some creep into
the regular news: those with brains who do
not think.
We have an activity, of sorting; -of sorting
that which is good into its own kind, and
that which is destructive, or evil, into its
own kind. And in areas that can be sorted
completely into that which is good vs that
which is destructive; this sorting activity
works well to advance goodness over
destruction; as that which is all destructive,
self consumes while that which is all good,
survives, when these forces are separate.
But what do we to do with human areas
and actions that have goodness and
destruction intertwined in the same action;
which do both good and destruction
inseparably from the same action (to
different areas)? What do we do with these
human actions, concerning our activity of
sorting? What if we realize that there are 3
types of things: -1, those things that are
mostly all good; -2, those things that are
mostly all destructive; and 3, those things
that are hopelessly both good and
destructive intertwined. Then we could,
possibly, apply a 3 tiered structure to our
sorting activities.
But what if we instead, denied the natural
trinity of our situation, and applied only a
two dimensional sorting action to our
situation anyway? We could take an
imperfect human action with good and
destruction intertwined, like the
reproductive drive area (an area that has a
large influence because it effects us all),
and we could sort some of it as good and
some of it as bad. We could sort those who
didn't cheat into the good side as a holy
estate ordained by God; while we could
sort those who did cheat to the bad side;
and so enact a 2 tier structure to our sorting
activities. (But what is so great about
forcing a 2 dimensional solution upon a 3
dimensional reality?) Since the reality of
our situation is that the human reproductive
area is one with good and destruction
hopelessly intertwined; what we would
have done is to corrupt the all-good side
with the destructive part from the holy
estate ordained by God that is sorted to the
all-good side; and also provided the evil in
the all-bad side a source of good to feed off
of, from the good of human material that
was sorted to the all bad side, so that the
evil would then not self consume and die.
So that the benefits that could possibly be
achieved from doing sorting activities;
would in actuality, not be achieved; thus
making our sorting activities unproductive
and of no account.
So that when a person idles their mind and
applies a 2 dimensional sorting action to a
3 dimensional reality, is it any wonder
things don't work out so well and this area
continues to be problematic.
Realize that when we take a human action
or part of a human action (it still has both
good and bad intertwined), and sort it to
either the all-bad side, or the all-good side,
that we have done an inaccurate sort action,
because we have just added some good to
the all-bad, so that it is no longer all bad; or
have added some bad to the all-good, so
that it may no longer be all good, and may
even burn it down in a firestorm. Xx
One might be able to believe that short
sighted old men would come up with these
crappy 2 dimensional solutions; but one
would expect God to be beyond that. And
with the inclusion of Jesus Christ; 2
dimensional thinking can expand into a 3 D
reality with a trinity that includes Jesus
Christ; as it was Jesus Christ who took a
stand by not condemning the woman taken
in adultery; while short sighted religious
and secular men, even to this day, did/do.
Unless you are as powerful as God, and are
able to sort all things into all good vs all
bad, then as humans, we must place what
we are not able to separate into all good vs
all bad, into a third pile. (end insert) Xxxx
Now when religion condemns us as humans
for our use of imperfect human things,
(which is what our imperfect human sex
drive that we were born with, is); that
condemnation is a totally all-destructive
thing; whereas the imperfect human thing
being destroyed, is a thing that has both
goodness and destruction intertwined. If
we were to act from a Jesus representation,
we would sort the all destructive thing, the
condemnation, off of the human thing, that
was being condemned. But even though
they are two different types of things (the
human thing; and the condemnation
destroying the human thing, that is), some
2 dimensional religious people may say, 'so
what'; that's the way my God wants it, and
that's the way it shall be! So, let us see the
result of a 2 dimensional all-destructive
condemnation upon our imperfect human
things. Well, after the condemnation
destroys our doing of the human thing,
there is a void and a nothingness in this
area. We are still human (the part of us
which is still alive and not destroyed), and
are still under the human condition, so that
the void in the doing of this human action
where the condemnation had destroyed; is a
doing of a totally 'off' or abstinent setting,
of that human action. And under the
human condition, both goodness and
destruction results; goodness results in
some areas while destruction results in
other areas, to the extent that the 'some
areas' become rich, while the 'other areas'
become barren; (because this is an
imperfect human area where both goodness
and destruction occur no matter what we
do, just in different areas). And this
polarized situation is not conducive to the
remaining human material advancing to be
high parts, and we find ourselves now
trapped in the human configuration (as a
result of their condemnation).
Now if we rebel, and replace what they
destroyed with the doing of the material
they destroyed, (and use our Jesus
representation to cast off their
condemnations and sort them away into an
all-destructive pile); then we will be doing a
'full on' doing of the human material, which
results in the 'some areas' going barren and
the 'other areas' being made rich; and this
also traps us in our human material from
advancing to high parts; not right away, but
after a time after moving away from the
destructive condemnation; so that we find
ourselves needing that (full off) religious
destructive condemnation of our human
thing periodically, and then rebelling
against it and doing our human thing full
on, so that we cycle about a middle ground
level of doing this human thing. So that we
retain this destructive religious
condemnation to allow us to function and
be able to let our human material advance
to be high parts.
However, if we instead, replace the void
area (where the religious condemnation
destroyed), with a mild doing of the human
action that combines a balance between the
full 'off' of abstinence with the full 'on'
doing of the human thing; then the 'some
areas' would find themselves at a medium
level between richness and barrenness, as
would also the 'other areas'; and our
remaining human material WOULD
advance into being high godly material;
(from which a percentage would replenish
our Jesus representation), which would then
be powerful enough to cast off the all
-destructive 2 dimensional religious
condemnation.
Now with the all-destructive material such
as their condemnation, being sorted in a 3
dimensional sorting into a 3rd pile; it is all
by itself with no human material to feed
off; it thus self consumes.
With no life available representing the all
-destructive, there is no all-destructive life
to carry out the condemnations demanded
by the 2 dimensional religious people, and
their will is not done. Of course, if we
allow ourselves to live under a 2
dimensional religious world, then we allow
the all-destructive to have human material
to feed off of so that there will be plenty of
all-destructive condemnation available to
destroy our human material when we need
that destroyed. But not all of us choose to
live under such a system; and because that
system makes heavy use of destruction, (in
the all-destructive condemnings of human
material); that system is under a less
powerful god than a system that doesn't use
such destruction, because destruction
brings one down and one's system down.
Realize that a 2 dimensional system of
sorting is non functional and doesn't
advance goodness over destructiveness,
whereas a 3 dimensional religious system,
IS functional in the area of advancing
goodness over destruction; as when all
-destructive material/condemnation is truly
alone (with no human material to feed off
of), it does self consume, and is no longer
there. And when goodness is advanced
over destruction, that system is more
powerful. Xx
Note that just because you do what your
told and be faithful and don't cheat, or that
religion destroys in you, parts of your
human self; doesn't change or heal or fix
that this is still a human area that is
imperfect, that has both good and
destruction hopelessly intertwined: -and
needs to be done at medium level, between
full on and full off.
So that when 2 dimensional religion
destroys some of your doing of imperfect
human things; don't let that void stand in
the full 'off' mode: go right away and with
your Jesus representation, fill it with a mild
doing of your human thing that balances
the full off against the full on doing of that
human thing; and defend that mild doing
against further destruction by casting off
the all-destructive condemnation into a 3rd
pile containing all that is all-destructive; as
non destructively as possible(so that your
sorting action itself won't be sorted to the
all-destructive pile). By thus enacting a 3
dimensional sorting, you will overcome the
attempts at 2 dimensional sorting done to
you. And you will be part of a 3
dimensional system that is functional at
favoring goodness over destruction; and
not a part of a pretend 2 dimensional
religious system that is non functional. Xx
When we find our human selves being
attacked for not achieving enough or when
we are thinking of attacking our human self
for not achieving enough; realize that our
human self is a valuable piece of life(do not
forget that that imperfect human life is
valuable and that without it, these other
productive actions have little to no
meaning)that is an imperfect human
material that has an all-destructive thing
(the attack) that is together with it. To
neglect sorting that attack away because
one is trying to divert resources into trying
to do some other productive thing; is a
wrong response. Because allowing the all
-destructive attack to feed on imperfect
human material, not only feeds that all
destructive attack allowing it to
grow/exist; it also brings the human
material towards barrenness; which is a
wrong action because the human material
needs to be at medium ability to allow its
material to grow to escape its internal evil
to join the high parts (this medium level,
being what human material naturally
produces when experiencing what itself
produces (when not under any outside all
-destructive attacks)) -(so that just having
one's human material free of attack and at
medium ability, IS a productive end in
itself; (allowing its material to escape its
internal evil and join high parts)) whereas
at barrenness (which is the result of an all
evil attack together with and upon human
material), the human material is unable to
grow into freedom from its internal evil
and escape to the high parts. So in the
sharing between the individual entity and
the societal entity, the circumstances must
be pretty dire with the societal entity also
under 'a human condition' (and the societal
entity is usually never under a human
condition, but is always rich from receiving
the best parts from its unbalanced
individuals) for the individual to even
consider such a sacrifice of their internal
productiveness; (and if so, that SHARED
sacrifice is not at the same high percentage
that the individual entity normally delivers
to the societal entity), as a society cannot
advance with destructiveness tormenting
and feeding on its individuals. And if a
society is just trying to improve its
production, or competing to do so; that isn't
reason enough to take such a wastefull
action toward the individual's internal
productivity, as the individual person is a
much more valuable entity than any of the
things this individual could produce (who's
only purpose is to enhance the lives of
other individuals; -products which are
worthless at doing that if an individual is in
torment in order to produce these things. It
is the individual in torment that holds the
greatest value in reversing that torment,
with these other things of much less value:
from any perspective -either the individual
under torment, or the whole societal entity.
So that the individual under torment is
almost always right to cast off these
tormenting attacks, whether or not their
societal entity agrees. Because feeding the
destructive force is never a wise course. So
that it is the all destructive attack that needs
to be cast off the human material in order to
make it productive; and not that that human
material needs to be attacked to motivate it
to be productive. Human material should
experience what it produces and reap what
it sows (which is a medium level
environment); and should not be prevented
from experiencing itself by being altered by
an all-destructive attack, that may come in
the guise of being a motivating force to
favor productive actions; but that in reality;
is counterproductive to that. Because by
feeding destruction and not letting
destruction eliminate itself; just brings us
all down. Allowing an attack to be with
our human material allows evil to be fed
and grow. That evil should not be fed with
additional actions of doing anything
productive. Recall that in an all-evil
situation, we do no work, so as not to feed
at all, this all-evil. So that the right thing to
do when our human area is under attack; is
to actively shut off and stop any doing of
anything else productive, so as not to feed
the all destructive attack with that
productive material; and single mindedly
do a 3-D sorting action to remove the all
destructive attack away from ones human
material to a 3rd pile that is away/separate
from ones human material. (Once the all
destructive condemnation is separate and
alone by itself, it self consumes and
disappears.) And once that is done,
when/if one is successful at sorting away
the all destructive; one then reverses one's
stance of actively suppressing any other
productive activity; to now being open to a
medium amount of productive activities,
because now the situation is no longer all
evil, but now has some good. And one can
then do some degree of other productive
activities that one finds interesting while
under the situation where ones human
material is free or separate from any
attacks.xx
(Realize that doing our human actions at,
(or cycling about), medium ability is a
separate thing from our sorting-3D (or 2D);
and it is a choice that we choose in addition
to our sorting actions. And it is a choice we
choose, oftentimes against being coerced or
enticed by others to make those areas
barren or rich.)xx
Most of the time, the societal entity is rich
since it receives the best from each of its
individuals. But if a society contains evils
it needs to work out within it, then that
society doesn't want to be at rich, but
instead at medium ability. Now a society
can achieve this medium ability by
squandering its richness down to medium.
Note that a foolish society may cast off
some of its individuals. These individuals,
being imbalanced and cut off from their
societal entity, languish, are barren or die.
Usually the societal entity is rich, but
when a society does this, it can bring itself
down to medium ability since it looses
what these individuals were specialized in.
This is great for this society as its able to
work out its evils in medium ability. And
as for the individuals who are lost; well, it
doesn't care about them anyway, and they
serve to be a lesson to the rest what will
happen if they step out of line. But just
think: this society has taken on the role of
the individual. When trying to solve the
problems of life, this society makes only
one try; whereas individuals who've been
cast out can get together to form a society
of many (medium ability) individuals who
try out MANY possibilities simultaneously.
The (rich)society they comprise is thus
better able to solve new problems; and is
also rich; so this society can
outgrow/overcome the limited societies that
chooses to (take the position of the
individual (at medium ability) by) casting
off many of its individuals into
barrenness. -Who instead can escape that
intended fate to become a better society
that replaces it. So that even when a
society is in a human condition, it is still
right for the individual to cast off evil
attacks that would bring it to barrenness, if
that society has brought itself to a human
condition and medium ability due to
foolishly squandering its individuals.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been told there is a soul mate, one
spouse who is just for me. -Now, when
people are being generated who are ever
more different and ever more unbalanced;
it is true that there are fewer and fewer
people who are similar to me, so that it can
be said that there is just one person who is
best compatible with me, having the same
like interests as me. But for me to marry
this person and enjoy our lives together,
and have (many) children with, just
perpetuates this tendency towards
unbalance and elimination of the individual
entity for the sake of the societal entity.
Seeing that this isn't what we need at this
point; I thus avoid doing this. Xx
In the relationship with my spouse, I cater
only to her, and vice versa; and we seem to
indicate by this that we are the only people
who matter. But reality check: we are but
two of many people, all of more or less
equal value. And the denial of the worth of
all these other people is a false reality, one
that is not true. One that is also unbalanced.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me rehash this stuff a little bit.
When people get married and have kids,
they have to spend a lifetime or a long time
together. It helps if they have common
interests (ie, they are pretty much the same)
so that they can enjoy their time together.
This puts quite a persuasive incentive to
find someone who is similar. So that when
similar or the same people hook up, this
leaves dissimilar people Not hooked up. So
that differences fester and grow so that
eventually in a population, different groups
of people are generated, each being good in
different areas, to the extent the genetics
allow. From this, a societal entity forms
whereby a person who is good in one area
but deficient in other areas, is not weeded
out, but can survive by joining the societal
entity. People can specialize and develop
their good area extensively while letting
their other areas slide; and together with
everyone else, who also specialize in each
respective area, can make a competent
societal whole. But resulting from this is
that no one person is competent to satisfy
their mate; that there are 2 sources of need
satisfying; that compete. Some may seek a
mate based on complimenting (ie, not the
same) skills so they may improve
satisfaction of their needs from the
societal angle, but at the same time, give up
compatibility and enjoy their time together
less. ie, when one marries for money. This
allows for some putting back together of
the different specialized areas.
And also, when people get together
for a short while and then divorce, who are
not necessarily compatible but just
attracted, this also allows for more mixing
and putting back together of the different
areas. So that the absolute directive to take
away from the individual area and give to
the societal area, certainly is slowed; and
perhaps would be enough to prevent the
absolute/complete raiding of the individual
entity for the benefit of the societal entity.
Xxxxxxxx
Let me go over this again in a bit more
depth of analysis: One is required to spend
their whole life with their mate in sexual
exclusivity if one follows through with the
conservative way. When people are young,
sexual attraction occurs and boys and girls
pair up. Most of the time they are not
compatible; that is they don't share the
same interests and are not the same. These
then break up and soon after, move on to
another partner. Eventually partners find
themselves with people of similar interests,
who are pretty much the same (ie
compatible); and these people then take the
plunge and get married. (In this insert,
some say that opposites attract. But perhaps
what is going on instead, is that there is a
sexual attraction between most men and
women, and that when they pair up, most
of the time they are different, or
'opposite', while only occasionally do pairs
contain similar people.)
Because the requirements of sexual morality
require us to at least make an attempt to
live with a partner for a long time in sexual
exclusivity; this favors people who are
alike to come together, so that they may
enjoy their long time together pursuing
common interests; thus leaving people not
alike, ie, different, as being left apart and
not connected sexually/genetically. As a
society specializes and its individuals
become unbalanced -that is, they are good
in one area, -maximized in tune with one
area; but deficient in all the other areas: this
provides another need/need satisfaction
source (in addition to the reproductive
drive need and need satisfaction source).
That is, an individual needs to participate in
their society, giving of their good area so
that they may receive their small shares of
the Many(more than 2) other good areas
supplied by Many other unbalanced
individuals (who are also maximized in
their own respective and different good
areas); and thereby satisfy each others
needs (other than sexual) as a societally
competent whole. As a society continues to
specialize, the number of different areas
(manned by individuals who are good in
each particular area) grows well beyond 2.
So that if a person was thinking of giving
up similarity in a mate in order to join a
mate with complimentary skills; this
wouldn't work out well because 2 skill areas
does not a society make. And the society
way would do a much better job at
supplying needs through combining the
skills of a multitude of skill areas (supplied
by individuals) much greater than 2. No,
better a person find someone of like skills
for a mate, and they can both work on
improving their performance in their one
good skill area and thus get better
recognition and pay from their job (joining
with the societal entity and through their
societal connection). And at the same time
they can enjoy each other's like interests.
But what if a person is at the top of the
heap in their good skill area, and already
has good pay? Well, with those needs
satisfied, the only need left is the
reproductive drive. Here, finding someone
of like mind/ability/interests allows this
couple to enjoy their greater command of
resources (from society) together. So, we
see an uninterrupted directive to ever
increase specialization and sacrifice the
individual entity to benefit the societal
entity, so far. However, in some ideas
about good vs evil; life vs destruction, we
will see that meanness and cruelty doesn't
get along with itself. They are the same,
yes, but two mean people, being mean to
each other, do not get along and are not
compatible. Perhaps if they can direct their
meanness to others, they can get along, but
this can be tentative at best, as mean,
competitive people often go after each
other to establish who is dominant. So that
pairing of like people who are
mean/competitive, does not provide
satisfaction in the traditional morality
concerning satisfaction of the sex drive.
These dominant ones find submissive ones
to dominate, and they are not the same, do
not share the same mind, and once the
sexual need is satisfied, they have a lot of
time on their hands with little in common
to do. And there is no harmony here
concerning the traditional way. The societal
way of satisfying other needs, is the only
way that does work for these people. They
are often at the top of their heap and make
good money. It is in the marital area where
things are problematic. Since the traditional
way in the sexual area doesn't work for
these people, they are tempted to model
this area after the way that does work for
them -the societal way. They are thus
tempted to add the sexual area and treat it
the same way other needs are handled by
the societal area. -That is to have the input
of many different people each contributing
their best skill, not just 2 people. This
means multiple partners, maybe a girl in
every port; divorce, bigamy, going from
one mate to another in rapid succession,
etc. It is these kinds of behaviors that mix
the genes, and prevent absolute sacrifice of
the individual entity to the societal entity,
thus saving our ass!
It is odd how a religion based on love and
kindness depends on meanness and mean
and competitive people to save its ass/ our
ass.xxx Opposites attract:
But then one day I was made to reconsider
my stance on this; but not that it changed
much. Men and women are different (or
opposite) (thus they are good at different
things) , and as such they compliment each
other. This probably is the very basis of
the attraction between men and women.
And continuing on with opposites attract,
we would then think that a woman who
was unlike her man would thereby
compliment him; and this may be the very
basis of additional attraction here. But
because of societal specialization; a person
needs many more than just 2 areas done
well; this couple also finds itself wanting at
being satisfied, or balanced and self
sufficient, which leaves areas unfilled so
that there is always potential attraction to
even different partners for the unfilled
needs that they could fill; so that couples
often split up and chase other partners;
chasing after that attraction(due to
attraction to different differences of other
complimentary partners) in an endless
chasing that can never be filled, due to it
takes more than 2 skill areas done well to
satisfy a human being. And it is this
endless chasing of attraction that thus saves
our ass by getting us to mix with different
partners (who are different), thus putting
genetic differences back together through
mating and offspring.
Note however that these partners that we are
attracted to (due to how they compliment
where we are deficient in (due to our
differences and our unbalanced states)); are
not people who we make strong
connections with. Since they are so good
at where we are feeble at, and vice versa;
there is little togetherness of mind or joint
achievement.
But woe to us who through attraction
between the sexes, (due to the
complimenting differences from being
male and female) are led to join with a
mate who is otherwise similar to us. Here
the pair can and do work together and build
joint achievements together, bonding them
together in a lasting bond. They will
always experience the fleeting attractions
to others, but are taught by religion that this
is the carnal man which is to be put to
death. This long term partnership with a
similar spouse is the type of thing that the
marriage rules and religion encourages and
what also ultimately will result in our
demise if taken to extreme and
absoluteness. So it is the attractions people
feel towards others who are different (or
opposite); which cause them to chase after
an unachievable satisfaction so that they do
a serial line of partners attempting to satisfy
these attractions (the woman at the well
who had 5 husbands and the man she was
living with now was not her husband; is the
biblical example): these attractions cause
some of us to violate the absolute directive
of enactment of the marriage rules;
allowing for genetic mixing and putting
back together genetic differences in the
offspring produced between these
DIFFERENT (and thus maximally attracted
people); thus saving our ass; (even though
the individual never finds and never will
find total or complete satisfaction by
chasing these attractions with any one
partner).
So it is these occasional violations
of the marriage rule that are valuable and
are needed to keep our society healthy.
Note that when a society starts out with
self sufficient individuals, they all do all
areas fairly well, and are all similar; so that
because they are not different or opposite;
there isn't much attraction. But as a society
specializes and individuals do one area
really well (while the other areas not so
well); everyones good area serves to attract
each other due to immense differences
between people and hence greater
attraction due to these differences or
'opposites'. So that as individuals become
more unbalanced and specialized; attraction
grows; and normally this would act as a
check (as in checks and balances) to cause
these unbalanced individuals to mix back
together and combine their differences.
However, if a religious dogma keeps them
from doing that, then this check and
balance fails and they continue on into ever
more imbalance, and also greater attraction
that they must resist.
(This attraction, which comes from people's
differences complimenting each other;
begins with the differences between men
and women, and does continue on in a
societal entity of many unbalanced people,
each good at a different area where the
many different good areas are put together
to make a competent and satisfying societal
whole. Where does the other thing, the one
man one woman thing, fit into this?)
It is the marriage rule and religion that
encourages and incentivizes like couples to
get together long term in spite of the
reduction in attraction (and penalizes those
who chase their attractions too much) as it
is these like people who can make it work
long term; while the maximally attracted
people, (the people more into following
their attractions), find that they can't stay
together long term. Ex: the woman at the
well. So, yes, opposites do attract, and
differences do cause attractions; but these
attractions don't help relationships last long
term. -Because there is no joint
achievements or joint entity, but only
onesidedness where each person dominates
completely where they are good at and
their partner is poor at in their
complimentary relationship.
-And because once humans become too
specialized; no one mate can satisfy due to
too many areas going unsatisfied due to it
takes the good areas of many more than 2
people to completely satisfy; so that one
must hop from partner to partner to even
approach this satisfaction; which totally
violates the marriage rule.
So that religion and the marriage rule
still do the things that I said and still cause
the individuals generated to be increasingly
unbalanced over the generations; and still
need to be prevented from being enacted
absolutely in order to prevent absolute
elimination of the individual entity
resulting in end of the world scenarios.
And it is attraction itself that does this by
helping break up these long term
relationships between like people to bring
about the needed genetic mixing between
unlike/different/opposite people. We
therefore must take care that we don't
stamp out these violations of the marriage
rule in an absolute enforcement of the
marriage rule; as it is this that saves our
ass at this time.
Note that there still exists a 3 dimensional
sorting plan or religion which actually
works (to advance goodness over
destruction); which we can use within
ourselves* to our and everyone's benefit
*(as within ourselves there exists high parts
and human parts and also sometimes all
destructive parts): even though the pretend
religions of 2 dimensional sorting also exist
along side, but do not work.xx
Let me say that there is an exception. There
is one area that doesn't fit into this mating
scenario; where we do NOT allow different
parts of this area to get together and
compliment each other but instead insist on
like parts of this area to get together; even
if that means a loss of attraction due to
what this one area would contribute. Yes,
in the area of kindness and good vs
meaness and destructiveness, is this
exception where we do do the conservative
religious way, and do not mix the two
together so they would compliment each
other. If we did, that would allow larger
representations of both forces, since each
force supplies the input of the other force.
And with large amounts of life
representing these forces; that life would be
fodder for the force of destruction, as that
is its input. This setting would favor the
force of destruction. Also, nothing else
would get accomplished because whatever
the force of good accomplished would just
get knocked down soon after by the force
of destruction. So that setting would be a
total win for the force of destruction.
No, instead, we should do the setting
whereby we encourage like parts of this
area to get together. That is, nice and good
people should get together, and cruel/mean
people should also be left with each other.
Now we know mean people can't get along
together, so that spoils their fun as far as
any long term relationship. Since we avoid
putting mixed couples together as policy,
that also eliminates long term relationships
there. But what about kind, nice couples?
Here they would build up a rich area rich
in kindness and goodness with many joint
achievements that would bind them
together in the same mind. Having built up
this rich area, they would then find it
difficult to make additional improvements
within themselves, thus limiting their force
of good within themselves. Now let me
deal with these items one at a time.
Because they have built up a rich area, that
is often food for the force of destruction.
And since they are human, and have gotten
together on the basis of sexual attraction;
there is human evil nearby, which could
burn these rich areas down. However, the
sexual area and the concept of good vs evil
which can cover all areas; do not need to be
the same area. As individuals, we have all
good parts and human parts and we need to
have a system of keeping these parts
separate. (This is one part of 3 dimensional
sorting, (also included in 2 dimensional
sorting).) So that as a couple, rich, all good
areas can be built up outside of the sexual
area/other human areas, and be kept
separate from the human areas. While in
the human areas and the sexual area, these
can be kept at only medium level and not
richness. And when rich areas are kept
separate from the destructive force, they
do quite well, as it is only under the
unavoidable contact with the force of
destruction (as exists in human areas)
where we need to limit things down to
medium level and avoid generating rich
environments.
Now as for the building up rich areas only
within the couple; one can avoid that by
interacting with others outside the
boundary of the couple so that they spend
time away from each other, with others,
and do not build up an excessively rich area
just within their couple boundary, but
extend that building up richness to also
include other good people. And who says
they have to be monogamous within their
couple boundary; but instead be
monogamous just within the boundary of
all good people. (And if a good person is
forced by their desires to do the deed with
someone who is not good like they are,
then they should limit that connection with
that person to only a medium level of
human sexuality, and prevent their other
(good) areas from contacting the bad areas
of the other person.)
So then, if a good/kind couple is careful,
they CAN form a long term relationship; if
they do not extend their rich
goodness/kindness into their sexuality, (but
instead only extend medium level
goodness/kindness); and if they do not limit
their generating of richness to the evil free
areas of just themselves but also include
the evil free areas of others outside their
couple boundary.
Note that we maintain some form of a
couple boundary and it is not (necessarily)
a sexual free for all (although it could
almost be); but that that couple boundary is
not an absolute boundary.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this insert, I consider that jealousy is
from a fear of loosing one's significant
other, absolutely, due to the absolute nature
of the traditional morality. Because the
traditional morality is unlike the societal
way of need satisfying, in that it totally and
absolutely shuts out others from sharing in
one's mate's sexuality; one fears any
advances on one's mate by others may
cause one's mate to switch partners, and
thus exchange places so that one is now
absolutely shut out from one's former
mate. It is the absolute shutting out action
that brings this about. If sexuality were not
so absolute, the tensions would be eased,
and sharing could occur without jealousy,
overpowering jealousy. When we deliver
goods and services in our job, we don't
service just one person, but deliver/share
our goods/services to many people. If
sexuality were not so absolute, multiple
partners, and shared relationships would
occur; so that the loss of one lover would
not be as hard to take as in the absolute
world where one has only one lover, whose
loss results in the loss of all the love that
one has. Plus, does anyone person really
have the right to all of another person's
attentions?
Note that the sexual attraction one person
feels for another, causes them to value the
object of their feeling above all other
people; when in actuality, people are of
equal value; and we do treat them equally
when we are not under a sexual attraction
towards one of them. But when we are
under a sexual attraction to one of them,
this focuses our attention and valuation all
to that one person.
Now if we have sexual feelings for more
than one person, one might think this is
expressing more sexuality. But the most
sexuality one can express is being attracted
to just one person, because the nature of
sexual feeling, is to remove importance
from everyone else, and concentrate it to
this one person. If one removes importance
from everyone else, and concentrates it to a
group of people, that isn't as much of a
concentration. So the person who has
multiple partners, although they may think
they are being more sexual, in actuality,
they are being less sexual, due to the
concentrating nature of sexuality itself.
When a man and woman share their
affection with each other, they may think
that they enjoy that. What do you think?
Don't you think that men and women
sharing affection is an enjoyable thing? But
then they take a good thing that they enjoy
and limit it and put it under a box and
prevent it from expanding and keep it to
themselves. Now if one were to take the
good news of the gospel and hide it under a
basket and try to limit it, then religion
would be up in arms about that. But more
to the point, when women(men) refuse to
service all mankind's(womankind's) sex
drives except one partner, then there are a
lot of unsatisfied customers out there.
Women(men) may be attractive to
men(women) and some very much so, but
it is all just a tease unless one does submit
to the conservative breeding program that
could very well result in the apocalyptic
end of the world. I would ask the people
attracted here to realize that the
conservative way is a mostly all destructive
entity that does prey upon the imperfect
human area of sexual expression; and that
the sogp/jesus representation (explained
later) can and should (as non destructively
as possible), cast this mostly all evil out of/
off of, the human sexual area; so that our
sexual area tends towards medium ability,
out of barrenness and low ability. End insert.)
Xxxx
Note that although the people of Jesus' day
condemned the adulterous woman; note
that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous
woman; (while still keeping a separation
between the Godly and the human actions
when he said 'go and sin no more').
Now, when people of today work in their
jobs (so they can get paid so they can buy
things to satisfy their other needs (other
than sexual)), they are not absolute in their
action. They do not service just one
customer and deny all the other customers
their service. Instead, they give each
customer a little bit of their time and do
service many customers. But in the
satisfaction of the sexual area, this is NOT
how things are done. Instead, each person
satisfies only one customer, and leaves the
rest unsatisfied.
These two different ways of need
satisfaction are incompatible. For example,
if each worker were to pick one customer
and service only them, then most of the
work would not get done, and this system
would collapse and be unworkable.
But way back in the past, in little house on
the prairie days, when individuals were
more self sufficient, this actually would
work out. Each person would take care of
themselves and their spouse and their
family grouping, and leave the rest of the
world to fend for itself, just like they
fended for themselves. And when the
nearest neighbor was miles away, one man
one woman was how the sexual area was
done also. So that there was no dual or
conflicting ways of need satisfaction. It
was all the absolute way, the all or nothing
way, and each person did not service many
other people, but only their own family
grouping.
But not only is this way less efficient and
can be replaced by a way of societal entity
and individual entity balanced with each
other: That as I have explained; many
generations of one man one woman does
generate ever more unbalanced, and thus
less self sufficient individuals.
Yes, to start, a group of self sufficient
individuals or family units could choose to
isolate themselves from each other; and this
would favor one man one woman in the
sexual area.
But one man one woman generates ever
more unbalanced individuals. So that out of
necessity (due to the loss of self
sufficiency), a societal entity formed and
lessened the individual entity.
And from that group of self sufficient
individuals who chose to live in quasi
isolation from each other, and who did not
allow the sexual area to mix it up; they are
now forced to be a part of a societal entity
because they are no longer self sufficient,
but are now unbalanced. In this societal
entity there is no longer isolation, but many
people working together and intermixing.
From those interactions, more sexual
intermixing should follow, which thus halts
the ever advancing trend towards
unbalanced individuals. However,
sometimes a society clings to the one man
one woman theme due to religious
directives.
So that today, the only thing left of the self
sufficient/absolute way of need
satisfaction, is the sexual area; whereas all
the other need satisfactions are done with
the societal entity and no longer with the
self sufficient individual entity. But if the
societal way were applied to the sexual
area, then people would service many
others instead of just one other, and would
be called 'whores' and 'creepers' and
'rappers'.
Now when there is a balance between the
individual entity and the societal entity;
that is the best and most powerful system.
But as the one man one woman, absolute
self sufficient way persists in the
satisfaction of the sexual area; we continue
generating ever more unbalance, and
overshoot balance and end up with all
societal entity and no individual entity; and
that is a lesser state.
And when young women cling to this last
expression of the self sufficient individual/
absolute way in the sexual area, they thus
thereby eliminate completely any
individuality or individual expression
leaving only societal expression. Eve, put
down the apple(of religious rules).
Note how imperfect the area of human
mating/dating is. And that absolute
directives have no place in such an
imperfect human area. When the spouse
strays, note that imperfection. But also
note the imperfection of the other spouse
who stays true. Yes, following an
imperfect rule over the mating area, even if
one does so perfectly, does not make one
perfect, but just emulates the imperfection
within the rule itself. And when a rule
causes a society to overshoot the balance
between individuality and the societal
entity, to eliminate the individual entity;
and also, causes those following it to
become sources for evil; that is an
imperfect rule. Xxxxxx
In today's society, everyone is unbalanced
and not self sufficient. So that when a man
and woman love each other, they generate
an incomplete or unbalanced love. Now, if
one were to generate a complete love for a
complete spouse, that person would not
exist because self sufficient
spouses/individuals do not exist. But if one
generated this complete love anyway, and
then distributed the part that matched their
unbalanced spouse, then that would work
out well to bring multiple unbalanced loves
together into one complete love. And one
may go even further back and generate a
complete entity containing both male and
female essences, which then splits off the
needed parts for one's unbalanced love,
leaving the remnant for balance. And if
one is going to join multiple loves, one
needs to adjust the complete entity one
generates to contain much more of their
core or common self that will then become
multiple copies each copy distributed to be
part of each unbalanced love.
As people become more unbalanced, they
need to get together and each contribute
their best skills to form a competent and
balanced societal whole. We can think of
this like each person represents a part of the
societal body; like one person is an arm and
another is a hand and yet another is a foot,
etc. Now in the dating game, when a hand
gets together with a foot, they don't have
much in common and are thus incompatible
for a long term relationship. But when a
hand gets together with a hand, they do
share common interests and skills, and they
are compatible. However, all the
compatible pairs are of unbalanced
individuals; and the loves that they
generate for each other are all unbalanced.
And since they are acting as a couple, they
don't include others in to provide a
complete, balanced (societal) whole, (since
this is lovemaking/romance between the
couple, and the rest of society is not
allowed into this area). So that we end up
with hand love and foot love and arm love
etc, which are all unbalanced and
incomplete loves, each generating growths
in excess of what they need, and
experiencing shortages of raw materials
that they themselves cannot supply; -the
result of unbalanced growths.(in this area
of romance/love between the couple).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
GOOD VS EVIL:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider that
goodness, growth, and being kind to one
another, is a superior force over the force
of destruction, death, decay, and being
mean to each other.
(To do this, we consider all possibilities)
-Considering what'd happen if in a universe
with only the force of goodness-and
-growth:
-If in a universe where only the force of
death/destruction existed:
-Or if we were in a universe with both
forces. Here on earth we're in the situation
where both forces exist. But that doesn't
mean this is the only way, -that other
situations aren't possible.
Let's consider a universe of only the force
of destruction and death. As death
/destruction progress, they take whatever is
alive, and kill it, so that where life once
was, now exists (is produced) nothing and
nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to
dust. Pretty soon, life becomes in scarce
supply, while a whole lot of empty space
and inanimate material is left behind. After
awhile, all the life is killed, and then what?
With no life left to kill, the force of
destruction comes to a stop (no more
destroying can be done), because from
nothing, this force can go no further from
there. Here is a definite bottom to the
universe. The force of destructiveness
comes to a stop and cannot continue.
Now consider the force of good-and
-growth as being the only force around. As
this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless
matter (dust), and creates life in its place.
Soon everything starts to come alive. Pretty
soon we begin to run out of improvements
to make. Emptiness and undeveloped raw
material (dust) starts to come into short
supply. If everything is alive, then no more
growth/goodness can be done, and thus the
force of good is stopped, right? Well,
there's not so much an absolute ceiling, as
there is an absolute bottom. You see, life
forms can advance/be advanced and
become ever more capable and alive; and
this thus continues the force of good. And,
a universe that is alive (full of life), is very
capable -able to do lots of things, (unlike a
barren universe consisting of nothingness).
And with that life/capability, it can bridge
barriers and reach raw material (dust) that
had previously been separated from it by a
barrier.
Hence, the force of goodness and growth
can survive by itself much better than the
force of destruction/death can. This is an
advantage: -When the force of destruction
can be escaped from; (the good separated
from the destructive); that which is
destructive, when alone, burns itself out,
finds itself boxed in by barriers, and ceases
to exist; Whereas the good alone, survives,
bridges barriers, and continues to grow. Of
course when both forces are around, the
force of good generates life for the force of
destruction to feed on and destroy as it
survives. (and the force of death/decay
generates voids, which the force of good
uses as its starting material.) This is the
way things are here on earth. And both the
forces of; good, and destruction, have an
easy time finding material to work with
(compared to if they were alone). /(insert)
when the force of good is advanced to be
free of destruction, it is under more
pressure to cross barriers and find new raw
material for growth. Thus it needs the
individual entity even more so, and cannot
totally sacrifice the individual entity for the
societal entity here in the end, in perfection
anyway.(as the individual entities are
needed to try out all the possibilities to find
the solution to the next challenge to
growth)(end insert)/ xxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or
be either 'the force of good-and-growth', or
'the force of destruction'. The lack of life
can't do/be either force. Since what the
force of good produces is life, such life can
continue to do forces. But since what the
force of destruction produces is death and
nothingness and voids in life; since this
cannot do or support either force, then the
force of destruction alone is destined to a
quick end while the force of good and
growth alone is destined to continue.
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, since only life can do-be either
force: When destruction experiences what
it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't
grow, but instead shrinks to nothing. But
when goodness experiences what it
produces, (when goodness is good to itself)
it does not die, but instead, grows. So, the
force of destruction needs something other
than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force),
while the force of good does not and is self
sufficient with just itself. So that when
alone, good survives while destruction self
eliminates and vanishes. From this we can
see that good and growth, is a superior
force to the force of death and destruction.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Let us consider some situations, while
keeping in mind these truths:
-that it takes life and ability to do/be either
goodness, or destruction (and that lack-of
-life is unable to cause either of these
forces);
Inputs and outputs:
-that the force of destruction takes in that
which is alive as its input/raw material; and
produces voids-in-life / inanimate material
as its output, as what it produces.
-That the force of goodness/growth takes in
voids-in-life and inanimate material, as its
input/raw material; and produces -life- as
its output and what it produces.
With these concepts in mind let's consider
the situation of the force of destruction in a
rich environment. Not only does this force
have plenty of its raw material or input
(life), present here in the rich environment;
-destruction also has what supports what
either force is made of (which is also, life).
Thus here the force of death-and
-destruction can grow rapidly and become
quite large here, in a rich environment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this tangent, please consider that since
enforcing rules over the gray areas of living
life causes a patchwork of rich and barren
environments(rules structure and FIX
WHERE the good, and destruction,
respectively, of a gray action, are done):
my question is, why do we scrape together
these rich environments where there is the
force of destruction nearby -(as destruction
is inescapably a part of all gray actions at
our level of ability)?
This will just result in successive firestorms
where the gray actions' destructiveness
burns down the rich parts of the patchwork.
All this does is feed evil/destructiveness.
As for myself, I do not wish to succor and
feed the force of destructiveness. End tangent.)
(2ndinsert: When a man and woman share
their affection with each other, they may
think that they enjoy that.
What do you think? Do you think that men
and women sharing affection is an
enjoyable thing? -a force of good?
In the imperfect area of human sexuality,
some good and also some destruction are
generated. Why is this imperfect good
forced to live in a RICH area, where it has
a hard time finding its input
-voids/improvements to make, when there
is right next door, areas of barrenness that
it needs to make its goodness force active?
Why does one torture their imperfect good
this way? End 2nd insert.)
(Here is another important tangent:
Here on earth, we live with what is
destructive and also that which is good and
growing. In this respect, we often do
actions which contain both goodness and
growth and also destructiveness in the same
action.
These actions I would term 'human actions'
(also referred to as 'gray actions' ). These
human areas are hopelessly a mixture of
both goodness and destruction (at our level
of ability we're unable to separate the
forces), and there is no purity of action in
them, as they contain both goodness as well
as destructiveness inescapably intertwined
in the same action. These mainly center
around human hungers and needs. So that
whether or not a human action is done,
partially done, or refrained from; some
destruction is always present, just in
different areas. Like when we eat, this is
good for our survival, but at the same time,
destructive to some other life form's
survival as a plant or animal had to die to
provide this. And if we don't eat, this is
good for the surrounding plants and
animal's survival, but destructive to us as
we starve.
However, in our human world, not all
actions are these 'human' or 'gray' actions.
Some actions CAN be divided up
completely (or much more so), into all
good vs. all destructive parts. And it is
here, with these non human areas, there can
exist a purity of action as is not seen in the
human actions. Areas of all-good exist, as
well as do areas that are all destructive,
exist. However, when areas of purely all
destructive exist, they soon self consume
and disappear. So that only the areas of all
-good exist with such a purity of action.
Still, if that which is all-destructive can
find a human action, it can feed off the
good in the human action, and it won't have
to self consume. -(It can continue to exist
and not disappear.) So, when the all-good
casts off the all-destructive: -to achieve
purity of action; the all destructive actions
become as ravening wolves seeking to prey
upon human actions, feeding off the good
in human actions, so that they can survive
and won't self consume/die.
And who is going to save a human action
from being preyed upon by these all
destructive actions? It is true that the all
destructive action CAN be separated away
from the human action, (unlike the
destructiveness within the human action
that is part of the human action); but who is
going to do it? The all destructive action is
desperate, as its life depends on preying on
a human action, and so has apparently
overpowered the human action. An all
-good action might intervene and separate
an all-destructive action from a human
action; but if it did so it would spoil its
purity of action and it would no longer be
an all-good action. So that all-good actions
are reluctant to intervene to separate an all
-destructive action from its prey human
action, as they loose their purity of action
in doing so. So it would seem the all
destructive actions (although since they've
mixed with the human actions, are no
longer purely all destructive), have found a
way of survival and a continued food
source by preying on the human actions
and human hunger satisfying; thus making
the human world more towards the
destructive side; towards barrenness (which
preserves the togetherness of the good and
destructive within that human action, as
we'll see later). (Recall the parable of the
good Samaritan.) xxxxxxxxx
However, what about this plan: What if the
all-good actions split a small part of
themselves off to come and deal with this
situation, while leaving their major part of
themselves behind, still separate and still
maintaining their purity of action. (The
smaller part that split off would loose its
purity of action through it's intervening.)
The smaller part that split off would come
and separate the all-destructive part from
the human part so that the all destructive
part would finally self consume and die;
leaving the human action no longer preyed
upon by the all destructive action; so that it
tended not towards barrenness, but towards
medium ability. Thus evil/destruction
would be lessened and much eliminated by
this plan. Xxxxxxxxxx
This segment is skipable for the first read:
Now, in the human areas; when the smaller,
split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to medium
ability), in the vacuums (where there is
nothing and barrenness) caused by
destruction, even the destruction of rules
over human areas,(and even the
destructions that are part of the human
actions themselves): it is wise for this split
off part to limit its exposure to only the
human part it is presently
creating/generating, and not the rest of that
human area; even if this generated material
is eventually for the rest of that human
area. This is because this smaller, split off,
all good part can limit the loss of purity and
exposure to destruction, to just what is in
the human part it is generating. Once it is
done creating a piece of this material, it can
then withdraw itself and then allow the rest
of the human area to have possession/use
of it. So that the split off all good parts of
us can act to generate material in isolation,
and then shortly, to also act to release
pieces of that material away from itself and
this isolation, unto the rest of this human
area. In these coordinated set of actions that
build parts of human actions/things; once a
certain part has reached medium ability,
this part is no longer generated in isolation,
but other parts are, as the split off all good
does move onto these other parts that are in
need of being brought from nothingness to
medium level. The parts at medium level
that are no longer being generated, are still
participants in the rest of this human area,
and do receive what is released from
isolation; its just that they do not keep on
being generated; so that they do not move
then from medium level to high ability, (as
a result of this generating in isolation and
then release). Xxxxxxxxx
There may be a difference in when a part is
first being created, and when it is added to
in additional generatings. When the split
off good part (sogp) is first generating an
action, it may divide in two and leave the
part to be corrupted in human ways,
behind. In order to do this, it generates
even less than what is needed for medium
ability (in the whole); sort of like the
romantic gestures around valentines day,
which are small, but mean a lot. Then it
moves it all to the half of itself to be left
behind in human ways, thus concentrating
them. At this point they are now at medium
level. (If they had started at medium level,
the concentration into the half that was to
be left, would result in a high level, which
would burn down in the evil present in
human ways.) However, with subsequent
additions to this action, a more robust
doing unto medium level right away can be
done, as there now already exists a
platform and entity to deliver the generated
material to. End skipable segment.
Note that even if, for the sake of argument
say, it turns out that Christianity is a fraud
and that Jesus wasn't anybody special: note
that the structures of Christianity still exist
in our human world and in our universe and
within us, anyway; as some areas are more
easily all good vs all destructive, while
other areas have the destructive and the
good hopelessly intertwined in the same
action.
Where does Jesus fit in? If we take
the Biblical account, Jesus was from God,
(and is therefore rich). But Jesus also
received God's punishment for our sins,
unto death. But he survived it as he was
resurrected. So we can't say he is as high as
God because he also received God sized
punishment. But we can't say he represents
the low point either, because being of God,
he survived the punishment and was
resurrected. Somewhere in between the
high and the lowest points, I would say (the
Bible says somewhat below an angel). Here
we see an entity often in between the
highness of God, and the lowness of death
and nothingness or hell: -who
longstandingly represents humanity and the
in between, and the medium level; better
than any other mortal human ever could.
Xxxxxxx
It is our sogp(smaller split off part from our
all good areas) that then acts to separate
destructive parts away from human areas
that can be separated away; and to fill
vacuums in the human areas to medium
ability; and not done by our main-high-all
-good-parts which are separate and kept
away from the human area. So that if we
are waiting for God almighty to step in and
do this. No. It is the meek and smaller
Jesus representations that are here with us
in the human area, that do this instead.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For our high, all-good parts to be separate
from any/all evil, even the small evil
amount found in human actions; is a
helpful thing. But this directive to label
human appetites as sinful, and make a
distinction between the sinful and the all
pure; can be taken too far. Just because the
all-good needs to be kept ultra pure, doesn't
mean the human appetites and the human
area is valueless or to be discarded. -That
absolute values are applied to say that there
is nothing in the human appetite area worth
keeping. That is why we have a Jesus
representation to intercede between the
high-all-good parts of us, and our human
appetite parts.
Now, superseding all this, is the directive to
either sacrifice completely ones individual
components (for the good of the complete
whole-and-one's high good parts); or to
instead, grow BOTH the areas of ones
individual components, as well as one's
complete whole.
So we want to choose the second option,
and put this spin on all we do.
So that in one's high good area, we actively
generate this dual nature of growing both
the components, as well as the whole. Now
at the border of our Jesus representation, or
sogp, our high good parts are acting to not
go into this area (because destructiveness is
nearby), and are doing this action of
staying out of this area in the dual
generating way/spin, and actively so.
Now, with the Jesus representation, since it is made from small split off parts from the high parts, it has this dual generating already, and is how it comes naturally, without additional or active effort (if that is how we did our high parts)(since our Jesus representation comes from a small split off of our high parts). And our Jesus
representation acts to cast away any evils
away from our high parts (including
gray/human hunger evils); and also away
from itself, (save those which are gray,
which are part of human hungers); and also
casts away total evils out of gray, human
hunger materials/structures; and finally
generates to medium ability in vacuums
caused by destructivenesses. It is then in
these generatings to medium ability in the
vacuums that active dual spin `generating'
occurs once again. Xxxxx
Concerning the sogp generating to medium
ability in the gray areas; one might
consider that the sogp should generate to
medium ability in all possible gray areas
because these are all (supposedly)
legitimate areas for growth: and that
therefore, one's individual sogp
representation should also generate all
possible gray areas, even if one has no
hunger in some of these gray areas. But the
idea of a gray area is that some goodness is
obtained for the destruction that is also
generated. If you don't have a hunger or
need in a possible gray area, then by doing
the specific motions of that gray area, you
don't derive any satisfaction (or goodness)
from it, but the destruction is invariably
still done. Hence, if you don't have a
hunger or need in a possible gray area, then
it is not a gray area for you, but an all evil
area.
So that once your hunger is satisfied, you
don't continue feeding indefinitely, but do
stop feeding. Now, if a partner is involved
in a gray area hunger/feeding, one should
respect the partner's need to continue
feeding until satisfied; even though one is
right to stop their own feeding once one is
satisfied. But in areas where one
experiences hunger in, it is ok to generate
to medium ability after ones hunger has
been satisfied after finished material
has been spirited away to the all good,
leaving a complete vacuum in this gray
area, but now not so, since one generated to
medium ability before ending the feeding.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In this out of place insert, I was reading in
the philosophy section, and discovered the
argument about if there is evil in the world,
that proves that there is no benevolent, all
powerful omnipresent God. -That either he
wants to remove all evil, but can't (and is
therefore not all powerful); or he IS able,
but doesn't want to (making him
malevolent).
But my answer to this is that God IS dealing
with the evil in this world; and that the
situation we see today of God to be
nowhere in sight, with evil running freely
about with no almighty Godly intervention,
IS the process whereby God is successfully
dealing with all the evil. Because
evil/destruction is a parasitic force and not
self sufficient; by just leaving it alone, it
self eliminates. For an almighty or God the
Father to come down in power and
richness/love to confront evil/destruction,
would just provide the material for the
force of evil/destruction to grow. So that
Gods presence would just perpetuate and
encourage/grow evil. So to eliminate evil,
almighty God acts by staying away; and
sends a lesser powered representative,
Jesus Christ, to separate these all-evils off
human actions so the evil is totally isolated
and can self eliminate. -these evils that
keep popping up due to people's free will,
whereby they are learning to advance to be
more and more powerful as well as good.
Now because the moral evils perpetrated
by humans, demarks areas where God stays
away in his process of eliminating evil;
then natural destructions that occur in these
same areas don't change that. Hence
Christ's words about natural evils that the
people caught in them aren't any more
sinful than others, but that those not in him
will all likewise perish; indicating that
those who are in him, have the presence of
God to protect them; not on this earth, but
in that they die and are resurrected again in
perfection in him. So that from a
philosophical sense, there is no trouble
with the existence of an almighty
benevolent God; although He is
deliberately not omnipresent; as a tool to
remove evil.
However, God is omnipresent if you count
Jesus and the rest of us underlings who
work in the name of Jesus.
Now then; unfortunately, many who work
in the name of Jesus, have so irritated the
rest of us with their holier than though
behavior and inappropriate restriction of
the sex drive, that it is completely
understandable why some would try to
come up with a philosophical argument
against the existence of a benevolent God.
Its just that that is incorrect as I hope I
have eluded to. Not that it can be proven
absolutely that God exists. Where we
are at now, is that it isn't proven absolutely
either way whether God does exist or does
not exist. Gone is the proof that God does
not exist.
However, I think I have shown that
goodness/kindness is a superior force over
destructiveness; so that the odds are good
that a benevolent God does exist, and that
if not now, that one may exist in the future;
and if that means that this future
benevolent God is not quite God but is only
a near God, an almost God due to the fact
that He did not always exist, then so be it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let us now consider the force of
destruction:
(Go to 'ok1' in this website at the sidebar
at the top left of this page.
Skip 'ok1/2'.)
When one person kills another; that is often
referred to as murder, is considered wrong,
and the person is considered a criminal. But
when a soldier kills for his country in war,
he is considered a hero, and that is
considered OK and right.
Then, when a man has sex with a woman,
that is either considered OK and good (an
holy estate ordained by God); or something
terribly wrong, depending on whether the
pair share a marriage license or not. Even
so; whatever the case, a man and a woman
having consensual sex is common to all
these (both right and wrong) cases. Yes,
with just the change of a little window
dressing, reality can change from being
absolutely right, to being absolutely wrong.
(Well, if reality is so easily changed, why
haven't we eliminated suffering?)
With reality being able to be changed from
right to wrong and vice versa, with the
change of a few details, is it any wonder
that reality does change often from right to
wrong and vice versa? With the world
changing so often, is it any wonder that we
might crave something stable; something
that is like a rock and unchanging;
something that is absolute; someone like
God?
Perhaps, however, we might consider that
reality doesn't actually change that much
with the change of a little window dressing.
(This is the position taken by eastern
religions -that "good" and "bad", "right"
and "wrong" are human judgments, and
have little to no effect on actual reality, the
cycle of life (and death).)
We might consider that there are aspects
inherently within the actions of sex and
violence that are inherently good or bad,
and that do not change based on a change
of some window dressing. -that killing,
whether done for one's country, or for
personal passion, has some things that are
inherently bad. And that consensual sex
between a man and a woman has attributes
of positiveness and/or negativeness that
persist irregardless of whether the pair is
married, not married, cheating, etc.
There is however, one example of reality
changing 180 based on a change in details
concerning the act of killing. Killing is so
negative because it is so destructive of life.
But when destruction is turned back on
itself, a 180, about face is achieved. When
a murder kills, we as society feel the pain
from that destructiveness. But when a
policeman kills a murderer in preventing
other murders, that is a destruction of
destructiveness, which results in stopping
destruction to society in actual reality. So
that in this case, killing is OK; and actually
makes quite a difference in the amount of
overall destruction done.
Let us consider the concept of destruction
and destructiveness. Let's consider it as an
elusive concept; -an unknown quantity.
(how much destruction is there in a given
situation?) -That in a twinkling of an eye, it
can go from almost nothing, to double
trouble; (so that we never really know
(without being really smart) how much
destruction there is or that one has). Like
when the English police (destructively) kill
a terrorist before he can (destructively)
blow up a train, then the result is the public
is saved with little overall destruction
resulting.
But when the English police mistakenly
(destructively) kill an innocent man who
they thought was a terrorist, but wasn't in
reality; and while doing that, the real
terrorist eludes detection and
(destructively) blows up a train, then
overall, a whole lot of destruction has
resulted.
But before we explore the concept of
destruction any further; here are some out
of place tangents: Speaking of
destructiveness, what would we have done
if Hitler would have won?
Well, mankind's history is full of examples
where cruel despots did win. In fact, Hitler
loosing seems more the exception than the
rule. Take the roman empire for example.
They conquered and conquered till they
were ruler of the whole area. Nobody could
stop them. And they hung around for a long
time and made life miserable for the slaves
that did all their dirty work. But eventually
they fell. Some say it was their immorality
and wantonness that did them in. Others
say it was their infighting that did them in.
But I think it was their women that pulled
the plug. I think that once there was
nobody else to conquer and take slaves
from, that they had to make slaves of
themselves. And that life for the underclass
which did all the work to build their
extensive building projects to make life
sweet for their elite: -I think that life for
these underclass got so bad that the women
who were part of that society thought that
their world was too bad to bring offspring
into, or that they lacked the resources to
raise children as they were being taxed so
heavily. I get this from the history
channel's mention of how the emperor of
the time noticed how birth rates of his
subjects was declining (and Rome was
famous for taking census'), and that he in
response attempted to bring morality in and
encourage family structure, in order to
bring governmental emphasis onto raising
offspring for the empire.
And of course as we know, the Romans first
persecuted Christianity, then adopted
Christianity (Catholic Christianity) as the
state religion -reportedly in response to a
vision in battle, but I also think,
conveniently to bring emphasis to morality
and harnessing the sex drive to raise
offspring for the roman empire. But it
didn't work out. Where all others had failed
to overthrow the roman empire; when
things got so bad, the women said
collectively that they had had enough, and
they brought it to an end. -by not
having/raising sufficient offspring to
support that empire.
Admire the awesome power possessed by
women who I say brought the roman
empire to an end, where no other was able.
But we do have one relic from the defeated
roman empire -catholic Christianity. Under
this religion, birth control is severely
restricted and its members just pop out
child after child, thinking this is what God
wants. (But there's nothing in the Bible
even mentioning being against birth
control. -totally a roman's catholic
invention.) A ready source of human labor
is the result, but with no roman empire to
put it to work. Just a little too late to save
the roman empire. -so busy raising children
trying to catch up with their population
decline, they didn't have resources to keep
up their war machine. The rest of history is
stuck with this relic -roman's Catholicism,
that keeps its population popping out
children so that the world is so
overpopulated for the resources available,
that when the little ice age hits, it
precipitates disease and the black plague
that wipes out a third of the (over)
population. If humans won't control their
reproduction, nature will do it for them. In
Mexico, they are predominantly catholic,
and it is so crowded there that they leave
their country to come over here for better
conditions as illegal immigrants. But just
think. If those that come over here continue
their traditional ways and overpopulate
over here, the standard of living over here
will become just as poor as where they left,
so what's the point? (of coming over
here?) (Well, perhaps I am too harsh. One
point of coming over here would be to
share in the wealth that American
companies have taken from them through
globalization. However, having too many
children keeps a country weak and ripe for
exploitation such as this.) Our govt (at
least in border areas) needs to pay women a
few million dollars for having one or 2
kids, but nothing if they have more.
-At adult age, the govt could pay women
every month the monthly fraction of 2
million dollars if they had one or 2
children, but the day they had 3, the
payments would end. This would insulate
our society and our standard of living from
those who do not restrict the offspring that
they have, (in a world that is not free of
destruction).
In today's society, consider yourself a poor
young woman or a poor young man.
Perhaps you have been passed over for the
more favorable positions in your world,
and all you have left to expect is a life of
drudgery. And you say to yourself, there is
nothing else for me to do but to raise a
family and get involved in the life of our
kids. This was how I thought when I was
young, but now wish to sound a warning to
this path. Consider that we live in a
material world, and that everything
including ourselves as persons is given a
value, which is why they call it the 'human
resources 'department at work. Consider
the economic law of supply and demand:
-If there is a surplus of a commodity, then
its value will be low; whereas if there is a
scarcity of a commodity, it will have a high
value. Consider that if men and women in a
family structure spit out child after child
after child, that the supply of people will be
in a surplus, and that they will be treated as
of low value in this economic system we
are in. As a human, if there is something I
can do which will improve the treatment of
my fellow man, I would consider it. And
that if we collectively can limit the number
of offspring we have, then the ruling
system that we are in will be forced in
some respects to treat us better. But you
may say, I am young and I am lonely, and I
need some children to make my life
complete. And I say, OK, have one child,
or at most, two; but please avoid having a
large family -when you are in a system
whereby doing this collectively would
substantially lower everyone's standard of
living.
However, even I have violated my own
advice due to my ignorance of youth.
Consider that if women didn't supply such
a ready supply of humans, then perhaps the
governments that rule over them wouldn't
be so wasteful of the human resources that
they have: that they wouldn't be so easy to
send them into wars where they are
destroyed (wasted).
Governments are often wasteful of the
resources that they have, and this seems to
include human resources.
If we apply the concept of seeking a
medium environment when evil is present;
to whether a woman should have children:
I see this: woman who are in an absolutely
evil society with no goodness, may act to
not have any children, and thereby put an
end to this destructive society similar to the
doing destruction to destruction concept.
And men who are supposed to work, can
do no work and also thereby not feed evil.
But in a society that contains some evil, but
also some good, women in this society can
have a limited number of children (not an
excessive number of children (rich
environment)), and so help create a
medium environment, where the evil can
separate away. And also, men who are
supposed to work, can do a little work (not
an excessive amount) and thereby help
create the desired medium environment.
And of course, women in a totally GOOD
society can have many children and men
can do much work; as here, the rich
environment won't be burned down by evil.
So that the catholic or other religious way
of having many children and not using
much birth control does actually have a
right place. And that place is in a world of
all good where there is no evil, where love
reigns supreme. Here in this kind of world,
this is the right thing to do. But we do not
live in perfection yet, so we need to act
differently with our offspring production.
Also, as the world becomes ever more
populated, the specter of overpopulation
looms. If the world becomes too
overpopulated (and it can be calculated
when the world will become this way at our
present pace), then life will be unpleasant
for most of us, as there won't be enough
resources to share among us all. -until we
find a way to support even more people, or
join us all together as one.
In this tangent, I had the opportunity to hear
the old song about the leader of the pack,
and sorry I hurt you leader of the pack (of
bikers). Unfortunately for the leader of the
pack, he wipes out and dies, when dumped
by his girl at the request of her father. (And
if she wanted to be a rebel herself, in the
sexual area, that would be incompatible
with his desire for a traditional
relationship.) My interpretation of this
song, is that the leader of the pack desired
to settle down with this girl in the
respectable way; ie this was his girl in the
traditional morality. But in other areas of
his life, this leader/biker was not
respectable and in fact was a rebel to
society: and that this contradiction
of/within the different parts of his life, blew
him away. Such is the case with many.
There are many who hate religion and
denounce Christ, but who in the area of
sexuality, cling closely to the traditional
morality of one man one woman and no
cheating. These also, help contribute to the
end of the world just as much as any
religious person.
In another tangent: Some ask the question
do you believe in the existence of God?
And to these people especially I would ask:
do you believe that humans exist? Yes, in a
world made of only winners and losers;
rich and impoverished; where people are
either extensions of God, or extensions of
the devil; where everything/everyone is
seen in either black or white, and absolute
judgments are applied to everyone; where
there is no middle ground, or middle class
anymore: -humans may have existed once
in the distant past, but I'm beginning to
doubt that they still exist today. (because
humans are in between God and
nothingness; and it seems anything in
between is not allowed or tolerated
anymore.)
Unfortunately for us who are actually
human (due to the fact that much of what
we do contains/produces both goodness
and destructiveness (cursing and blessing)
in the same action): but who aren't allowed
to express this humanness (due to the fact
that the goodness and destructiveness that
they produce are segregated into separate
areas; so that the absolutes of total richness,
and total bareness are generated (instead of
a medium result in between rich and
poor)): then this whole system is destined
for eventual self consumption into total
nothingness and bareness (as explained
later).
Fortunately, I take heart in the laws
of God over human sexual expression. As a
human comes naturally, they usually have
an attraction for the opposite sex, so that
left to their own devices they usually have
sexual relations with members of the
opposite sex. I state that at this level (that
of an intact human), that God's laws/rules
over human sexuality are not absolute -are
neither always approving nor always
disapproving of a couple's sexuality.
As we shall see, it is important for us who
must often do both destruction, and good in
the same action (formerly known as
humans), to be in a MEDIUM environment
between rich and barren. In the sexual area,
this can be achieved by humans just being
themselves as how they are naturally, and
then receiving God's judgment for that. So
that when one has sex with a member of
the opposite sex who they are married to,
then they receive approval and the richness
of God; and then when they later have sex
with someone who isn't their spouse, then
they receive condemnation and punishment
from God. Receiving both good reward and
punishment at the same time, results in a
medium environment, which is just what
the human needs to live in. This is what the
soldiers in trouble in Iraq are trying to
accomplish also.
Our government rewards us for killing for
our country, but punishes us for killing for
personal reasons. The soldiers in trouble in
Iraq have done both, and thus they should
receive both good reward, and also
punishment. They hope this will provide
them with the medium environment they
need as humans.
The government however, favors absolutes,
and wishes to thwart this attempt at human
expression by condemning these men to the
death penalty. `Ha, they didn't get to be
human after all, the govt. laughs'. But let's
look at the bigger picture: we have Jesus,
who took upon himself the sins of us all
and received the punishment for it. Now, it
is this scapegoat-ing and segregating of the
negative, destructive, punishments into one
area, while segregating the positive, rich,
rewards to another area, that is something
the lovers of absolutes just love to do; and
it is par for their course. So Jesus, who is
(rich) of God, takes on and receives this
punishment (assumedly from God) for sin.
And of course the wages of sin is
reportedly, death. So Jesus received the
punishment of death: but Jesus lived
through it. So it is then Jesus who by
combining richness (because he was of
God), with bareness (from the absolute
condemnation from God (for sins)); who
has successfully generated this medium
environment, that we humans (formerly
humans, excuse me), so desperately need to
allow our human ways to expire before we
join God; and also to provide in earthly
life, a medium environment over
barrenness in a world with evil where the
ways of God aren't present at that
time/place. Even if these soldiers do not
achieve the humanness they sought, they
needn't worry, because Jesus already has,
and they can just join Him. Consider that
the persona of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in
the Bible, is not an absolute. That at one
end of the scale, is God the Father, who
represents the absolute and extreme of
richness: and that death and the devil
represents the other extreme and absolute
-that of barrenness and poverty. But
consider that Jesus never fits either of these
absolutes or extremes, but is somewhere in
between, representing humanity. This ends
my out of place tangent.
Now we continue with the force of
destruction: If there's no basic difference
between good and evil, then it doesn't
really matter whether you do right or
wrong. -The natural consequences would
be the same. The only people it matters to
are the 3rd parties who say what's right or
wrong. Well, my definition of good vs evil
does have a basic difference. -One destroys
life and shrinks; the other increases life and
grows, (in separation). But when another
definition of right and wrong that does not
have a common thread of basic difference
between right and wrong, appears, it's just a
diversion from the basic differences that do
exist. It's a frustration, a GAME!, a waste
of time. I mean, why bother making
distinction between right and wrong if
they're both the same or of similar make
-up? We don't all like the same things.
Some of us like a little cruelty. Some don't
go for this lovey dovey stuff; and want a
little more discipline and strictness. -What
about these people? Why should God have
a personality more to my liking, while
leaving these people at odds with God?
Why shouldn't God be more like these
people? What makes me so special; to have
God more on my side? Well, God could be
cruel, harsh, and demanding. Or he could
be something else. But we have already
covered this. We've shown that a
benevolent God is the most powerful; and
that a non benevolent God has a weakness
and can eventually be replaced by a
benevolent God. So what can I say? Those
who like to be mean, are going to be at
odds with the most powerful God. I'm sorry
that this is the way it is, but it is from the
effects of meanness itself; that meanness
does not provide the power to support the
most powerful God; while love and
kindness do. In other words, let us
emphasize that which is destructive vs that
which is not destructive, is growing and
loving, as opposed to other criteria.
Let's consider what can be done and how
we can respond to the problem of
destructiveness/destruction. We can use
destruction against itself as a way to solve
this problem. When there is
destructiveness, we all suffer (from the
poverty and bareness it brings). But when a
policeman or lawgiver uses destructiveness
against itself, (by doing destruction to
criminals (who are themselves
destructive)), then society is relieved, as the
destruction from criminals is prevented.
Hence a legitimate organization of police
and lawgivers and laws can grow up
around this concept (of doing (measured)
destruction to those who are destructive (in
a destroying of destruction)). Police and
law enforcers are destructive, yes, but when
that is applied to destructive criminals, it
works out to lower overall destruction. But
when laws grow beyond punishing the
destructive, to punishing people for non
destructive crimes, then the concept falls
apart, and the police and lawgivers
themselves become the
agents/sources/instigators/perpetrators of
destruction, thus increasing the destruction
in society (taking on the role of 'criminal'
themselves).
-When destruction is applied against itself
(as when police are destructive to
destructive criminals), a net
reduction/lowering in the overall
destruction results. -But when law
enforcers enforce laws against non violent,
non destructive criminals; THIS PURPOSE
ISN'T SERVED; because in this case,
destruction wasn't used against itself: -there
wasn't a destroying of destruction. -So
there's no lowering of overall destruction
but instead, increased destruction, with
police being the perpetrators of this
increase in destruction; as the result.
This method of lowering overall destruction
(by turning destruction upon itself) is a
precarious balance. If one doesn't get it
right and know exactly where the
destruction is (like where are the WMD's) ;
and only destroys what is destructive, then
they themselves -the police, the good guys,
then become agents of destruction and it no
longer works that overall destruction is
lowered.
Hence this method to deal with (that is, to
lower or eliminate) destructiveness (by
turning destruction against itself), although
in theory it can work; it requires one to
know in depth just where the
destructiveness is, and to only do
destruction there. Otherwise, if one doesn't
get it right, then they haven't solved the
problem of destructiveness, and may well
have made it worse by increasing the
amount of actual destructiveness done. But
when someone is mean and destructive to
you, what else can you do but do
destruction back to them, so as to destroy
destructiveness? It would seem your
choices are to do nothing: or to get back at
them. What else is there?
Well, there is another response, and that is
to be a 'sorter'. In the Bible there is talk of
how God at the end of the world will sort
and separate the good from the evil, the
goats from the sheep, the weeds from the
crop plants. And of course the bad will be
burned in a fire while the good will receive
heaven. (but that here on earth the 'tares'
and the 'wheat' will not be separated and
will live together). What I say is, why wait
till the end of time before this sorting takes
place? Or, let us precipitate the end of time
by doing this 'sorting' now. And do this
sorting in a non destructive way, so that the
sorting itself won't be sorted together with
what is destructive. Yes, each should be
sorted and separated unto its own kind. The
mean and destructive people should be
separated from the not-mean and not
-destructive people.
The sex offenders should be put together so
they may sexually offend each other; the
murderers should be put together so they
can kill each other; the thieves should live
together so that they can steal from each
other.
Who are we to say that these things are
wrong and make laws against these things
and impose our morality on others? If that
is what these people want to do, let them
prove the rightness or wrongness of these
things themselves, by actually doing these
things (to each other).
Who are we to say what is right or wrong
outside of the actions speaking for
themselves -outside of actually proving it
with the actions themselves? How can we
know for sure? How can you be sure that
your version of right and wrong is correct?
If we are to come up with a version of right
and wrong outside of actions speaking for
themselves; we need to come up with a true
version of what is right and wrong; and
what if we're in error and come up with an
inaccurate version of what's right and
wrong? -then our version of right and
wrong becomes an instrument of
destruction, just like the wrongdoers we're
making these laws against.
But the action to sort and separate like
people into groups together (according to
their actions), itself, makes no judgment as
to the rightness or wrongness of their
actions. -It sorts and separates the good
people together just as well. -These good
people must put up with the goodness that
each does to each other. We must put up
with what we produce, when we are sorted
unto our own kind; whether that be
destructiveness; or goodness.
Because of this, we need NOT otherwise
come up with a second system of accurate
laws of right and wrong outside of the
actions themselves (so that the actions will
speak for themselves). So that yes, I am
prejudice and I discriminate (against mean
people). And I believe that people should
be separated and made to live with their
own kind -not according to the color of
their skin, but according to the
destructiveness and meanness that is within
them that they do. -so that the mean people
are put together and that they are separate
from the not mean people that are also put
together.
And the destructive containing versions of
right and wrong will also be sorted and
separated to its own kind.-according to the
destructiveness or lack thereof that it
contains and does. So that instead of doing
destruction back to mean people, I instead
act to non destructively sort them -each to
their own kind -according to the
destructiveness or lack thereof that they do.
And if I myself am not destructive, then I
will be sorting myself away from them (the
meanies). This is a better way than what we
have now. Prisons are a start but they must
be made non destructive and not be places
of punishment (outside of what the
prisoners do to each other), but instead be
places of separation and sorting, where the
mean people are kept together and away
from the rest of us non mean, non violent
people.
However, when considering the gray areas
(of living life on earth), they are by
definition, areas where we're unable to
separate the good and destruction: -where
single actions do both good and destruction
at the same time (to different areas). Here
we're unable to do this sorting, -we cannot
sort good parts from destructive parts, as a
part is both good and destructive. So, here
we must resort to some destruction, not
only in acting in the gray area, but also to
partially destroy absolute rules. Xx
Note also, that there is an exception to this
sorting all to be together with their same
kind. Men and women are different and so
should be sorted away from each other.
But that isn't workable, because men and
women need to get together for
reproduction.
And as we know, we wish to discourage
men and women who are alike from getting
together so as not to squeeze the individual
entity more.
Also, there needs to be some connection
between unbalanced individuals that make
up a societal entity so that they may share
their production with each other, as this is
how the societal entity works; and if they
were forced to be alone with themselves,
they would lack all the other productions
that everybody else produced. So there are
exceptions to this sorting unto like kind.
But when it comes to destruction vs
kindness, it works out well, because it
allows good to exploit its advantage in that
if it can be separated from evil, it will
survive while evil will die. Maybe we can
just stick to using this segregation
concerning good vs evil only.
xxxxxxxx
When we have perfected an area and are
satisfied with it, we usually keep it the way
it is and don't change it. Here we shut off
alternative possibilities and stick with what
we've got. But if an area is a work in
progress and contains imperfection, then on
the contrary, we don't want to preserve it
and keep it the way it is, but instead, are
open to change. Here we're open to all the
possibilities and are not so quick to shut out
possibilities in order to select just one way.
Let us consider where making up and
enforcing rules fits into this. When we
make rules, we eliminate, out of all the
possibilities, that which we don't want.
Obedience to rules requires that someone
do destruction and destroy any emerging
possibilities outside the prescribed course,
whether we destroy them within ourselves,
or enforcers destroy them when we don't
self discipline. Hence rule making and
obeying, is inherently a user of destruction
to obtain its goals. When we close our
minds to destructive possibilities, that
works because being destructive to that
which is destructive, lowers overall
destruction. But if we don't get it right, and
our laws eliminate non destructive
possibilities, then our system of
making/enforcing rules has increased the
amount of overall destruction due to the
fact that making/enforcing rules, itself,
involves the use of destruction (to eliminate
the possibilities outside the prescribed
course). Since this is just another form of
using destruction against destruction, it also
falls under the requirement that the user
know in depth, and get it right. (This is
why 'vengeance is mine sayeth the lord',
because only God knows enough to use
destruction to eliminate destruction without
causing more destruction in the process.)
Not only is the concept of making and
enforcing rules, a user of destructiveness to
accomplish its goal; it additionally detaches
people from reality/actuality.
Because alternatives outside the prescribed
path aren't allowed to exist; they can't be
observed, experimented with, or worked
with (or learned from). And the only
contact with reality / actuality is -what is
within the prescribed path.
(This is unlike the sorting method, where
the evil/destruction still exists -just that it
exists separately (although not for long as it
destroys itself).)
Since using destruction against destruction
requires the user to know it, in order to get
it right and not become a doer, a source of
destruction themselves: if one doesn't know
it all from the start, its difficult to learn
along the way in an environment which is
largely detached from reality. And if out of
ignorance you apply and enforce rules
which are inaccurate then you yourself
become an instrument and source of
destruction through these rules. And since
the use of rules does greatly detach us from
reality; we can continue being inaccurate in
our rules, in our ignorance for quite awhile
without realizing it.
Since rules work by applying destruction
against destruction, this works only when
one knows what's going on. But since the
rules method also greatly detaches one
from reality/actuality (so that one cannot
know, but must take it by faith); this sets
the rules user up to fail more often than not.
Taking something by faith is
understandable if it's something we're
unable to know for sure. But requiring that
we take things by faith when it's possible to
know for sure, but that we don't allow
because we don't allow anything outside
the rules to exist at all, and thus have
nothing to experiment with or learn from:
is just incompetence. xx
There are things which have both
goodness and destruction inseparably in
them, in the gray areas of actually living
life on this earth. None of the previously
proposed ways suggested to deal with and
overcome destruction in this situation,
works. But the making and enforcing rules
method is worst because it freezes this
imperfect situation as it is (by eliminating
all possibilities except that within the
prescribed course; thus preventing change),
and does so in detachment from
reality/actuality and hinders change out of
this situation. Consider a gray action which
inseparably (at our level of ability)
produces both goodness and
destructiveness (to different areas) when
done. What is the result of rules applied in
this action? Well, first let's consider this
area without rules. Suppose when we do
this action, goodness in area A results, but
also, destruction in area B results. If we do
this action then goodness (A) and
destruction (B) will result.
If we destroy, eliminate or don't do this gray
action, then destruction in area A and
goodness in area B will be the result. Either
way, destructiveness is always present (in
different areas). So no matter if we
completely destroy, partially destroy, or do
no destruction to this gray action: we'll
have been unsuccessful at completely
eliminating destructiveness here. The plan
to use destruction against itself won't have
worked here until we're able to dissect this
action and apply destruction only to the
destructive parts of this action. And if we're
unable to do this at our level of ability then
we're unable to eliminate destructiveness
completely. The same problem occurs with
the sort and segregate this action unto its
own kind method. If we're unable to dissect
this action into component parts and
segregate the destructive parts away from
the good parts, (because this is a gray
action which by definition we're unable to
separate its good parts from its destructive
parts at our level of ability), we're thus
unable to do the segregating idea, by
definition.
If we apply no rules to this action then a
haphazard pattern of sometimes doing this
action and sometimes not doing this action
can result, with area A receiving goodness
some of the time and destructiveness the
rest of the time; and area B receiving
destruction some of the time and goodness
the rest of the time.
But if we apply a rule either for or against
this gray action, then a structure is put to
the gray action, so that one area will
receive goodness all the time and the other
area will receive destruction all the time as
a result of the gray action. Even if we apply
a rule which allows this action in some
circumstances while prohibiting this action
in other circumstances: this will involve
subdivided area A's and B's. And in these
subdivided areas, some will receive
destruction all the time, and others will
receive goodness all the time. And when an
area or subdivided area receives destruction
all the time, it becomes barren and
desolate.
When an area receives goodness all the
time, it becomes rich and at high ability.
This is what is created when rules are
applied to a gray action.
Rules put a structure to the gray actions so
that their goodness and destructions are
fixed to the same areas; unlike a haphazard
doing of the gray actions under no rules.
When an area receives destruction some of
the time and goodness other times, then the
area becomes of medium ability -neither
desolate nor rich. This is what results when
no absolute rules are applied to a gray
action.
When rules are applied to gray actions, the
destructiveness of the gray action is
segregated to one area while the goodness
of a gray action is segregated to other
areas, so that a patchwork of desolate
environments and rich environments is the
result.
When life that is mainly destructive, acts, it
produces an environment of desolation.
When life that is mainly good acts, it
produces a rich environment. And when
(earthly) life that is in some ways good, but
is in other ways destructive, acts: it can
produce an environment that is neither
desolate nor rich, but that is at a medium
level. It is in these medium level
environments where the forces separate,
-where goodness becomes separate from
destructiveness.
in the rich environment the good can't get
away from the evil due to evil's fast growth
in a rich environment.
-when the life material is fed into areas at
medium level of ability: here the goodness
is able to get away and become separate
from the destructiveness (and when forced
to survive alone, is able to survive).
Eliminating and destroying rules out of
gray actions allows the goodness in gray
actions to be open to all alternatives thus
allowing change and thus be freed from the
destructiveness in the gray action(s). While
applying absolute rules to gray actions,
preserves the state they are in -that is of
having both goodness and destructiveness
together, to the point that gray actions need
these rules in order to persist as gray
actions.
Thus it behooves us to destroy and tear
down (in a partial, special way) the rules
that always keep everything the same in
these gray actions (and in Pleasantville),
and allow anarchy to rule in the gray
actions. (Just remember that such partial
destroying of these gray rules is also
impure; and being such, also needs a
mechanism to keep it also from spoiling
our pure areas). Just think, without rules,
the gray actions which do both good and
destruction, can reap what they sow, which
is a medium and middle class environment,
instead of either rich or barren. And here
the good present can heal itself and free
itself from the destruction and escape to a
rich life separate from the destruction.
Whereas with absolute rules over gray
aspects of life; there results a patchwork of
bareness and richness (as a result of that
gray actions do both good and destruction,
and that rules have structured the gray
actions to always be done the same way,
then some pieces of the patchwork always
receive destruction and other pieces always
receive goodness); thus generating a
patchwork of rich and bareness in the
presence of a destructive force (because
gray actions have some destructiveness
inseparably as part of them): thus resulting
in firestorms where that destructive force
burns down the rich parts of the patchwork,
leaving only barrenness in the end.
(This segment is repeated.) Let us analyze
goodness vs destructiveness, and consider
some situations, while keeping in mind
these truths: -that it takes life and ability to
do/be either goodness/growth, or
destruction-and-death (and that lack-of-life
isn't able to cause either force); xx
Inputs and outputs: 1)-that the force of
Destruction-and-death takes IN what's alive
as its input-or-raw material, and produces
'voids-in-life' and 'inanimate material' as its
OUTPUT as what it produces.
2)-That the force of Goodness-and-growth
takes IN voids-in-life and inanimate
material, as its input-or-raw material, and
produces 'life' as its OUTPUT and what it
produces.
With these concepts in mind let's consider
the situation of the force of Destruction
-and-death in a rich environment. (Here in a
rich environment, note that the force of
good/growth DOES NOT have much or
any of its input raw material (which is
voids in life), and so it is not capable of
rapid growth here in the rich environment.)
Here, not only does the force (of
destruction) have plenty of its raw material
or input (life); it also has what supports
what either force is made of (which is life).
Thus here in the rich environment, the
force of Death-and-destruction can grow
rapidly and become quite large.
(Compare this to a medium environment:
In a medium environment, destruction
doesn't have as much of its input, nor
does it have as much of what forces can
be made of. Thus destruction can't grow
as fast, thus allowing goodness(which
has more of its input here, allowing for
equal growth footing/opportunity) to get
away from the force of destruction. Once
away from destruction, the two forces
are alone, and the good survives while
the destruction self consumes.)
(In this tangent, please consider that
since enforcing rules over the gray areas of
living life causes a patchwork of rich and
barren environments: my question is, why
do we scrap together these rich
environments where there is the force of
destruction nearby -(as destruction is
inescapably a part of all gray actions at our
ability level)?
(Why do we prevent the force of good from
growing here, -keeping it from its input
(voids-which are scarce in rich
environments)? These rich environments
(which are full of destruction's growth
input) will just result in successive
firestorms where the gray actions'
destructiveness burns down the rich parts
of the patchwork. (and since the force of
destruction has grown rapidly and large in
the once rich environment, it usually burns
this part of the patchwork down completely
to barrenness.) All this does is feed
evil/destructiveness. As for myself, I don't
wish to succor and feed the force of
destructiveness. End tangent.) END REPEAT
Let us now consider the reverse situation:
-that is with the force of Goodness-and
-growth in a barren environment. Here the
force of goodness has an abundance of its
input/raw material (that being voids in
life/inanimate material), but unlike the
previous situation, it doesn't have an
abundance of what supports what either
force is made of (which is life). So here,
even though it has plenty of its input/raw
material, this force of goodness isn't able to
grow rapidly at least not right away, -until
it is able to generate enough life from the
inanimate to support what it is made of.
With both the forces at low ability, neither
is able to do much, so the force of good is
unable to get away from the force of
destruction, thus preserving the
togetherness of the 2 forces in this
situation. Hence in neither a rich nor barren
environment can the forces separate.
When we humans are going about our daily
lives, most of what we do is neither all
good nor all destructive but is usually some
of both. And this is due to that the human
ways/actions available to us usually contain
both goodness and also destructiveness as
part of the same action. So that we produce
both life and voids in life, which tends to
result in a medium environment (between
rich and barren). And in our medium
environment, the Destructiveness force
(which is one part of our human ways),
doesn't have access to an excessive amount
of its input (which is life), and doesn't have
access to an excessive amount of what it
can be made of (which is also life). It is
thus NOT able to grow incredibly rapidly
(like it would in a rich environment). We
are thus able to avoid and get away from it.
(When we get away from it, it(destruction)
no longer has a source of good to feed it. It
is alone, and alone it consumes itself and
dies, unlike when good is alone and is able
to survive when alone.) Here we can see
how a medium ability environment is
useful where evil is present that needs
separating away, to separate the forces.
Here we're able to get away and separate
from the evil, whereas in a rich
environment the evil would grow too fast
for us to do so. (And in a barren
environment, the directive of good has no
special advantage or fast growth; (it thus
remains unable to get away/separate from
the destruction it is with); so that won't
help either).
(We can see that neither rich nor barren
environments are effective, but that
medium, middle environments are
effective.) And once separate from the evil,
the evil has no food supply and it burns
itself out and disappears, while the good
survives.
Just think, without rules, the gray actions
which do both good and destruction, can
reap what they sow, which is a medium and
middle class environment, instead of either
rich or barren. And here the good present
can heal itself and free itself from the
destruction and escape to a rich life
separate from the destruction.
Whereas with absolute rules over gray
aspects of life; there results a patchwork of
bareness and richness in the presence of a
destructive force (because gray actions
have some destructiveness inseparably as
part of them): thus resulting in firestorms
where that destructive force burns down the
rich parts of the patchwork, leaving only
barrenness. And not only that: under no
rules, when an environment is middle class
and medium, -no lives are eliminated.
However, in the barren parts of the rule
ridden structure, where this piece of the
patchwork receives mostly destruction: the
material in this area does not survive.
-Because when something is beaten down
again and again and only receives
destruction, it eventually dies and is
completely destroyed. Now the death of
this material doesn't heal the world, as the
world continues being a place where
actions (gray) continue to have both
destructive as well as good effects. -that
hasn't been healed or changed. The world
continues on living, but now gray actions
cannot act on material that doesn't exist.
The material that died no longer exists. So
gray actions in this rulie world are forced to
take remaining material that does exist.
Thus some from the rich area must now be
thrown into the barren area.
And as those in the barren area die off,
more and more from the rich areas must be
sucked down. And it is all so senseless, as
this downward and eventually total self
consumption occurs only in the rulie
version of earthly life. So unless you have a
death wish, and if you want to live and love
and get better, then cast the rules out of
earthly life. Smash them down. As we now
know, they are the sources of death
destruction and stagnation, holding us back
from getting better. Since we know where
the source of destruction is, we can use
destruction against destruction here. Well,
if we can segregate rules away from us to
be with that which is destructive; this is
better because it does not require us to get
it exactly right. But in a pinch, if we're
unable to do this, we can know we're
probably ok to use destruction against rules
over our gray areas of our earthly life.
Rules try to associate themselves with God
and the overall good and try to make
themselves out to be pure and holy. But as
we have seen, rules are users of
destruction. They can dish it out with
impunity, but hide behind God and
goodness when it is their turn to take it. No
longer. They should now take what they
dish out; as we now see they are no better
than the rest of the shit that goes on here on
this imperfect human earth.
However, let us consider another point of
view: Let's consider that by applying rules
to a gray action, we thereby cause
destruction to be segregated to one area,
and goodness to be set aside to another
area, that we thereby quarantine the force
of destructiveness, (where after it brings its
area to desolation, then dies out and is
thereby eliminated).
The only problem with this line of
reasoning is: this is a gray action which by
definition has goodness and destructiveness
inseparably in it (at least at our level of
ability). There is no separation of goodness
from destructiveness, by definition; by the
situation itself. The destructiveness always
has a source of goodness nearby to feed on
through the common link of the gray
action. So that the destructiveness is not
truly quarantined but always has a supply
of goodness nearby due to the nature of
gray actions whereby they produce
goodness and destruction from the same
action. So that destruction doesn't actually
burn itself out and die but is preserved at a
low level, as it is occasionally able to get
some of the nearby goodness common to
the gray action it is part of (and burn it
completely down in a firestorm).
Rules don't work when applied to gray
actions. They don't change the fact that
some destruction is done (they just
regulate where (in which areas) it is done)
and hence are no better than anarchy in the
gray areas in terms of the level of overall
destruction done. And if there are rules
over gray actions (which people say are
from God), that rearrange where
destruction is done in gray areas without
eliminating the destruction in gray areas,
then they tie God to being a doer of
destruction (in the gray areas) done not for
the purpose of eliminating other
destruction. -(that is, being a source of
destruction). Evildoers also do destructive
things not for the purpose of eliminating
other destruction and are also
sources/perpetrators of destruction. These
rules from God over the gray areas then
make God out to be no better than an
evildoer or a sinner. (And to them who
would kill those who speak against the
rules of God as instructed by the old
testament Bible, we should sort them
together with those who would murder and
kill so the rest of us won't have to put up
with the destruction they do.) The rules
over gray areas don't effectively quarantine
its destructiveness to the point it is
eliminated.
The rules actually preserve a gray area in its
present state and prevent the goodness from
being able to be separate from the
destructiveness.
And, the rules detach us greatly from reality
by preventing any alternative ways from
existing. and through this ignorance allow
for their continued use to the exclusion of
all else even though they are ineffective
and even a hindrance to goodness.
Why can't earthly life reap what it sows?
-experience what it naturally produces?
Life here on earth that does neither all good
nor all destruction, naturally produces an
environment that is at a medium level
-between desolation and richness.
But if rules are applied here, then medium
level environments will disappear leaving
only patchworks of desolate and rich
environments in its place; which will thus
preserve the earthly life as is and prevent
its change out of the togetherness of
goodness and destruction. But to
accomplish this, the natural product that
earthly life produces -that of a medium
level environment, must be denied it. It
must be acted on to prevent this from
happening. Who or what would want to
preserve earthly life as it is and prevent
change out of this situation? Well,
goodness or God certainly would not. God
has no need of anything we might produce
here on earth. But the force of
destructiveness is an inferior force that
can't survive on its own. If alone it will
bring its area to desolation and then cease
to exist. To keep existing, it requires the
togetherness of good and destruction so it
always has something to feed on. (i.e., the
knowledge of good-AND-evil) -knowing
that good and evil are always together.
So then it is the force(s) of destruction that
desire to detain earthly life in its present
state (of goodness and destruction together)
and prevent its progress out of this
togetherness, so as to preserve the forces of
destruction.
So any rules in gray areas, although they
may claim to be from God: if they act to
preserve our present gray state, by making
environments of desolation and/or richness
out of environments that would otherwise
be of a medium level; then these rules
actually are from the forces of destruction,
and we are doing their bidding, not God's.
Some may help make and enforce rules
over our earthly gray actions of living
earthly life; and they may also call
themselves champions of compassion,
Christian charity and love (tough love). But
I ask you: what benefit does making and
enforcing rules (over gray actions of human
life), deliver to the all important prime
directive of charity, compassion and love?
No, on the contrary, these rule making and
enforcing over earthly life serve not love,
but instead, destruction. And to mix charity
with destruction is just a feeding of the
inferior force of destruction in a
preservation of the forces of good and evil
together. -the knowledge of good-and-evil.
(the togetherness of good and evil), which
is a tool to succor evil. Now as we go about
our human ways, separating away the evil
therein, using our medium ability
environment to do so: we may realize that
we are humans and not Gods. We may
realize our ways are human and that they
aren't perfection nor absolute. But if by
chance we do come in contact with
absolute goodness, we thus experience a
rich environment. And absolute goodness
has perfect ways which richly supply its
needs, and now ours since we have come in
contact with it. But by habit, we are used to
our human ways, and if we do our human
ways in the presence of absolute goodness,
the destructiveness in our human ways in
the rich environment will eat us alive as the
destructiveness will grow fast and we won't
be able to separate it away in this rich
environment. This is the fear of God.
Also, let us realize that there can be a
competition between absolute good ways
and human ways. In the presence of
absolute goodness, it is clear that the
absolute good ways are better and that we
seek to give up our human ways as we're
well aware that they cause us torment
(when we do them in the presence of
absolute goodness). However, when
absolute goodness is absent and when
human ways are all that's available, then
human ways work fine in their medium
ability environment. -If we were to give up
our human ways with no absolute good
ways to replace them, then we'd throw
ourselves into barrenness as nothing
would get done, and this would also be a
torment because in the barrens, the good
in us wouldn't be able to get away from
the destructive in us and we'd be
preserved, unable for our goodness to
advance to absolute goodness.
(In barrenness, the (lesser/human) good
there has little life making it up (Recall,
it takes capability/life to do either force,
and voids can't do either force), so it
can't do much (even though it has a lot of
its input(which is voids)). The evil there is
also just about out of its input (life), so it
can't do much either. -stuck there
together with each other.)
-We humans need medium environments,
not barren nor rich environments for our
human ways to function, and for the good
in us to escape and join absolute goodness.
So when absolute good ways are available,
we should give up our human ways in favor
of them. But when absolute good ways are
unavailable then here in this area, is room
for human ways. Human ways done in a
medium environment, purify themselves
over time to become absolute good ways.
So there can be a competition within us
between human and absolute good ways.
(unless we are eternally held back from
growing into absolute good, and are
eternally preserved as human, through a
careful living of a rule ridden version of
life.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS SEGMENT IS REPEATED
Important insert:
In Christianity, mention is made of those
with eyes who do not see, and those with
ears who do not hear. But coming to
Judism, Christianity, Islam, and secular
tabloid newspapers with some creep into
the regular news: those with brains who do
not think.
We have an activity, of sorting; -of sorting
that which is good into its own kind, and
that which is destructive, or evil, into its
own kind. And in areas that can be sorted
completely into that which is good vs that
which is destructive; this sorting activity
works well to advance goodness over
destruction; as that which is all destructive,
self consumes while that which is all good,
survives, when these forces are separate.
But what do we do with human areas
and actions which have goodness and
destruction intertwined in the same action;
that do both good and destruction
inseparably from the same action (to
different areas)? What do we do with these
human actions, concerning our activity of
sorting? What if we realize that there are 3
types of things: -1, those things that are
mostly all good; -2, those things that are
mostly all destructive; and 3, those things
that are hopelessly both good and
destructive intertwined. Then we could,
possibly, apply a 3 tiered structure to our
sorting activities.
But what if we instead, denied the natural
trinity of our situation, and applied only a
two dimensional sorting action to our
situation anyway? We could take an
imperfect human action with good and
destruction intertwined, like the
reproductive drive area (an area that has a
large influence because it effects us all),
and we could sort some of it as good and
some of it as bad. We could sort those who
didn't cheat into the good side as a holy
estate ordained by God; while we could
sort those who did cheat to the bad side;
and so enact a 2 tier structure to our sorting
activities. (But what is so great about
forcing a 2 dimensional solution upon a 3
dimensional reality?) Since the reality of
our situation is that the human reproductive
area is one with good and destruction
hopelessly intertwined; what we would
have done is to corrupt the all-good side
with the destructive part from the holy
estate ordained by God that is sorted to the
all-good side; and also provided the evil in
the all-bad side a source of good to feed off
of, from the good of human material that
was sorted to the all bad side, so that the
evil would then not self consume and die.
So that the benefits that could possibly be
achieved from doing sorting activities;
would in actuality, not be achieved; thus
making our sorting activities unproductive
and of no account.
So that when a person idles their mind and
applies a 2 dimensional sorting action to a
3 dimensional reality, is it any wonder
things don't work out so well and this area
continues to be problematic.
Realize that when we take a human action
or part of a human action (it still has both
good and bad intertwined), and sort it to
either the all-bad side, or the all-good side,
that we have done an inaccurate sort action,
because we have just added some good to
the all-bad, so that it is no longer all bad; or
have added some bad to the all-good, so
that it may no longer be all good, and may
even burn it down in a firestorm. Xx
One might be able to believe that short
sighted old men would come up with these
crappy 2 dimensional solutions; but one
would expect God to be beyond that. And
with the inclusion of Jesus Christ; 2
dimensional thinking can expand into a 3 D
reality with a trinity that includes Jesus
Christ; as it was Jesus Christ who took a
stand by not condemning the woman taken
in adultery; while short sighted religious
and secular men, even to this day, did/do.
Unless you are as powerful as God, and are
able to sort all things into all good vs all
bad, then as humans, we must place what
we are not able to separate into all good vs
all bad, into a third pile. END REPEAT.
Note that with these human areas: no
matter what stance one takes, one cannot
avoid destruction in one area or another. If
one is abstinent and a eunuch, destruction
hits one area. If one is promiscuous,
destruction hits another area. If one is
faithfully married, destruction hits other
areas. If one cheats, destruction hits
different areas. But some destruction is
always present, just in different areas. This
is the way it is with human or gray actions.
And destruction brings us down and makes
us vulnerable.
So that no matter where we are sorted to in
a 2 dimensional sorting; our human area is
vulnerable to attack as being imperfect and
to potentially be subjugated to an all
destructive force that can use it as food for
its destroying. And because our human
area is weak, it might not be able to get out
of this bondage. Just realize that there is no
configuration of your human area that you
can choose that is safe from some form of
attack from the all-evil; even though some
not well thought through 2 dimensional
sorting actions may sort your human
configuration to the all-good side. What
one needs to do instead, is to look to
material that is outside ones human area,
a Jesus representation if you will, that is
not participating in the human hunger, that
then can free and separate away the all
destructive that is preying upon one's
human area. And note, that one's Jesus
representation, or sogp, is part of a 3 tiered
structure, or trinity; and is not 2
dimensional.
So that because the human area contains
some destruction, one's sogp needs to get
as far from these human actions as possible
when maintaining a 3 dimensional sort,
(which is one of the functions of the sogp).
But another function of the sogp is to bring
to medium ability in these human areas,
where there is barrenness. And this causes
the sogp to be closer to the doing of human
actions. So that the sogp must split its
resources, some (say half) of which go and
maintain medium ability in the human
actions, and others of which do a 3 way
sorting action, including casting out all
evils trying to feed here, into the all evil
pile; so that kind of a four dimensional
reality exists with this situation, with the
sorting part of the sogp keeping as far away
from the doing of the human action as
possible, while the bringing to medium
ability part of the sogp, not so much so.
Perhaps the sogp can rotate within itself so
that it can recharge itself in quasi richness
when resting, but leave a lot of that
richness behind when in a working mode of
bringing human actions to medium. Xx
Note that the sorting part of the sogp is still
not pure enough to contact the high parts,
and is part of the human material, and also
acts to keep all the human material
including itself, from contacting the high
parts.
End important insert. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
But then there is the topsy-turvy upside
down situation where human ways are
unavailable to a human, but godly ways are
available, and then absolute godly ways
eventually fill that need. This occurs in the
reproductive drive area where hot babes/ or
studs act to get members of the opposite
sex to compete over their affections; they
pick who they like best and spurn the rest.
The rest are 'scrubs' who will never get
their love. One will get their love but the
rest will not. For the rest, that human way
is unavailable. Recognizing this fact, the
rest of us can open our minds to the
competition to human ways that the ways
of absolute goodness pose. For in this
situation, surely the ways of absolute
goodness will full the needs here before the
human way can. So give up hoping on the
futile human way here and widen your
scope to allow absolute godly ways to
come in.
It is unrealistic in the overall situation that
hot women or studs would be able to deny
us their affection. If they all did then there
would be no offspring, and that way would
eventually bring about its end. But if one
quits competing for the hot babe/stud's
attention, they would loose out to those
who did compete. So let us quit competing
for their attention and fill our needs here
with the godly ways. Thus if we do pick up
a mate, we won't do so in hen/rooster
pecked bondage but will live together in
freedom. Realize that there is a competition
between absolute good ways, and human
ways; and that although there is some room
for human ways, if the human ways can't
get it together, then that option will expire,
and it will be all absolute good ways.
Realize that there is really no room for hold
ups in the human ways, as that represents a
barren environment when neither the
human way nor the absolute good way is
available.
In the barren environment is the raw
material/input for the goodness
directive; but the human goodness
within the barren environment is unable
to grow rapidly here even though
surrounded by its raw material and
input, due to the fact this environment
doesn't supply(life) what can support
either directive. But to high ability
forces/directives of goodness, this is just
the raw material they seek and can make
use of. This attracts them. (as they
already have lots of life which makes
them up) And to those of us who have a
competition between absolute good ways
and human ways within us; this
indicates parts of us are into high ability
goodness (while other parts are not). The
barrenness in this area is a signal for
high ability goodness outside this barren
area to invade this barren area and
bring it out of barrenness (since the high
ability goodness already has the life that
supports its directive, and all it needs is
its input/raw material); whereas within
the human good with the barren area; it
working in the barren area is futile
because although it has an abundance of
input/raw material, it lacks enough of
what makes up itself(its directive): -a
barren environment is no help in
allowing human ways to change to
absolute good ways, as what is needed is
a medium environment. But outside high
ability good entities do take these barren
environments in as inputs; and you may
thus meet God or a high ability good
part of yourself this way. Outside high
entities of good act in barren areas not
only because voids in life (ie barren
environments) are their input; but also
because they know that neither barren
environments nor rich environments
allow for imperfect humans to grow out
of their imperfections. So that because
this area of human reproductive drive is
imperfect, human, and contains some
destructiveness, the intervening high
ability goodness doesn't bring this
barren area to richness,but only to
medium ability. So that the
person who has been rejected in love, will
get their hot babe/stud anyway, or a
reasonable facsimile thereof: -all they have
to do is give up on trying to make this work
using their human goodness; but to open
their mind; look away from the futile
human area, look to and allow the high
ability absolute goodness (actually, the
semi phenomenal, slightly less than
absolute(but still quite capable and above
the barren lesser human good)) goodness of
the sogp/jesus representation) to come in
and supply that very human area to
medium ability. And the only person who
will be held back and be forced to remain
as imperfect human for an extended period
of time in this area, will be the person who
keeps insisting on barrenness in this area
-which is the person who attracts suitors and
spurns most of them.
insert: When a babe/stud rejects you
because of the societal rule that they are
dating someone else, realize that this
rejection is absolute; that they're trying to
apply an absolute, to a human area that is
anything but absolute. Thus in some part of
this human area, there is some area that
gets destruction all the time, leading to
barrenness. The one way gift does take all
-destructive actions that can be separated
away from imperfect human actions, and
does separate them away. Thus the one way
gift removes away their absolute rejection
of you, but only partially and not
absolutely; thus the area that got
destruction all the time, no longer gets
destruction all the time, but only part of the
time, thus upholding medium ability, as
opposed to bareness. end insert.
Now then, let me interject the factor of
our human mortality
in that we die. -Where we're tied to a
destruction we can't avoid and also that we
can't do a full off stance with. Since we are
forced to live with this destruction, that
makes our every action a human, or gray
action regardless of how otherwise evil free
it is; thus making it wise that we do all our
human actions at medium level and not at
rich (full on) or barren (off) level: (we are
unable to do a complete full off in our
mortal self which covers all our actions).
Like, even if what we did was all goodness,
when we died, that goodness would be
destroyed and the people depending on our
goodness would be harmed. However, if
we were mean and cruel, then when we
died, that cruelty would be destroyed,
resulting in a benefit to those who would
otherwise suffer our cruelty if we were
alive forever.
Now, when we lower our doing of
otherwise all good actions towards medium
level, we need only lower them a little bit,
say at high medium; and should make a
distinction towards other more human
hungers that have more intertwinement of
good and evil, so that one keeps their doing
of human hungers somewhat separate from
their non hunger but still mortal actions,
and does their human hungers more
towards medium level, while does their non
hunger but still mortal actions more
towards high medium level, or cycling
about high medium level.
In this next far out insert, we see that
because we are mortal and come to an end
and to death after a time; that this places a
destruction and a destructive force upon us
that we are unable to escape; hence making
all that we are a gray area due to that all
our goodness and this destruction are
hopelessly intertwined. So that activities
that we might otherwise consider as all
-good; are not yet all-good due to this
destruction called death that we are under
where these otherwise all good actions will
not persist indefinitely but will fade away
due to this destruction, death, which is our
mortality. So in response: we should
do our otherwise all good actions at less
than full on, but at somewhat medium or
high medium level, due to this mortality
that we are under, so that we won't prevent
them from escaping this
mortality/destruction due to their being
done at rich and high level and also tied to
this human condition of mortality (as only
medium level allows escape from human
conditions, neither rich nor barren does).
This means doing some of a directive
towards 'off' that is for not-doing these
otherwise all good actions; as well as the
directive for 'on' for doing these otherwise
all good actions.
However, there may be one exception to
this rule. In the area of 3 D sorting; where
the sogp casts all-evils off human material,
(and keeps human material from high
perfect all-good godly parts); goodness IS
advanced over destruction. (This is like a
bird in the hand vs a bird in the bush.) So
that doing our otherwise high good parts at
full on at richness here, although it prevents
this material from having any chance of
escaping the destruction of mortality that
they are under, it at the same time, causes a
certainty in the release of goodness from
destruction. Note that we cannot otherwise
use these otherwise high parts under
mortality, at richness or even put them with
true high parts due to this mortality they are
under; so this is their only place to shine
and be at full power (which is to act as the
sogp). And since they can't join the true
high parts, the whole mess of them, and not
just a small split off part ie sogp can act as
sogp, because they are otherwise unable to
act as high parts in full on and richness like
true high parts can and do. So that while
they are acting as sogp to do the 3 D
sorting functions of the sogp, their full on
and rich status does prevent them from any
chance of separating from the destruction
of their mortality while they are full on; but
does mold their environment to be
conducive to this very thing; so that when
this sogp does drop out of full on and
richness to go to medium level, in a
rotation with other like sogp parts, it then
by chance CAN separate from destructive
forces, including the destructive force of its
mortality. Now there is the possibility this
destructive force of one's mortality may get
into the richness and burn down this full on
sogp material. So that one should avoid
going to ultra rich and ultra full on in their
sogp doing 3D sorting; but I think there is
still plenty of room to do a goodly degree
of full on, which is needed to overcome all
-evils which have overpowered regular
medium ability human material. (Since
these materials are otherwise all-good and
have escaped all other evils except for this
human mortality destruction; there then is
less evil, so that more richness could be
piled up before this evil would be able to
get into it, seeing as how evil isn't very
good at bridging barriers.)
Let me rehash this a bit. The destructive
force that is our mortality, is different from
other destructive forces that make up other
human hungers. Not only are we unable to
get away from it; we are also forced to do
some form of 'on' setting. With other
human hungers, we are able to do full on or
full off settings at will, and the destruction
just occurs in different areas as a result.
But with this destruction, we are unable to
do a full off setting without being
completely dead (so that while alive,
destruction is always done in the same area
at least to some degree). So that one can
either do a moderate amount of oneself (in
a constant non cycling fashion); or one can
do a full on followed by a greater time
spent in an almost full off, if one wants to
do cycling.
Then there was this failed plan: Concerning
the 3 D sorting via the sogp, one can do
this plan: One can do a constant full on of
the 3d sorting; and when this develops
barren and rich areas, and when the
destruction of ones mortality comes out of
the barren areas and feeds on the rich areas,
then one becomes less effective at 3d
sorting, so that ones full on just serves to
feed a growing evil of ones mortality. At
this point, one makes an exception in their
3 d sorting (since one is a human thing and
should sort themselves to the human area;
but instead can violate that absolute 3d
sorting) and can sort themselves to the all
destructive side and continue to do
whatever 3 d sorting they can there, which
would be to keep all the other all
-destructive things away from any other
human things, but oneself. Oops, this
won't work out. -Because going full on,
would then be replaced by full off after our
death at the hands of the all destructive,
which would provide growth opportunities
for the all destructive through the mortal
area; which is not conducive to advancing
goodness over evil. If one wants to go this
rout, only the approaching to full off
through laziness, does work out.
So that one can be lazy and be almost full
off in their mortality stance; and that will
build up patchworks of rich and barren
based on the mortality evil in the near off
configuration. Eventually the
evil will come out of the barren side to
feed on the rich side, and a growing evil
will be fed and developed. Then when
2d sorters place one's human self in the all
destructive pile for being lazy, one can then
attempt to live the best they can, but if the
all destructive gets one, then one will die
and be killed by the all destructive, and
thus go to full off, which is not much
different from the almost full off one did
while alive and lazy. And with this sacrifice
one thus leaves a well developed evil,
hungry to feed, but with very little change
in the mortality stance to provide any
new material for that evil to feed on. With
that large evil together with the all evil, this
will just precipitate a hunger storm where
an over excess of evil will cause all the evil
to consume itself because there isn't
enough of anything else for it to feed on.
Note that as an unbalanced individual who
happens to get cut off from their societal
entity, one is 'lazy' in all the areas they
aren't good at, (which they before depended
on their trading with their societal entity to
supply). So that by being lazy, and then
sacrificing oneself this way, one can
achieve goodness for the good life that
remains, because through this, one destroys
the evil/destructiveness, even the evil that
cast one out of their societal entity.
Otherwise, one must do all that is attached
to their human mortality at, or cycling
about, a medium level(based on the amount
of destruction in ones human mortality) (so
as to be at (high)medium ability). And
when this is applied to doing 3 d sorting; a
cycling mode works out because once all
-destructions are sorted off human material,
without their food source, the evils do self
consume: and due to evil's inability to cross
barriers, evil is unable to come back and re
infect human material even when ones 3 d
sorting is inactive in a resting part of a
cycle.
But this then brings up another problem, in
that one can let their 3d sorting go to off
mode when there is no evil to sort away,
and prolonged off mode is just as bad as
prolonged on mode, as one needs to cycle,
or do a medium level of 3 d sorting due to
their mortality. But not to worry. There is
plenty of evil in the world to sort, and one
just needs to limit their exposure to it, or
increase their scope and exposure to it; in
order to maintain a medium, or cycling
about medium, level of 3d sorting.
Since one has a tendency to stop sorting
away evil once evil has been dealt with,
thus one tends to go into the 'off' mode.
Then when a new evil pops up; one can go
right into a full on mode, and that will be
ok because together, that represents cycling
about a medium level. Then after a time of
full on that balances the previous full off,
one can then drop to a medium on; or if the
evil has been dealt with by then, go to off
again. One can come up with their own
sequence that works for them; and this may
include seeking out a little sorting away
evil but still not enough to be medium level
sorting away evil, so that when one
encounters a larger evil, one then has room
to do full on for a longer time before
needing to come back down to medium or
go to a resting full off period.
Due to evil's temporarily nature, and that it
self eliminates after being 3d sorted; a
cycling about medium mode is favored
over a constant medium mode: whereas
with other activities, a constant medium
mode can be favored due to the freedom
from having to constantly monitor them.
So that we may find ourselves doing both
modes simultaneously; that is, we'll do a
cycling mode with respect to 3 d sorting
evil away, while simultaneously doing a
constant mode with respect to other things.
Note that although a full on mode may be
needed to overpower an evil that has
overpowered a human item; that with the
richness of a full on mode, evil may be
able to get into that and corrupt and feed
from that. Hopefully with a cycling stance
the full on mode won't be there long
enough for that to happen; and if it does,
we can just switch to a more constant
medium mode, and once the evil is 3d
sorted, we will be able to safely switch to a
resting full off part of a cycle.
End far out insert.
This next segment can be skipped:
START SKIPPED SEGMENT:
This brings up another important point;
about areas that are imperfect, which
contain some destructiveness as part of
them; -these need to be at medium ability
-not in a rich environment, nor in a barren
environment, but in a medium
environment; for the separation of the
forces of goodness from destruction, so that
the imperfect life can grow into perfection
and not be preserved as imperfect forever.
The new point I'm trying to make is that
only the knowledge that an area is
imperfect and contains destructiveness is
needed in order to allow destructiveness to
be used. Before I had argued that one could
only use destruction (and still remain on
the side of goodness), when one understood
a situation in depth and then only destroyed
the destructive parts. But here is an
exception to this rule: and that is one only
need know an area is imperfect. But the
permission to use destruction is only to
bring the environment to medium ability.
No absolute destruction is allowed here as
it is with the total knowledge situation. And
once an environment containing evil is
brought to medium ability, no further
destruction is warranted. And of course if
an imperfect environment is already at
medium ability, no destruction is warranted
either. And destruction can only be used in
such a way that it moves the environment
towards medium.
END FIRST SKIPPED SEGMENT
SKIP AGAIN
So then: when we're living our life in the
human area, doing human things which are
neither all good nor all destructive: when
someone then classifies us according to our
human actions as warranting a judgment of
either all (absolute) goodness or absolute
rejection/punishment: we realize that
neither of these options of richness nor
barrenness is suitable for us, and we seek to
temper these attempts at absolute
judgments.
Destructiveness isn't the only thing that can
bring this about but it can be one of the
tools used. Like when we are offered
richness, it would be wasteful and
misunderstood to use some destruction to
bring the rich reward down to medium
ability, and that there are other ways that
could be accomplished. But in the area of
absolute punishment and condemnation;
that just begs to have some destruction
done to it. -Not so much as to totally
destroy the once absolute condemnation,
but only enough so it is partially destroyed,
so that we end up with a medium
environment, not a rich nor barren one.
Other methods, such as segregation and
quarantine don't work well here because
only a partial and not total elimination of
the destructive condemnation is sought. In
the case of the spurned lover situation,
partial destruction of the absolute rejection
may not be enough, as the creative abilities
of goodness causing life where there once
was void in life may be needed to raise the
area out of barrenness to medium ability.
END SECOND SKIP.
And now. It seems that the rules over our
sexuality and reproductive drive act to
throw this imperfect human area into either
rich or barren environments, and seek to
eliminate any medium environment and
moderation. Yes, concerning any person's
human reproductive desire and attraction
for another human; the rules of dating and
marriage dictate that these two either get all
of each other, or none of each other, and
that there should be no in between. This is
an imperfect human area, this area of
human reproduction. What should actually
be the way things are done is that nobody
should get anybody else all of the time
(rich environment); neither should anybody
be denied anybody else all of the time
(barren environment); but that everybody
should be able to get everybody else some
of the time (medium environment). What
you people do to each other is oppressive.
In following these rules, you hold each
other back and prevent the humanness and
imperfection of your reproductive area
from growing out of that, and preserve
yourselves as imperfect in this area. In the
rich environment situation, a married
couple can find ways to distance
themselves from each other so that they
achieve a medium environment with
respect to each other. But in the barren
situations, outside action needs to be taken.
To partially destroy absolute rules over
these areas; and for higher good to generate
something in these barren areas where there
is now nothing and nothingness.
If you were to consider our sexual area, you
could call us extremists. Yes, in the sexual
area, we are extremists. We live the
extremes, because the husband and wife
enjoy all the sexuality (the rich extreme),
whereas all other members of the opposite
sex who are not ones spouse; enjoy none of
the sexuality (the barren extreme). We do
not, but should, consider a medium position
somewhere between these extremes. Xx
But while we are considering extremes, let
us consider the extremes of monogamy vs
promiscuity. How long does one keep their
mate before moving on to another? In the
case of one extreme, that is, monogamy,
one keeps their mate for a lifetime. But let
us consider when one moves on to another
mate before a lifetime is over. Well, how
long could one stay with a mate before
moving on to another? Perhaps a couple
years; or perhaps a couple months; or
perhaps just for a day; or even an hour; or
even 15 minutes. Continuing on, let us say
that a person's mind keeps switching from
one mate to another in such rapid
succession, that they are unable to
complete the sex act before moving on to
the next mate. They then find themselves
unable to complete the sex act itself
because they can't stick with one partner
long enough, resulting in sexual
dysfunction. So that promiscuity taken to
its extreme results in sexual dysfunction.
So that we need just enough monogamous
conservatism to allow us to stick with our
mate long enough to complete the sex act. xx
But a couple can't have sex all the time; in
fact, relatively little time is taken for the
sex act, and the rest of the time (when they
are not having sex), the couple is as
everybody else who is not their partner. So
that one idea of a middle ground between
extremes, can be that of a slowed down sex
drive or sexual experience; where one
allows some sexual feelings, but also
resists them a little bit and slows down
ones feelings so they are not so strong or
intense; and does not require a climax, but
just allows whatever comes, to exist and
fade away. It is this medium intensity
sexual feelings that allow the forces to
separate, and do generate high good
material that escapes this situation to
become newly generated high parts.
But this is only one possible state. Yes,
conservatism does have some use, and is
not totally useless. And that use is to allow
different parts to have a little freedom
whereby they are not always burdened with
the concerns of the other parts. So that the
medium intensity sexual feelings can on
occasion, go to higher intensity, followed
by lesser intensity, and can include a
climax, and then a rest period, in order to
allow these different sexual parts to have
some freedom from the burdens of the
other parts, for a time; so as to express
themselves more fully. But then they go
back to the medium level expression where
they ARE together with and burdened by
the other component parts (of us). Xx
When we are doing a medium sexual
intensity, that is half way between 'on'
sexual intensity, and 'off' sexual intensity.
Here, neither the interests of the 'on' sexual
state, nor the interests of the 'off' sexual
state are favored over the other. And due
to this neutrality where all present are
given something, but no one area is favored
over the others; this is the best place to do
this same type of neutrality within the 'on'
part of sexuality; where we do not favor
any one member of the opposite sex over
any other. So that each member of the
opposite sex present (in mind or body) is
given equal sexual feeling. It is easier to
do this here, because we are already
slowing down our sexual feelings so they
are not overpowering us, so as not to favor
the 'on' state vs the 'off' state. It is in this
'rest' state where we can interconnect with
many members of the opposite sex and
interrelate without jealousy getting in the
way. Xx
Then there is the concept that in able to sort
human material away from the high parts,
and sort all destructive material away from
the human material; that we need a Jesus
representation that has distance away from
human activities, not absolutely, but
enough so that the Jesus representation is
powerful enough to accomplish this
sorting, and not weakened by the evils
present in human activities. And it is true
that the Jesus representation needs to be
more powerful than the human material in
order to cast off all-evils that have
overpowered human material. But the
question is, how does the Jesus
representation achieve and maintain that
higher power? One failed idea I had was
when the human material did more human
action, there was a part that split off and
did just the opposite, and did less human
action, so as not to be drawn down by the
human activity. But the thing about human
actions, is that no matter which way you
go, either to do more human action, or to
abstain from human action; destruction
finds you, just in different areas. So that
sending material in the opposite direction
to abstain from the human action, would
not make that material more capable to
enact 3 D sorting. What does generate high
ability material, is medium level human
action; as high parts do generate from this.
Then a fraction of those high powered
parts comes back to the human material as
Jesus representation. So that one needs to
do this medium level sexual feeling for a
while, to build up Jesus representation
from the high parts that are generated from
this, in order to then do a period of excess
human action followed by minimal human
action; as one needs a powerful enough
Jesus representation to shepherd over all
these human actions. There is the idea that
one can divert material in the opposite
direction, in abstinence, while one does
more human action. And if one combined
the material in abstinence with the material
in 'promiscuity', then the imbalances
generated from both promiscuity and
abstinence will be balanced out and the
whole will be stronger, and able as a whole,
to sort themselves away from
overpowering all evils. Unfortunately, this
jumps the gun on how the 'on' and then 'off'
cycle works. Yes, because after the more
-human-action (which has an oppositely
directed material to abstain from that
human action) is done, then the doing of
less or low human action, correspondingly
needs an oppositely directed material that
does more human action. So that there is
always some part of us that is always doing
a large amount of the human action, and we
are never able to quit doing the human
action even when we are full and are no
longer hungry of the human action. We
need to be at a low level of doing the
human action, so that from that point we
can quit doing the human action when we
are full; and that is not achieved when there
is always part of us that is doing that
human action to excess, or above the rest
state. So instead, we use a separate
Jesus representation, which is powerful
because high parts have previously escaped
the evils of medium level human area, and
then some of those high parts have rejoined
the human area as this Jesus representation.
So that when we are doing mild excess
followed by mild abstinence of a human
action, we depend on the Jesus
representation generated previously in the
medium doing of the human action. xxx
Now, as we generate high-good-parts from
our non-high, human material, at medium
level; the high-good-parts need to be kept
separate from evils, including the partial
evils of the human area. But the high
-good-parts can't do this as it would require
them to have contact with the evil, thus
contaminating them. So it is the Jesus
representation that does this, as it can have
contact with evil things and partly evil
human things, to move them out of the
way. But just realize that these high-good
-parts were not too long ago, part of the
human area; so that as the human area at
medium level keeps generating high-parts
from itself; its Jesus representation has to
keep moving it away from itself, that is, the
part of itself that has developed into a high
part. So that our human area at medium
level is constantly on the move and is
constantly being moved out of the way of
the high parts that generate from it.
However, I am partly in error in this. When
the Jesus representation acts, it acts to sort
according to the 3 tiered sorting. It grabs
and takes any all-evil that can be separated
away from the human things and sorts that
into the all-evil place. It takes the human
things by their evil parts and sorts them
into the human area place, and keeps both
these things away from the all good and
each other, and it itself doesn't contact the
all-good. It keeps the human parts separate
from the all-good and also the all-evil parts
separate from both these. So that the
medium level human area is NOT
constantly on the move out of the way of
the all-good that it is generating. You see,
the all-good that is newly generated escapes
of itself and its own action to the high
parts. The sogp doesn't grab hold of good
parts to sort them where they need to be, as
that would alter the nature of the
developing good parts, and it must be from
within the good parts themselves to either
leave the human parts and join the high
parts, or to stay with the human parts (as
part of the Jesus representation), as that is
what their nature is at that time. Realize
that a potential high part is not yet a high
part as long as it remains in contact with
either the human area or the all-evil area.
And that newly generated high parts must
prove that they are high parts by being able
to act in an evil free way, and are unable to
generate the richness of true high parts
while in contact with any evil, including
human evil, and must leave the human area
to generate such richness and have it
survive and not be burned down. So that
any all-good has no place among human
parts, and cannot exist there without being
burned down. And the Jesus representation
acts to keep human material away from
high parts that would try to be with human
material. But wise high parts remove
themselves from human areas so that their
richness will not be burned down and they
won't put unnecessary burden on the Jesus
representation. The Jesus representation
can't contact the newly generated all-good,
because it can't contact any all-good due to
the destructiveness that it is in contact with.
So it is up to the newly generated all-good
part to remove itself from the human area
and join the high parts where it can
generate its richness. However, the Jesus
representation could act to move the human
material out of the way of a newly
generated all-good, (except for the part of
the new all-good that is to join and become
part of the Jesus representation). If this
were the case, then no matter if the new
high part stayed, or moved to the high
parts, it would no longer have contact with
its former human area; so it might as well
move on to the high parts so as not to
burden the Jesus representation with
unnecessary movements. But in any case,
it is up to the newly generated high parts to
try to recontact its former human area, or to
move onto be with the established high
parts. So that we do not have as a matter of
policy, a constant moving of the medium
level human area away from the high parts
it newly generates to any large degree, but
only to a small degree to handle initial
circumstances, and in the cases of willful
newly generated high parts that are just a
little confused and aren't ready to leave the
human area from which they came right
away. Of course, if a newly generated high
part really wants to stay with the human
parts after some initial reasoning, they can
probably give up their high part status and
be burned down to human parts again. But
the materials in their medium level makeup
keep throwing them out of the human area
as goodness keeps escaping its human
evils. So that eventually, newly generated
high parts leave the human area and join
the high part area of their own volition, and
do not burden the Jesus representation with
unnecessary sorting activities. xxx
I wanted to revisit the continuum from
monogamy to promiscuity for another
point. Note that as women, men, and
society in general, force absolute
monogamy on us, with no cheating; that
over the generations, people become more
imbalanced and less self sufficient, so that
they become ever more dependent on a
connection to their greater society. But
when satisfying the sexual urge, they need
to pull away from the greater society to be
alone together; and since the very act of
having a sexual feeling is one that enlarges
the importance of one person while
minimizing the importance of all others;
these things tear one away from their
connection to the greater society. Now if
one has some degree of self sufficiency,
then this isn't a problem because the sex
act takes so little time. But as people keep
getting less and less self sufficient,
theoretically there can come a point where
even the small amount of time away from
the societal connection starts to become
painful, and then even lethal. So
theoretically, after some point, that society
will become sexually dysfunctional and
unable to reproduce. At that point, if they
haven't discovered how to overcome death,
they will all die off and disappear. Or if
they haven't discovered how to reproduce
themselves outside of the sexual way, like
through cloning, then they will be fixed at
their position, and unable to grow.
So if you people keep insisting on this
absolute monogamy forever, then you are
just going to destine our whole society to
the trash heap. How wastefull.
Note that if you do not allow yourselves to
have small and medium sexual feelings to
those who are not your mate, and or who
are your mate, but instead put all sexual
feeling towards your mate, and no sexual
feeling towards anyone not your mate, then
the lack of medium level in this imperfect
human area will mean that no high parts are
generated. And with no high parts
generated, no new Jesus representation will
be generated; so that one will lack the
power to 3 D sort overpowering all-evils
off one's human area, where one's rich area
of sexual feeling with one's spouse will
eventually be consumed by some
overpowering all-evil.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Human sexual desires/drives effect us
strongly on an individual level. But society
and religion also want to have say over our
individual sexuality. Sometimes they want
to prevent us from using birth control, or
abortion; condemn homosexual
expressions; and condemn expressions
outside of marriage. As an individual, I am
small and weak compared to the greater
society, or even to God. It would be foolish
of me (an individual) to go against the
greater society or even God in any area
wouldn't it? Usually, this is true: it is futile
for the individual to go against much more
powerful entities such as the greater society
or even God. But with the sexual area, it is
a special area -a rare area where the
individual has a good chance at being the
boss over society, and even religion. Where
in this case, the tail can wag the dog.
You see, society has a sexual need too. It
needs for us individuals to have some
offspring so as to continue itself past one
generation; but also to moderate that
offspring production so only a limited
number of offspring are produced, so that it
can remain a rich society. This is what the
family structure is for -to provide a
nurturing environment for the rearing of
children, but also to burden the couple with
that rearing so they won't have an excessive
number of children. And casual sex,
cheating, homosexual activity, birth
control/abortion do not serve the greater
society's need for generating the next
generation. Know that there is plenty
enough room for individuals to express
their sexuality and have plenty of sexuality
left over for the satisfaction of the greater
society's need here. But sometimes greater
societies take to bossing around and
belittling the individual, and making the
individual know that the individual position
is not important, but that the greater society
is all important, so that they stamp out any
individual expressions which are not in line
with societal expressions. But here in the
sexual area, unlike in most areas, the
individual has the rare power to eliminate
greater societies which are not to their
liking.
By disobeying the directives of society,
individuals can have sex with birth control
and abortion, casual sex, etc; all while
having no children; and by doing so, can
eliminate that society in one generation. No
matter how much this greater society
punishes us, we can still bring it to an end
by having no children. So that here in the
sexual area, I seek to make it an area under
individual control. That it is not an area
that belongs to the greater society, religion,
or even God; but that it shall be an area that
belongs only to the individual; and that
through it, individuals are able to express
their approval, or disapproval, of these
more powerful entities that are over them.
This is an inherent democracy, a vote if
you will, that the individual comes born
with. There are some who are very
articulate about telling us how we should
be behaving towards each other sexually,
out of all the possible ways we could
behave towards each other sexually. Stories
of what they would do or what others have
done if they caught their mate cheating,
abound. But as to an explanation of why
this way is better than the other
possibilities; there is a strange lacking of
articulation, and silence. This appeal for
fidelity without reasoning, doesn't appeal to
my thinking mind. Another thing that
doesn't appeal to my thinking mind, is the
animal attraction I may feel towards a hot
babe/stud. So if I just accept what comes
over me by faith, without question, without
engaging my thinking mind; then some of
the time, when these agents of fidelity
come over me, I will be faithful: And when
what is biologically borne in me -the hot
babes/studs, comes over me, I will by faith,
unquestioningly follow there, and thus be
unfaithful. So that without reason, my
reasoning mind sees that I won't be able to
stick to any absolute course (so why bother
trying (to actually be absolutely faithful
without question (by faith alone))?). Futile.
Now, with reason, I will be able to stick
with a consistent course (of moderation (in
all (human) things)), but as it turns out, it
won't be (absolutely) with the fidel-itors.
And then they call upon Jesus. Well, this
brings to mind God the father. And where
almighty God is, we humans seek to give
up our humanity and join God (so that we
are no longer human, but godly); and Jesus
is quite helpful with that. But where
humans and human ways exist
comfortably, is a place where God and
absolute goodness has not yet appeared.
And high ability goodness will not appear
as long as we keep these rules over our
humanness and prevent ourselves from
advancing higher. So there is no need to
call on Jesus here, as absolute goodness
(love) has not appeared to cause us to
desire to replace our humanness with
Godliness. And if we prevent ourselves
from advancing beyond our human ways,
by carefully observing these rules over our
human ways, then all we will have is our
human ways, and God will never come,
and it will seem like God doesn't exist; and
in our little area; He won't.
This again brings up the question that
someone may ask you: Do you believe in
God? When someone asks me if I believe
in God; I realize that the area of God is an
area I can't see or prove. But I would like to
refer to what I can see. And what I can see,
is human beings who are something, but
are not powerful enough or good/kind
enough to be Gods. What I can see, is
human beings, but human beings who in
their lifetime; in what I can see and show:
never advance into being extensions of
God.
Throughout their lives it seems they never
outgrow needing food, sex, attention, etc.
This lack of growing into and advancing
into anything greater than human, strikes
me as a stagnation and a trap and an
inability to be anything other than human.
So that with the persona of God being out
of reach of humans actually achieving, it
remains in the realm of the invisible and
outside our reality.
Since the persona of God is so much better
and richer than what we know as humans;
for me to say that such exists, that God
exists, puts a condemnation upon the
humans who I can see and that I know
exist, for being stuck as humans and never
growing into and becoming extensions of
God. And I do say: Yes, God exists. And
thereby condemn this human stagnation
that we find ourselves in. And what is it
that causes us to stagnate, and never
advance/grow out of being humans, into a
higher and richer plane of life? I claim it is
religion and religion's rules over the living
of human life in human gray areas of living
life. And by proclaiming the existence of
God, I do thereby condemn religion and
societal absolute rules over the living of
human life. -thereby putting to shame this
system where humans don't advance or
grow into being anything more than
humans, who just stagnate as humans; thus
making concepts of God, rich in absolute
goodness and kindness, to be figments of
imagination, not within, but outside our
visible grasp and visible reality. So that
when asked if I believe God exists, I can't
just point to Him and say, see, there He is;
but have to instead explain a concept that is
invisible and not visibly here yet. -due to
the stagnation that we are in. Along these
same lines, we could take a tip from
Genesis in the Bible. -Where Adam and
Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were then
cast out of the paradise Eden. What is the
forbidden fruit? Well, Genesis claims it is
from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. Well, religion proclaims the
knowledge of what is good or bad, godly or
of the devil. It is religion, I claim, is the
forbidden fruit, that throws all who partake
of it, out of the paradise of Eden with God.
Also, after they ate the fruit, they became
aware of their nakedness; ashamed of their
nakedness, and wove fig leaves to cover
themselves. And isn't it the case that most
religions focus on suppressing the sex drive
and make us ashamed of our sexuality. And
isn't it the case that women are more
interested in religion, just as Eve ate the
fruit first and brought it to Adam. So, yes,
it is religion that is the forbidden fruit, that
brings death. And you would do well to
heed Genesis' advice and to not partake of
its fruits, so that you can keep your
fellowship with God in paradise.
And we can chide these humans who insist
on clinging to their humanity by way of
their condemnation of infidelity; by
pointing out that although they complain
about the fallout; the seeming improper
expressions of human biologic attractions
between the opposite sexes; of the humans
around them:
Are they ready to fill the void if that
imperfect human biological attraction were
removed? That are the humans around
them of such a caliper of being loving and
kind and generous; to devote years of their
lives and resources living in pairs, raising
children, as part of their work and
business? Or, instead, do the people at
work act in cutthroat backstabbing
manipulative ways towards each other, so
that nobody would be willing to make the
sacrifice to raise the next generation? And
that without the benefit of biologic
attractions harnessed towards the family
structure, this system would end.
Also that without godly ways present to
replace the human ways; throwing out the
human ways leaves one with nothing and
barrenness and an end to whatever is there.
Our greater society and religion actively
pursue a policy to put sexual desire in
control of reproduction. And my question
is, how does this interrelate with the prime
directive of Love: to encourage kindness
over cruelty? (But let's wait till later to
explore this.)
As a new religion, the act of marriage,
whereby one hoards their spouse's sexuality
all to themself without sharing it, is now a
sin. And the act of cheating and sharing
ones sexuality around, is now an holy
estate ordained by God. Sinners repent!!!
It is unfortunate that an old religion causes
couples to develop expectations about that
their mates should be faithful to them and
only them, when that is not necessarily the
way that they should go. What right does
one person have to claim another's
sexuality all to themselves? But such a rite
is given to all spouses under our current
system; in a kind of sexual slavery. Abolish
this last bastion of slavery. Xxxxx
However; human sexuality has in it
hopelessly intertwined, goodness and
destruction, so that no absolute rules of any
religion belong over it, not even this new
religion. Neither absolute chastity nor
absolute promiscuity, works.
When one hoards one's mate's sexuality all
to themselves, they generate a rich area,
where the input of the force of good (voids)
is in scarce supply, and hence do make it
difficult for the force of good to grow here;
and also make it easy for the force of
destruction to grow here (because the input
of destruction (life) is in rich supply). And
since destruction is invariably a part of this
imperfect human sexual area, it invariably
gets out and burns these marriages down.
After the divorce/breakup, the couple is
then free to pair up with others, and start
new families, hence providing the needed
genetic mixing. Society's needs are met for
eternal continuation, but this sure is sucky
and a lot of aggravation for the individual.
Maybe some individuals will get a mind to
try to do it differently. Lets hope so.
Do you find having sex to be pleasurable?
If so, then why do you prevent this
imperfect force of good from acting beyond
your mate: thus torturing/blocking this
imperfect force of good?
In the imperfect area of human sexuality,
some good and also some destruction are
generated. Why is this imperfect good
forced to live in a rich area, where it has a
hard time finding its input
-voids/improvements to make, when there
is right next door, areas of barrenness that
it needs to make its goodness force active?
Why does one torture their imperfect good
this way?
When a couple marry, they attend to each
other and build up a rich area, while they
neglect others, and there develops barren
areas. In their rich area, their human
goodness finds itself having an ever more
difficult time in finding its input of voids or
improvements to make (as this is what a
rich area does), hence ones active human
goodness here is minimized and becomes
small.
However, ones human goodness is attracted
to the barren areas where there is plenty of
its input, as this is what forces of good do,
that is move onto areas where it can be
useful and fill needs, and out of areas that
are already satisfied. But this draws a
couple's attentions away from each other,
and eventually results in divorce as they
grow away from each other. And then they
remarry and the cycle starts all over again.
This is a broken system and a waste of
everyone's time.
Now when the force of good builds up all
areas to richness, then it finds itself in the
same shortage of its input (of
improvements to make) as happens right
away in the marriage situation. But as we
know, the force of good is able to bridge
barriers and keep on existing, even in the
rich situation. And in the marriage
situation, the human good here, also does
do some of this. -And in doing so, allows
evil to have access to crossing barriers
where it would otherwise be unable to
cross, since destruction is part of all
imperfect human actions. This is a very
unwise way of doing things that favors and
succors evil/destructiveness. Quit it.
Stop that. First allow the human goodness
found in human actions to free themselves
of the human evils they came born with by
allowing them to live in medium ability,
and not forcing them to cross barriers in
richness to survive while they are still tied
to this evil.
Since forcing a force of good to live in rich
areas (where it is starving for its input of
voids/improvements to make), forces it to
bridge barriers to stay alive: the force of
destruction then is supplied with this ability
to bridge barriers which it would otherwise
not have. Thanks a lot.
You people who think you are doing good
and right by upholding the conservative
morality, are actually making yourselves
sources for the force of evil/destruction.
In this situation, a spouse can introduce a
controlled amount of meanness which will
destroy the richness down to medium
ability so that the pair's human good will
not be stifled and will not be forced to
cross barriers for the force of evil. Of
course, a couple can achieve this same
thing by being aloof from each other, but
that doesn't discount the valid use of
meanness in this situation. Usually such all
destructiveness brings a change from
medium to barrenness, which is bad. But
here it is used instead to bring down from
richness to medium, which is good. This
may be why some women like their men to
treat them a little rough and be
domineering to them, and make their
marriage work that way; allowing their
human goodness room to exist and act
without being squeezed by richness.
However, the people here need to limit their
meanness so that it only burns down to
medium ability, and not down to
barrenness. Better yet, do not restrict your
sexuality according to the conservative
way, and you don't have to be mean at all.
xxx
Sometimes a group, especially a
conservative one, emphasizes the
disadvantages of a promiscuous lifestyle
while remaining silent* about the
disadvantages of a chaste lifestyle (*and
they say you've got to watch out for the
silent ones); when the truth is there are
disadvantages to both lifestyles; and that
we need to mix it up and do both so as to
be at medium level, so as not to go to
extreme bareness in any one of these
directions. (*such an approach is deceptive
as it does not represent what is truly out
there well. and those who use deception,
can be called deceivers. And religion calls
the devil, the father of lies. Thus it would
seem that religion calls itself of the devil in
this area.)
In the conservative way, all sexuality is
corralled towards the family way in a
structure of monogamy with no cheating.
Yes, when a hot woman gets married to a
man, she forces all the other horny men
that want her, to not have sex with her;
against their will. She does thereby violate
so many people this way. But such is the
way of human sexuality (one of the gray
actions) where no matter which way you
go, there is always harm and
destructiveness, just in different areas.
Because of this; because the sexual area is
an imperfect work in progress: it is no
place for absolute dictates toward any one
direction or another.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then there's the
song that goes: "No huggy, no kissy until I
get a wedding ring. My honey, my baby,
don't put my love upon a shelf. Don't give
me no lines and keep your hands to
yourself."
Here we can see the female is corralling the
man's untamed sex drive and harnessing it
towards forming a stable family structure
where a certain number of offspring can be
produced, thus satisfying the greater
society's sexually based need to have
couples produce and raise a certain number
of children so that the society can continue
past one generation. Thus satisfying
society's sexual need. (Notice how so many
women are so horny to satisfy the societal
sexual need (by forming the stable family
structure with no 'cheating').) Aside from
the fact that the woman gets to frustrate the
man's untamed sex drive; is this really an
advantageous position for the woman to
take? In a society that does not compensate
or monetarily recognize the work a woman
does in causing the whole society's
continuation; the woman here has satisfied
society's sexually based need for
continuation, but has gotten nothing in
return. You may say that society allows the
woman to then share in the monetary
holdings of the man she has captured. Yet a
woman could monetarily gain much more
by trading her sexuality to many men who
are eager and willing, to whom the novelty
of infatuation is still new and has not worn
off. Of course this society makes
prostitution illegal so that its own sexual
need may be satisfied instead. The act of
giving years of ones life to a greater society
that takes and does not compensate for; is
just the same as letting these horny men
have their way with you without
compensation. Both ways the woman is
taken advantage of. But if a woman were to
put her foot down, she could have
compensation from these horny men either
way, and that doesn't necessarily mean she
should go the way of placing the stamp of
acceptance on this society which corrals
sexuality to wedding rings and family
(which offspring are an integral part).
When a woman supports the societal way
of corralling all sexuality to the family
structure and the raising of a certain
number of offspring; she has in essence
said that she accepts the society she is in
without question and has given it a blank
check for its continuation no matter what it
does.
Not every woman is willing to give up her
mind and become a rubber stamp; a non
thinking, baby making machine; for
whatever their society does. In a
democratic society, this is out of place.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me change the subject and go over my
latest structure concerning feeding gray
hungers and casting out evils. But first, lets
review the earlier structure of the sogp:
Now, in the human areas; when the
smaller, split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to medium
ability), in the vacuums (where there is
nothing and barrenness) caused by
destruction, even the destruction of rules
over human areas,(and even the
destructions that are part of the human
actions themselves): it is wise for this split
off part to limit its exposure to only the
human part it is presently
creating/generating, and not the rest of that
human area; even if this generated material
is eventually for the rest of that human
area. This is because this smaller, split off,
all good part can limit the loss of purity and
exposure to destruction, to just what is in
the human part it is generating. Once it is
done creating a piece of this material, it can
then withdraw itself and then allow the rest
of the human area to have possession/use
of it. So that the split off all good parts of
us can act to generate material in isolation,
and then shortly, to also act to release
pieces of that material away from itself and
this isolation, unto the rest of this human
area. In these coordinated set of actions that
build parts of human actions/things; once a
certain part has reached medium ability,
this part is no longer generated in isolation,
but other parts are, as the split off all good
does move onto these other parts that are in
need of being brought from nothingness to
medium level. The parts at medium level
that are no longer being generated, are still
participants in the rest of this human area,
and do receive what is released from
isolation; its just that they do not keep on
being generated; so that they do not move
then from medium level to high ability, (as
a result of this generating in isolation and
then release).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Another complicated scenario that can
occur, goes like so:
first the sogp(or Jesus representation within
us) generates feeding of a human need(first
in a rarefied way, then after concentrating
the rarefied to medium level in one half,
leaving nothing human/gray in the other
half, and removing this gray free
half(which is itself); and then later
generating robustly to medium level); and
then removing itself away; the gray/human
need area now at medium level, may or
may not wish to test its situation by going
to high level. If so, it may either find
freedom from all evil and heaven, or burn
itself down as caught by its own evil. In
these tests, the sogp stays separate from
this. But sometimes in the middle of a test,
need for additional human need pops up.
The sogp can generate this new material
(first in a rarefied way, then robustly) to
medium level. However, this material
being generated to medium level with the
presence of the sogp, needs an additional
action to keep it separate from the test
material that is going to high level, even
though they are both of the same type of
hunger satisfying.
Now, once the sogp separates away, then
this medium level hunger satisfying can
join the test material (at its medium level or
ramped up also to high level, either way),
and no longer needs to be kept separate
from the test material. And of course, if the
test material finds that it is incapable of
generating what it needs, or if evil is
burning it too much; it can come off of
high level and back to medium level; and
once it does, the sogp can then come in and
generate new things in it also; and then it
can again test to high level, or not, if it
wishes.
Eventually material breaks free of all evil
and joins heavenly, all good material: a
small fraction of that new high all good
material to split off and join the sogp. -the
sogp keeping separate from both the high
all good material, and the gray/human
material as best it can.
Now for my latest structure:
As we have discovered, there is the
directive for rest and pampering the
individual components; that must be
balanced against the directive for action in
group endeavors, so that both directives are
grown/advanced (as opposed to only the
group directive being grown. This is
expressed by increasing the intensity of our
doing of an action: -and this represents the
group directive within us; while when we
act to relax and decrease the intensity of
doing any specific action: -this represents
the individual components directive (within
us). (This is because, to do any focussed or
specific action, we must mobilize our
individual components to act collectively,
in unison as a group, to do the action.
Thus when we relax, the group directive is
lessened, leaving room for the individual
components to be more emphasized. So
that we could pursue a moderate and thus
balanced doing of an action, and this would
represent perfection in the choice to
balance these two directives. And this
material would be spirited off to heaven to
join with the high good.
But in order to have a Jesus Christ
representation or sogp within us to be able
to respond to things in the gray areas,
another way to choose this balancing the
directives can be done. And that is to go at
high intensity of doing an action for a
period of time, and then to switch to low or
no intensity doing that action for the same
period of time, and cycle back and forth
like this. At no specific point in time does
this representation act in perfect balance of
these directives, so it cannot be taken up
into the high parts. But overall, it still
represents a choice for balancing the two
directives yet does so as a separate Jesus
Christ entity within us that is separate or
away from both the high parts and the gray
areas.
Realize that when obtaining a gray area
good/feeding a hunger, that the moderate
doing of an action (which is working its
way into perfection to eventually join the
high parts); and the sogp's cycling between
high and low intensity doing of that action;
do exist side by side: -with the moderate
doing of the action being the only one
present when the sogp is in its rest part of
its cycle.
However, there is no moderate non cycling
doing of a casting out evil action
(eventually to join with the high good)
because the high good removes itself from
all evil and never does/includes any casting
out gray area evils action, and that is the
sole domain of the sogp.
Now, when the sogp is generating to
medium ability in a gray area, what cycle
period/frequency does it do?
Well, if the sogp was active for a long time
(and then rested for a long time) then a
high ability generating would be done
(from the long active period). And the
richness would be burned down by the evil
in the gray area.
But if the sogp cycled rapidly back and
forth, then only a small or low amount
could be done each period the sogp was
active. And if the sogp had to start over
each time (due to the evil of the gray area
consuming what was produced in the
previous cycle because the good produced
couldn't get away from the evil at that low
/barren ability level), then this generating
would remain at low ability. But, if the sogp
cycled at a medium period, then the desired
medium ability would be generated in the
gray area.
Now, concerning the casting out of evil:
when the sogp is casting out an evil (non
destructively as possible of course), it is
debatable how it should do it. (But however
it does it, it cycles alone, as there is no
moderate non cycling casting out evil to
work towards joining the high parts, since
casting out evil is solely the domain of the
sogp.)
There is no good in an all evil being cast
out, so there's no need to do it at medium
ability, because this is not a gray action (it
is an all evil) and there is no goodness to be
salvaged. And the sooner it is removed, the
better off all will be. So the indication is
that is should be done at full bore until its
action is complete (however long that
takes) (and then of course, the sogp would
rest for an equally long length of time). But
this puts that sogp out of commission for
that time, unable to respond to other gray
things.
And then there's the possibility that the high
ability material (generated at full bore)
used to cast out the evil, may be infected by
the evil and be burned down. (Well,
nobody said evil had to be cast out always
at full bore, and if an evil seems to be able
to resist a full bore casting out, then a
medium bore casting out would be a good
thing to try before one thinks the evil is
unstoppable and unable to be cast out.
Note that even if the sogp at full bore is
unsuccessful at casting out an all evil (from
a gray area)' it is successful at preventing
the evil from infecting the high good
(which is another one of the sogp's
directives). -While the evil is detained
dealing with /infecting the lower ability
sogp at high bore, the high good is able to
get away. But of course the sogp is burned
down and is 'expended', leaving the gray
area still in need of having an all evil cast
out.
A solution to all this, is to have a two tier
structure.
To respond to a need:
One sogp only generates and grows more
new sogp, (doesn't do any response action),
and does so at a cycle frequency that puts it
at medium ability. The newly generated
sogp from this, then does the response
action, and in this case casts out the evil at
a constant on or full bore cycle frequency,
(but some medium bore casting out evil can
be thrown in if need be).
The generator sogp should generate each
new response sogp in separate locations so
if one response sogp fails, other response
sogp can step in to take its place or not
even if it fails, but just to relieve older
response sogp after some point and let
them rest.
The response sogp sometimes can be
considered as like gray material as they
often bear the brunt of destructiveness;
leaving the generator sogp to actually
experience what a sogp was meant for.
Now, let's analyze how this new structure
works with feeding gray hungers. -(This
has an additional component that casting
out evil doesn't have, which is a smaller
portion of a non cycling moderate intensity
action which is not sogp or when it joins
the high parts will no longer be sogp,
representing a return flow out of the sogp
and gray area back to the high parts.)
The task of generating new sogp, vs, the
task of response to satisfy a gray hunger,
may have different cycling frequencies (to
put them at medium ability); and this can
be achieved with our 2 tier structure.
A trouble with the inherent cycling
frequency of a gray hunger though, is that
if done at full bore, the high ability
generated may be burned down by the evil
in the gray action and it would then take a
long time if ever to satisfy the hunger, thus
making the inherent frequency infinite. So
that if one interrupted their feeding of their
gray hunger with a cycling frequency that
generated medium ability, then the evil in
the hunger wouldn't be able to burn it
down, and this would put one much closer
to satisfying the hunger in a much shorter
time than if one went full bore with no
interruption of their feeding. Once one is
much closer, one may opt to go full bore in
the final stretch, especially if the moderate
cycle interruption of the feeding is
preventing its final satisfaction. But
remember, going at medium bore in the
response sogp is one of the things that
differentiates feeding a hunger vs casting
out an evil.
But of course, one never goes full bore but
always goes at medium bore/cycling
frequency with the GENERATOR sogp.
-and then may or may not go at medium
bore with the responder sogp when
satisfying a gray hunger. -and when casting
out an evil, the responder sogp is done at
full bore all the time; and also, there is no
side by side non cycling moderate intensity
component working to join the high parts
when casting out evil.
Now, after the hunger is satisfied, all the
sogp involved don't go into a long cycle
frequency as previously thought, but go
into a NON CYCLING (perfectly
balanced) moderate intensity mode, and
may join the high good parts for a time
-only to leave the high good parts by
cycling again in response to a new hunger
or casting out evil. And when the response
sogp's casting out evil task is complete,
these response sogp go into a long rest, and
are out of commission for a long time.
But once its rest is finished, it can go to the
non cycling (perfect balance) moderate
intensity, and join the high parts for awhile,
until it is needed again for response action,
or to now be generator sogp (in support of
response action).
I have just been informed of a potential
flaw in these methods. The reason we cycle
between high and low intensity doing of an
action, is to detain this material from
passing to the high good parts, so that we
can maintain a jesus representation, or
sogp, that is separate from the high parts.
But doing an action at high intensity, and
low intensity, at some level, causes there to
be rich areas, and barren areas; which is
just what we don't want for separation of
the forces, (and then moving on to the high
parts). However, our human earthly life is
full of actions which do all good to one
area, while doing all destruction to another
area. This is the nature of our gray/human
actions. And all we need to do, is to not
afix them to any one particular structure,
which allows them to generate medium
ability in these areas. (Of course, it would
seem the cycling frequency handles this).
The moderate cycling frequency between
high and low intensity, or rich and
barrenness, allows this same medium level
to be obtained at some points in time. So
that although material may be detained as
together with evil so as to maintain a jesus
representation; it is not held there for
excessive periods of time. As we cycle
between rich and barren intensity doing of
an action, a medium intensity doing of the
action is crossed many times as we cycle at
a moderate cycling frequency; thus giving
material there many chances of
escape/freedom from evil, so that it is not
detained there indefinitely.
When the response sogp goes at full bore in
casting out an evil; and when it goes at full
bore in the final stages of satisfying a
hunger, note that when the generator sogp
comes back on line (after its rest period),
that it generates new response sogp to
continue going at full bore, and that the
new response sogp does replace the old
response sogp so that the old response sogp
can go into a rest period. This way, no
response sogp has to be in a rich
environment indefinitely, but can also cycle
between rich and barren, thus generating
the medium level in what it is acting on.
Of course, the cycling frequency is twice
as long as that of the generator sogp, so its
swings in intensity may have to be lowered
compared to that of the generator sogp, (for
perfect balance).
Then there is the consideration that because
the high good parts don't do casting out evil
or feeding human hungers, that to do this,
itself, does separate the sogp away from the
high good parts; and the cycling between
high and low intensity is thus not needed to
achieve this, and a much simpler medium
intensity (without all this cycling) can be
used instead.
There may be other reasons why we may
need to go at high intensity in achieving
satisfaction of a hunger or casting out evil,
but this main reason would no longer be
valid. However, whenever any human
material acts in medium ability, it does free
itself from its evil and being evil free, is
ripe to join the high good parts; thus
leaving the sogp classification.
Now, the casting out of evil action may
circumvent all this cycling (and be a
separate entity from the high good parts
just by doing its action), but the satisfying
hungers does not, or not for long. If we
were to do satisfying a hunger at medium
non cycling level, the material here may
become free and join the high parts before
the hunger was satisfied; so that a high and
low cycling would be needed to keep
material long enough to satisfy the hunger.
Note that action cycling at high and low
intensity does cause rich and barren areas
in the material that is doing these actions.
And this does prevent the human evil
within it from separating away. (This is
what allows a separate entity of the sogp to
exist.) (But this may be incorrect because
the moderate cycling frequency may be
enough to cause medium ability overall).
But once the human hunger is satisfied, we
should then do that material at medium
intensity so it is not longstandingly
detained with its human evil. When
another hunger pops up, this material (of
the sogp) can again leave the high good
parts to be the separate entity of the sogp.
And if too many hungers pop up in a row,
a break should be taken so the sogp
material can rest in the high good parts (by
no longer cycling, but doing at medium
intensity) and let new sogp material take up
the cause.
So as a result of this alert, the casting out all
evils that the sogp does, may not have to be
done as this complicated cycling, but as a
much simpler medium intensity action.
But of course there may be times when a
high intensity casting out evil may be
needed, and then this more complex
cycling can still be used.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Consider that as pieces, cogs, or component
parts of a greater society, consider that as
individuals, we are unbalanced in order to
generate our part of the societal entity
(which puts all the unbalanced individual
contributions together, to make a complete
societal whole); leaving every individual
'component' as unbalanced and not self
sufficient or complete whole in and of
itself. And that when we find a mate who is
like us, this union is also unbalanced and
incomplete. So that as individuals become
more unbalanced, and more and more their
specialized, specific component part of the
greater society; the bond that joins each
individual to the greater society becomes
more satisfying, whereas the act of like
male and female pairs to separate from the
greater society and form mating pairs,
becomes less satisfying, because it cuts
them off from their link to completeness
and wholeness, because by themselves,
they are incomplete and are not whole, but
are unbalanced. So that the mating ritual
becomes of less importance as we loose our
individuality ever more completely to the
societal entity; all because of the mating
ritual. And with the mating ritual
becoming less and less important to our
satisfaction, we as individuals are less
likely to go against what the society wishes
in order to obtain any individual directive
in it.
This segment is repeated: Now, if one
were to generate a complete love for a
complete spouse, that person would not
exist because self sufficient
spouses/individuals do not exist. But if one
generated this complete love anyway, and
then distributed the part that matched their
unbalanced spouse, then that would work
out well to bring multiple unbalanced loves
together into one complete and balanced
love. And one may go even further back
and generate a complete entity containing
both male and female essences, which then
splits off the needed parts for one's
unbalanced love, leaving the remnant for
balance. And so, if one is going to generate
an all inclusive entity which contains all
the different attributes of every human
being together as one super entity; which
then partially divides up into each
individual human being: then one needs to
create this super entity with a lot of extra
duplicate parts of all the common things of
these humans, so that when the super entity
partially splits up, each human will then
have their OWN part of what is in
common. (If one is going to join multiple
loves, one needs to adjust the complete
entity generated to contain much more
of their core or common self that will then
become multiple copies each copy
distributed to be part of each individual
unbalanced love.) End (semi) repeated segment.
Note, however, that I have recently gotten
away from the idea of using a super entity
to solve the dating/mating problem of
unbalanced loves (but then have partially
returned), as there is an easier way to do it.
SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL:
Let us start with the balanced all inclusive
super entity that all others spring from. This
entity includes many duplicate amounts of
the common parts for when this entity
splits up into the multiple different sub
entities. Because it contains much
duplicate material, it has areas that are very
rich along side areas that are just rich.
Because of this richness, this entity is in a
poor position to do any kind of human
hunger satisfying since that contains some
evil that would burn it down. Instead, that
hunger satisfying must wait until this super
entity partially splits up. So this super
entity material is ejected to another
separate place where it then starts to split
up into the specific individual entities of
interest. But it doesn't split up completely
into separate entities. It starts to split up
enough so that these separate entities take
form, but not so much that these entities are
completely separate, but that they maintain
a connection connecting them all together.
Also included is the remnant entity that is
left over after forming the entity/entities of
interest (from the all inclusive, complete,
balanced super entity): and this remnant is
also connected. It is here in the partially
separated form entity where the hunger
satisfying is done. Any new needs are
handled by generating in the rich super
entity, but without active hunger satisfying,
and then sending that off to join this
partially separated entity area, where active
hunger satisfying is then done.
Note that this is just the high intensity part
of the cycling between high and low
intensity. For the low intensity part,
(usually before the hunger is satisfied), the
partially separate entities then goes to
completely separate entities(so that there is
now nothing in this partially shared entity
area), and also, the super entity goes to near
nothing. The hunger satisfying can
continue in the separate entities as need be,
but since there is lack of connection and
thus lack of coordination, this is not the
main area for hunger satisfying.
Note that since the material which
interconnected the entities in the previous
state was divided up and added to the now
individual entities, they are slightly richer
than in the previous state. Here in the
isolated state, it is like isolated groups of
one husband and one wife. This is just an
alternative state that material can be in, so
that there is a low to no intensity doing of
the all entities partially joined state (done
just previously). Once the rest period part
of the cycle is over, things switch back to
the high intensity part of the cycle (with the
orgy like state of the partially joined
entities, and also the super entity), and this
continues till the hunger is satisfied. Once
satisfied, the materials here can go into a
moderate intensity doing of all these states;
so that there will be moderate doing of the
partially joined structure along side of the
totally isolated structure along side of the
super entity.
But before this occurs, the final rest period
of the hunger satisfying is done. The
material in the partially separated entities
goes to the moderate doing in the totally
separate entities right away, yes. But then
the super entity, and partially separate
entity areas do a rest period; and then after
the rest period, a moderate super entity then
regenerates a moderate partially separate
entity. xxxxxxxxx
While we are working with an all inclusive
super entity that contains all the attributes
of every human; let me clarify this and
suggest a helpful technique. When it
comes to evil/destruction, we do not
include that in our super entity. Now
concerning human hungers -which do
contain some evil/destruction as part of
them; we do make allowances for that, as
we do satisfy them in the partially separate
entity. But all-evils, that are able to be
separated away; we do not include those in
our generating the super entity nor in the
partially separate entity, nor what of our
generating goes to the completely separate
entities area. Thus if any individual is evil
or has evil parts that can be separated
away, this is not carried over to be part of
the super entity. Thus these individuals are
replaced with a copy of them that is devoid
of these evils/destructivenesses. And by
this technique we can re-make and re
-create our world into a better place through
our creative abilities of creating the super
entity and partially separated entity. This
includes any all-evil (evil not associated
with human hungers) that has been able to
get inside us. -We can remake ourselves to
not include this evil, and thus in the new
copies of ourselves we will be free of it.
END (FOR NOW)
SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are two motivational systems
which coexist in our world today. One is
that of the force of good, which seeks to fill
areas of void and make improvements to
life. It seeks to help people; to feed the
poor and uplift the downtrodden. Christian
churches often take on this mantra.
Then there is the reward system of money.
It implores us to get a job and become
productive members of society, mostly for
the major benefit of an elite ruling class,
although each worker no matter how low,
draws some degree of life sustaining
sustenance from it and none can live
without it. It relies on some degree of
poverty and pain and void to motivate the
masses to do its bidding. Now even though
the money system relies on the pain of
poverty, whereas the force of good system
seeks to eliminate poverty altogether; there
is an area of coexistence where these 2
directives can exist peaceably. But before I
continue with this, let me clarify the
working of the money system.
WHY THERE IS A TEMPTATION FOR
BUSINESS TO POLLUTE OUR
ENVIRONMENT: AND OTHER WOES
OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
What can one person do? What can one
person do when there are labs and scientists
and a whole system that could do so much
more? Unfortunately, the system of ours is
flawed in one aspect. The flaw I speak of is
in our free enterprise system of supply and
demand. Supply and demand serves us well
in distributing resources to where they are
needed, to produce products that are in
demand. The flip side to this is that nothing
can be super abundant relative to other
things in this system. If something is too
abundant, supply will exceed demand, and
its price will go down. Resources used to
produce this product will be directed
elsewhere, where they can make more
money.
This system encourages a negative
motivation of creating shortages where
abundance existed before: If a commodity
is abundant and bountiful, there is no way
to make a profit on it (too much supply
means prices go down). But if that resource
can be destroyed through pollution or some
other bad management, then it can be
reduced to a limited supply, whereby it can
be (monopolized and) sold for a profit.
(Supply being reduced means prices, and
profits, go up.) This is what I mean by 'the
negative motivator of creating markets
where none existed before'. There is the
motivation to take things that were once
abundant, and partially destroy them so the
supply is more limited, and money can then
be made on them. Our system will never
achieve abundance because there will
always be the temptation to destroy some
of that abundance to make money.
Since our system doesn't work when things
become too abundant and plentiful; this is
why we have so many useless management
positions and bureaucracies (where people
make life difficult for each other). If we all
worked on production lines, we'd produce
too much and blow out our system with too
many plentiful supplies.
Our economic system takes abundance and
cuts it down to a more limited supply (for a
better profit). So instead of being at high
capability, our system brings us to medium
capability. Thus our economic system
works to keep us and our world at reduced
capability, in the trap of evil. This sucks!
Also, even when there is a sound production
producing economically, a product that
everybody needs and making a good profit:
that is spoiled by wall street buying and
selling this company on the stock market.
One big money tycoon buys this company,
then another tycoon buys it from him, and
another, and another. They take out loans
to do this, so that they attach a big debt
load to this good production, so that the
slightest downturn makes this good
production unable to meet its debt
obligations, thus bankrupting a perfectly
good and sound production. This sucks.
But wait a minute. This does not suck. This
is just what the Dr ordered. In order to get
us out of our human hungers and the gray
evils which go along with them, an
environment of reduced and medium
ability is just what is needed. And this
economic money system naturally seeks
the medium level. This is the area of
coexistence between the money system and
the force of good system. The force of
good system also seeks to bring medium
ability to where there are human hunger
evils, (and also goods). However, once a
thing has been freed from its human hunger
evils, it becomes rich and of high ability,
and needs to be removed from the money
system, otherwise it will just be pulled
down again. At this point, the money
system and the force of good system part
ways and do not share a common path; and
the perfected force of good here needs to
part ways and get away from this now
detrimental money system.
ECONOMICS
Sunshine, water and sometimes fish are
commodities that can be plentiful without
human help. When they are abundant, no
money can be made from them because
supply so greatly exceeds demand. Yet we
all benefit greatly from them (and for free
too). But if someone were to come in and
destroy or pollute these resources so there
was a more limited supply, then money
could be made selling the remaining
supply./ We will never make things
abundant in our economic system, because
the temptation is always to make things
less abundant so as to get rich.
Supply and Demand supposedly helps us
distribute resources where they're needed.
When there's a shortage of something,
people will pay more for it, and the price
goes up. Those who produce the product
make more money doing so. Others see the
opportunity to make good money and join
in the production. More product is
produced, and the shortage is alleviated.
This is how supply and demand is proposed
to work for our benefit. But it doesn't
always.
There's a fault in supply and demand: If
people don't have enough money in their
pockets for the (prices of) the products out
there, then supply and demand won't work
(to alleviate shortages). The core idea was
that people can make more money when
there is a shortage of a product everybody's
got to have. But higher prices for a product
don't necessarily mean more money will be
made. If there's a lack of money in people's
pockets, they'll just be forced to buy less.
It's not that starving people don't want to
buy food; it's just that if they have no
money, a demand for food won't show up
in economic terms.
Note that the money system thus doesn't
always work to seek the medium
environment, but sometimes seeks the
barren environment.
Here, the force of good system and the
money system part ways, and there is no
common ground at this point; and our sogp
and jesus representations need to intervene
and alleviate the barrenness to medium
ability here.
I don't think we have a clear picture of the
extent that psychological forces are in
operation. The use of these powerful
psychological influences or sanctions, for
the purpose of ensuring conformity and
obedience to norms; themselves actually
encourage disobedience and deviancy. The
problem is not with negative sanctions, but
with the use of positive sanctions or
rewards. In order to modify behavior using
rewards, one must first have a reward. If
one doesn't have much, or wishes to make
what they do have go further as a reward,
they can manipulate the environment to
make this more favorable.
Do you recall, B.F. Skinners operant
conditioning, psychology experiments
where a rat was trained and its behavior
modified? The researcher would use food
pellets or droppersfull of water to reward
the rat for modifying its behavior (after
initially training the rat to get the reward
with an associated stimulus).
But in order for the food pellet or water to
become a reward, the researcher would
deny the rat these things the night, or a
couple of nights before, so that the rat was
really thirsty or hungry by the time the
researcher worked with it. This denial of a
positive thing, is defined to be a
punishment -and not associated with any
behavior the rat did. This punishment was
not attempting to modify any behavior of
the rat: its purpose was instead, to turn the
water or food pellet in the hand of the
researcher, into a reward in the rat's mind.
In our society today, I feel we have relied
excessively heavily on this operant
conditioning psychology to modify human
behavior. You see, even a person's place in
the greater society; their very ability to be
allowed to participate in; even to serve and
WORK for and with the group; is made to
be a privilege and a reward itself. So, in our
society, being allowed to participate in and
be a part of the group, is denied to
newcomers just as a matter of policy, in
order to make them hungry for this: so it
can be used as a reward to modify
behavior. The good jobs and positions of
society can be doled out as rewards to those
who modify their behavior favorably
towards those who dole out these things,
(as directed by those who dominate the
larger society). Since teenagers are
newcomers, as they didn't even exist before
19 years ago, they must be starved and
made hungry for their places in the greater
society; for this operant conditioning to
work (that their future place in society is a
reward to be earned). It is this starvation
and living in a vacuum concerning
participating in and being part of the group
and the greater society, that sets the stage
for these caveman type groups and gangs to
try to fill that vacuum, as best as the
individual can (and they don't fill it very
well). We don't live in a vacuum, but in the
great society of the great U. S. of A.. It is
because no social structure is provided by
this great society. Thus the individual is
forced to provide this the best they can, as
back in the caveman days, when groups of
individuals got together, and hunted
something.
Now, if we understand this, we can know
that (corporate) society is not leaving us
alone, but is punishing us, not for anything
we have done; but in a blanket action to all
who haven't secured a place with them, in
order to make us hungry. So now, we no
longer need wonder why we are being
punished when we haven't done anything
wrong. We are punished, as part of a
mechanism to control us.
It is this situation of vacuum and void in the
life of the young adult (ever hear the
complaint 'there's nothing to do in this
town'?), that encourages criminal deviance,
because doing nothing is too boring; and
doing anything else, involves property
belonging to someone else, and is thus
criminally deviant.
In considering what is the problem
concerning the issue of poverty, it makes a
difference from who's perspective one is
looking. To the poor person, the problem
is: not having enough for basic survival
needs. To the government, the ruling class,
or the larger society; the problems with
poverty may be quite different. To be blunt,
poverty serves a purpose and has a
function. One possibility of dividing up the
economic goods we produce, is to divide
them equally. However, in order to
generate big rewards which are useful to
motivate the masses to chase after them by
doing the ruling class's bidding: one group
must accept less than the equal share so
another group can be enriched and receive
a big reward. Those who must accept less,
(that is the reward given for menial labor),
are understandably displeased. But to get
them to accept the menial reward in spite of
this a more dire alternative is shown them
-that of abject poverty. Poverty serves the
purpose of motivating those designated to
receive the menial reward, to accept this
their place, in spite of its lack of luster. So
for the ruling class, the problem with
poverty in the US today is that there isn't
enough of it; as our current reward system
depends on a certain amount of it to help it
run. Hence poverty persists in the US, more
than in other industrialized countries like
Canada and Western Europe even though
these countries are less wealthy than the
US.
Here we see that the workings of the money
system rely on poverty and voids and pain
in order to make their system work. But
this is actually fine and represents a
common area within the confines of
maintaining medium ability. However,
oftentimes the money system wants to take
it to the next level. They want to achieve
richness, and to do so they employ more
pain and suffering and poverty in order to
achieve this. This results in barrenness,
which is not conducive to separating the
forces or generating rich free material; and
the system thus collapses and breaks down,
because the attempt to achieve richness
actually causes the collapse due to the shift
from medium ability to barrenness in the
working class environment.
So now we say that although there can be
common ground between the money
system and the force of good system; the
money/greed system is unstable and must
be watched and is also not the whole
picture; and once human hunger materials
have been freed and gone to high
capability; this material needs to be
protected from the money system.
Then there is the concept of 'toughlove'
which by its name, seems to indicate that it
is also this common ground between the 2
systems. I mean, the tough part represents
the money system, while the love part
represents the godly side. But it is mostly a
lie and is not this common ground even
though its name seems to suggest it is. You
see, we humans are no longer self sufficient
but are unbalanced; so that when we are
thrown out to fend for ourselves, this is a
barren environment of total desolation
because we cannot function alone. Now, if
we are totally destructive teenagers, then
this is a suitable thing to do to us, and it
represents destruction being done to
destruction; and this is the only common
ground tough love has. But if we are
teenagers who are like most people; who
have some good and some bad to them;
then a medium ability environment is what
we need; and this is not what tough love
delivers, as tough love instead delivers a
barren environment; which is not the
common ground between the 2 systems.
Once again, our sogp and jesus
representations will have to intervene
against the messes created by tough love to
bring these folks out of barrenness to
medium ability so that the forces of good
will be able to be freed and separate from
the forces of evil. Xx Now for a little history:
Perhaps I have been too hard on the
Romans. You can be correct about
something. But if you use destructiveness
to enforce that right position, and force
people to follow that right position, then
that makes you wrong, even though you
were right about your specific position.
And that is what the Romans, and many
others I might add, had done.
In the history of man, we started out as
more self sufficient, but because of rules
over our sexual morality, we became less
self sufficient, more unbalanced, so that we
need to act together as a societal entity to
survive. And these rules over our sexuality
have been in place long before Christianity;
although not every culture had them.
So as we became more dependent on a
societal entity, first came religious shaman
and tribal kings to coordinate and direct our
paths; but as our needs for societal
direction became greater, and shaman
couldn't be there for us all the time, the
money system became more important.
You see, the money system allows for
unbalanced individuals to overproduce
what they are good at and sell that excess
into the money system so that they can then
buy from society what they need in other
areas but are not good at (but which other
unbalanced individuals of the society ARE
good at). Now to a religious shaman, the
money system may seem the root of all
evil, because it eliminates his control over
the people and eliminates his position; but
overall, both the shaman, and the money
system, represent the societal entity, which
ever more unbalanced individuals need to
survive; just that the money system is more
efficient. (You see, when an ever more
unbalanced individual is isolated from a
societal fix, (as when the shaman couldn't
attend to their need), they must suffer in a
self sufficiency which they are woefully
inadequate at. -So that isolation, which is
reserved for handling evildoers, wrongfully
creeps into the lives of every day
individuals who have no basis in
evildoing.) And the Romans, who's leaders
used the money system, did replace the
tribes and cultures led by religious shaman,
with a society led by money, and did
'romanize' the world. And the Romans
didn't have this sexual morality that caused
others to become ever more unbalanced.
So, in this respect, they were on the 'right'
path. But married to this righteousness,
was the acceptance of so much
destructiveness and carnage as a way of
life, that this small bit of righteousness in
this one area was negated and spoiled.
So that then the religious leader, Jesus
Christ, came, and took back some control
from the roman money system, so that from
Jewish roots, now we are returned to the
sexual morality that keeps us making us
ever more unbalanced, and in need of our
societal entity to survive.
As we individuals become more unbalanced
and in need of the societal entity to survive,
a system of taking advantage of this fact
has grown up. People who would be
leaders, exploit that fact by extracting from
each individual the best possible deal for
them, while the worst possible deal for that
individual. And because the individual is
not self sufficient, they are forced to accept
whatever raw deal those running the show
have to offer. So that business, which
represents the societal entity, has a free
hand and can get whatever they want from
the individuals of the society. So that they
have programs of isolation and throwing
the individual out on their own for the
purpose of breaking the individual and
causing them to conform and to
unquestioningly and faithfully obey orders.
And if the individual will not break, they
are cast aside until they do break and go
along with the system of beating
individuals into submission and absolute
obedience. They use hunger, pain, and
suffering as part of a system in making
their system run. And in building a society,
they really don't know what an individual is
good at, so much as they know that the
individual has a weakness that they can't
survive without a connection to society: or
that they will not use an individual even if
they do know their strengths and
weaknesses before they have been broken
and forced to conform.
The effect that this has, is it creates a
societal entity that is less efficient, as not
all the component parts are used, so that
there are shortages in areas where people
are not being used for what they are good
at. So that the reward for participating and
conforming in this society is less than what
it could be. What this means is that the
ruling society just uses more coercion and
harsh treatments to get the individuals to
accept the less than lustrous reward for
conformity; especially newcomers who are
being given the harsh treatment in order to
break them into their place in the society.
But doing these harsh treatments damages
the efficiency of that society further
because it results in the loss of some of the
sensitive individuals (individuals who are
becoming more sensitive every passing
generation due to their ever increasing
imbalance) that the rewards for conformity
are even less appealing. -As individuals
become more and more unbalanced and
less self sufficient, they become more
sensitive to these harsh treatments; but also
relevant from this: -the society depends on
them more because the other individual
parts of society, who have gone off more
into their own specialty, are less and less
competent in their non specialty areas, so
they are less able to cover for the loss of
any one specialty area, so that the effect of
loosing individuals to this breaking
process, is ever increasing inefficiency in
the output of the societal entity; so that the
reward for conforming to and participating
in the societal entity is lessened, which sets
up a feedback where harsher and harsher
measures are used to maintain conformity,
and to break in the newcomers, and we end
up with a North Korea where most
everybody lives in misery; and they then
blow everything up with an atomic bomb to
put an end to that misery, in an end of the
world scenario as predicted by the same
religion that helped cause it through the
sexual morality program that causes people
to be more unbalanced over the
generations.
Hopefully individuals can reject that, and
form a society which doesn't make use of
harsh treatments as a means of control (and
the downward spiral that entails) and so
can provide an alternative and competition
to that failing end so that we won't suffer
from it. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note that the function of the sogp or Jesus
representation, is not only to separate and
remove destructions and evils that can be
removed, from the human hungers and gray
areas; the sogp also has the job of removing
evils/destructions from the high good parts.
High good parts are of high ability, and
they do what they can to avoid and get
away from evil/destructions. But they can
only act within and on themselves, and
cannot act on the evil, else they will be
contaminated by it; and this limits them.
Also, if a high part is attached to a person
who also has human hungers, then the evil
of the hunger is always nearby, and the
high part can't get away from it well
without being able to contact the evil of the
hunger.
Also, since we are often unbalanced as
people, we may generate a high part in one
area, but be lacking in other areas so that
this fragment of the high parts is not so
able to get away from evil.
So the sogp or Jesus representation then
comes in and is able to contact the evil and
remove it, move it, and separate it away
from otherwise high good parts of a person.
(as non destructively as possible). So that
when the rewards people come and try to
attack your high good parts and destroy
them, seemingly for no reason; but now as
we know, as part of their program to
generate hunger so that their reward will
work as their control over you; then you
can counter this attack on your high parts
with your and all Jesus representations; and
believe me, you will need to defend your
high parts from those who would attack
and destroy them for seemingly no reason;
from parents to total strangers who ally
themselves with destruction to try to
benefit from it. xxxx
Also, the money system has its own inertia
that tends to trap and keep people in its
system as shown next:
THE TRAP OF EVIL:
We live in a world with both good and evil.
Why couldn't we have had a world with
good only? The reason we have evil along
with the good in our world, is because evil
is one of the POSSIBILITIES -that living
things can do. (Without life, no actions
(good or evil) are possible. But with life;
both good and/or evil are possible actions
from that life.) Given a world of both good
and evil; our actions thus then contain
(both) some good -(growth) as well as
some evil -(destruction). Thus when we do
actions to obtain a desired thing, we as life
usually do some of both good and evil, in
obtaining this thing.
LIFE CAUSES GROWTH
Employers never consider hiring my pet
rock for a job. No, rocks/inanimate objects
are not expected to produce growth. It takes
life and living things to cause change and
produce growth/ -The more 'alive'
something is, the more growth it can cause.
The idea of nurturing life to get it to
produce more growth, forms one side of an
argument/counter-argument: On one hand,
we can say we should nurture life to the
max so it will produce more growth. But on
the other hand we can point out that if we
make life too cushy, there'll be no
motivation to work; people will take
advantage of our good nature; sit around,
relax (slacker), and won't do any work. We
must let them know we mean business, and
reward only when the job is done, or even
punish for work not up to standards.
(argues those in favor of rewards). But
nurture is needed to edify life: -life which
enables us to produce the required growths.
-Two conflicting arguments. What shall we
believe? Realize that just because you
failed to produce the growths they want,
doesn't mean you've done a destructive act.
But they may do destructive acts to you for
not producing the growths.
Enter the factor of destruction: There is
usually more than one way to do a thing.
Some ways involve taking shortcuts and
disregarding the harm they cause. But out
of all the possible ways; there is still
usually one way to do a complete job,
without destruction. -A way that contains
no harm. -And, It takes more resources to
do something in this 'right' way. To obtain
the thing without harm, we'd have to
neutralize the harmful parts of ways
containing evil, (Or, we could severely
limit our possibilities and reject all ways
containing harm). This would require more
effort than if we did the thing the way it
came naturally -(with both good and evil).
Again: -The limited selection we have when
we reject ways containing harm, often
means we loose the easiest ways, just by
probability.
-Plus, it takes more resources to neutralize a
harmful aspect of a way and do a complete
job, than to just let the harm happen. Thus
it takes more capability-power-life to
obtain things with a purity in our actions
(that is, free of harm). So we can do much
more individually with what little we have
when we're open to all possible ways
irregardless of the harm they cause (in our
search for the most productive way), and
don't 'waste' resources trying to neutralize
the harm of our ways. So when we're short
-on-resources, this often forces us to use
ways containing harm.
When short-on-resources we may not have
enough resources to do a thing evil free,
BUT we can still usually do it if we lower
our standards and allow harm in our ways.
(Because we can do more* in the short run
/individually/locally if we allow harm in our
ways;
(*with our scanty resources).)
Unfortunately, this harm we allow catches
up to us. As a collective group we find
ourselves trapped at being short on
resources because the collective harm from
our ways lowers us all and keeps us short
-on resources; since harming destroys
resources. The harm we allow as we strive
to be the best, win the competition, and
produce the absolute most; catches up to
us, collectively. When someone builds up
life, but then another person knocks it
down: and when life/things keep(s) getting
built up and knocked back down over and
over again; a system of stagnation takes
form. And this stagnant system traps us,
because collectively we cannot get ahead.
Like a process may make a good product
and income for a few, but also pollute the
environment, and overall cause more harm
than good.
We can usually do more and be a bit more
productive in the short
run/locally/individually if we allow harm in
our ways. But this harm we allow, keeps us
all short-on-resources in the long run.
((Statement#1;)-And being short on
resources forces us to accept ways
containing harm.) And doing this harm
destroys resources and collectively keeps
us all short on resources. Go to Statement #1.
As we can see, This is a trap. That once
fallen into, cannot easily be gotten out of.
So we should not be so concerned with
winning in competition and who can
generate the highest production as a sole
criteria. We should more importantly look
at how evil free a 'production' is. So we
should nurture life as much as possible, so
we are at as high capability as possible and
are not short on resources, so that we do
things with much less harm in our ways,
-and thus avoid this trap of evil. It is
important for us to be well nurtured (loved)
and at high capability to have the extra
resources needed to grow evil free. -So
when we produce and do things (in an evil
free way); that we do advance and grow
overall. We thus overall provide escape
from the trap and system of destruction,
which is the stagnant system. Xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxx
MORE SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL:
Jumping back to the all inclusive super
entity which contains everybody's different
attributes all together in one entity:
Now, this stuff can become a bit more
complex: When the super all inclusive
entity is generated, it doesn't have to be in
the form which contains many duplicate
copies of the common material. The reason
I say this is because this material of the
sogp/jesus representation often goes back
and forth between the high parts (when it is
resting), and the separate area of the sogp
(when it is active and satisfying human
hunger). When a human hunger is
finished, in order to leave this area and join
the high parts, the sogp rearranges itself to
be at medium ability so that its material can
escape this area and be freed of all evil so it
can join and rest in the high parts. To do
this, its super entity part needs to be
brought from richness to medium ability;
and this is done by removing the common
material so that it no longer has multiple
copies of it, but an actual shortage of it, to
counteract the richness brought by having
every different part of all human
possibilities present together. And then all
this extra common material is given to an
individual entity, usually oneself or ones
spouse. The individual entity being poor
by being all by itself, is enriched by all this
extra common material, so that it achieves
medium ability also, and also escapes all
evil to also join the evil free high parts.
So that when a new human hunger appears,
and sogp material leaves the high parts; this
is the form it is in. And it is usually easier
to recall material back from the high parts,
than to create it all over from scratch.
However, this isn't the form it needs to be in
to satisfy human hungers. So the
individual gives up its richness of common
parts to the collective super entity so that
individual material stands alone in poverty
and barrenness and the super entity is once
again rich in common material. The super
entity then deploys and expands into the
partially separate entity and commences to
satisfy the human hunger (after removing
itself from the super entity area). This
material delivers evil free human hunger
material to the high parts as it works with
this material in medium ability. But wait.
This leaves behind the stand alone
individual in barrenness, who cannot make
it to the high parts due to the barrenness.
Hence this wasted individual crud
accumulates every time we satisfy a human
hunger.
A separate, flushing action is needed to
return this material to the high parts. So
what we do, is a flushing action whereby
we draw resting material from the high
parts, not to do any human hunger
satisfying, but in order to use the form it is
in, to flush this crud back up to the high
parts.
We then keep the all inclusive 'super'
entity as it is, and do not enrich it with
common material from the individual
entity. We also do no hunger satisfying
with it, but instead allow this medium
ability all inclusive entity to return/escape
back up to the high parts where we just
brought it from. Now with the rich
individual entity, we join it with the poor
individual entity, without requiring the
poor entity to perform any requirements to
make it worthy, but instead, without delay
or condition, enrich this poor individual so
that the combined individual entity is now
at medium ability.
Note that the rich individual entity is only
able to take a certain amount of poor entity,
as there needs to be enough richness to
enrich the whole combined individual
entity to medium ability. This entity can
then escape/leave the human area, and
rejoin the high area. In the high area, the
evil freed partially separate entity can
retract into a super entity configuration,
and give common material back to the
individual entity (although this may not be
what happens). But in any case, the
presence of a poor person who is evil free
in the presence of the high parts is a
bonanza for them, and is great food for the
high force of good to fill voids.
Now one may naysay and say that the poor
individual entity enriched with common
material, is still not at medium ability
because it takes a rich amount of common
material to put an individual entity at
medium ability, so that a medium amount
of common material won't bring the
combined individual entity to medium
ability. And this is true. The combined
individual entity will be on the low side of
medium ability in the scale between
barrenness and medium ability. And its
escape from evil to the high parts will be
slower than usual. But it will get done, and
it won't be held indefinitely, as the barren
material would be. Since it isn't satisfying
any human hunger and is evil free within
itself as much as possible, this helps also.
But also, to make this more productive, a
large amount of return high material needs
to come down, to rescue a smaller amount
of barren individual material.
This problem occurs when individual
entities realize their existence is incomplete
due to their unbalanced non self sufficient
state, so they give up all they have to
generate a super entity along with other
incomplete individuals. Ideally this super
entity would then deploy to become a
partially separated entity which would
contain all the attributes of all the
individuals, all connected together with
a common link. This would then satisfy
the human hungers and would free that
material from evil to move up and join the
evil free high parts. But this leaves the
empty shells of barren individuals behind
to never be freed to join the high parts. So
a second action to come back down and
bring these empty shells up evil free into
the high parts is done, so that the high force
of good can be well fed by restoring these
empty shells to high ability.
Now, perhaps a better way to do this would
be to load up a super entity with common
material, or better yet, load up a partially
separated entity (even one that just got up
there through evil free human hunger
satisfying); and have it come back down
when the hunger is satisfied, not to do more
hunger satisfying, but instead to deliver
common material to these poor individual
entities. And this partially separated entity
could retract into a super entity, thus
freeing up even more common material to
deliver to the poor individual entities. And
as a super entity, it could give up as much
common material so that it was kind of
short on common material, so that overall,
this super entity would be at medium
ability, whence it would then return to the
high parts since medium ability material
escapes evil and returns to the high parts;
perhaps to pick up another load of common
material and to do it again. And the poor
individual entities would no longer be poor,
but rich in common material, enough so
that they would be at medium ability
overall, and would then also make it up
into the high parts, where they could return
the common material given them to a super
entity if need be. Xxxxx
Now, I don't think I have a clear picture of
what is going on here, and I wish to expand
my definitions. Let us start with what is
the richest in common or completely whole
material. That would be individual entities
loaded up with common material. Then if
we remove some of the common material,
then each individual entity can double up a
little bit and share some common material
in the partially separated entity. If we
remove even more common material, then
a super entity is formed where common
material is shared completely between the
individual components, none of which have
any individuality. Now if we gave back
common material to this super entity, then
it could be a super entity that hadn't yet
deployed into a partially separated entity.
So that super entities can have varying
degrees of richness of common material,
and depending on this, do exhibit different
properties; so that it is too general to just
say 'super entity' and that the
amount/degree of attached common
material must also be specified.
Continuing on, if we take away all the
excess common material, then a super
entity is unable to deploy into a partially
separate entity. Now if we keep taking
away common material, then the super
entity, which normally would be at high
ability due to the many complimenting
individual components, would be at
medium ability due to the shortage of
common, or connecting material.
(Note the concept that neither BARREN nor
RICH human material escapes to the evil
free high parts, but that medium ability
material does.-this concept is often used
here.)
Continuing on, as we remove even more
common material from this 'super' entity,
the individual components become as
isolated individuals, except that whatever
individual component gets to the common
material is the individual, leaving the other
individual components non functional.
Then as nearly all the common material is
removed, there isn't even an individual
entity, but just a loose nonconnected
collection of non functioning individual
components.
Now with this spectrum of entities, let us
satisfy a human hunger. The sogp comes
out of resting in the high parts as a super
entity with a good amount of common
material. It then gives up most of its
common material to the undeployed and
new material that is the next stage in
satisfying the hunger. This puts the present
sogp in barrenness, and the new part at rich
ability. Thus both of these materials don't
escape to the high parts, but remain to
continue satisfying the hunger. This
continues for a time (to be in line with a
cycling structure); whence the rich new
stage material relinquishes its common
material to share equally with the barren
sogp, so that the whole material is now at
medium ability. Even though the sogp
came down in high ability; its expansion
into the new material has diluted the
common material to only provide medium
ability, -as a super entity unable to deploy
into a partially separated entity. And the
sogp didn't take on an excessive degree of
new material or new stage of progress
material, so at this point it wouldn't dilute
the common material too much below
medium ability. Now this medium ability
super entity may be unable to make further
progress in the human hunger due to being
unable to deploy into a partially separate
entity, but keep on with it anyway, as it
represents one part of the cycling, and more
importantly it works its way up into the
high parts due to its medium ability. Evil
free in the high parts it picks up common
material (due to the richness of the evil free
high parts); so that it deploys into a
partially separate entity and then comes
back down to try to finish the hunger
satisfying. After a time, it again gives up
common material (by retracting into a
super entity and even giving up much more
common material to put that super entity
even lower in common material so it is in
barrenness; while the new stages of the
hunger satisfying are in richness, so that the
new stages then deploy as partially
separated entity. And then after a cycle
time, the rich new, shares with the barren
old entity to become one medium entity
again. And after some number of these
cycles, the hunger is satisfied in this
medium entity, which then rises to the high
parts due to its medium ability; and can be
given common material to become
deployed as a partially separate entity in
the high parts; and it can do this because it
has become evil free. This can continue on
for another cycle time where the satisfied
hunger can now be done as a deployed
partially separate entity (and if it needs to
leave the high parts, it can), after which one
wishes to choose to stop the hunger
satisfying activities; but is something one
cannot do in the high parts because one
hasn't achieved that evil free just yet. And
if it has left the high parts as a partially
separate entity, it is then already there (and
it can't get back into the high parts because
it is no longer at medium ability, but is at
high ability overall due to the common
material it picked up when it was in the
high parts. You see, to satisfy a human
hunger is imperfect; but to stop satisfying a
human hunger is just as imperfect, just in
different areas. So that the sogp now once
again leaves the high parts (if it hasn't
already done so) and acts in the human area
to do 'stopping feeding a hunger' (after a
cycle of completely satisfying the hunger
as a partially separate entity). As a
partially separate entity it is rich, but it
needs to get to medium ability to get back
up to the high parts. It needs to dilute its
common material to another added area to
get to medium ability. And the area of
stopping the hunger satisfying is a new
area. However, the stopping the hunger
area is not compatible with the satisfying
the hunger area, and the two cannot
opperate together. But separately they still
represent two areas, and that is one extra
area than what the high ability partially
separate entity came down with. So that
now, ones main self can join up with the
stopping the hunger satisfying
area/directive, and cast off the satisfying
the hunger area/directive; and then deliver
to the separate hunger satisfying
area/directive, enough common material to
put the main self together with the stopping
hunger action/area at medium ability so it
will naturally rise up to join the high parts
again. The medium level of common
material delivered to the now alone hunger
satisfying action does not give this entity
enough ability to also be at medium ability
overall, because it no longer has all the
surrounding complimentary components
like a super entity would, but is now more
like an individual entity because it is alone
and is less than complete. So it cannot
follow the main entity up to the high parts,
but is left in the human area, listing more
towards barrenness. Once our main entity
is up in the high parts, it receives more
common material and becomes a partially
separate entity, and probably must leave
the high parts to do further stopping the
hunger action now as partially separate
entity, since that represents a change from
how it was done as super entity at medium
ability unable to deploy to partially
separate entity. -a change that is not
completely evil free, since it deals in
human hunger. So it must leave the high
parts because even the smallest evil is not
tolerated. But once again, now it is rich as
a partially separated entity, and cannot get
back into the high parts. But never fear, it
can then come down to the human area,
and after doing the stopping hunger action
and working that out as a partially separate
entity, can lock that in and retract into a
super entity and also give up even more
common material thus putting it at medium
ability, to the now individual entity of the
hunger satisfying action so that the rich
amount of common material delivered to
this individual entity, puts it overall, at
medium ability. And the two medium
ability entities can now rise to the evil free
high parts. But now, there is a minor point
that needs to be taken into consideration.
When these entities are rearranging
themselves, when they sever from one
another, they do so by taking a small
linking component, and removing common
material so much from it that it is just a
collection of non functioning isolated
material at very barren ability. This small
amount of linking material is also brought
from barrenness to medium ability by
giving it a rich amount of common
material, along with the individual feeding
hunger entity. And if a second trip back
and forth from the high parts is needed to
transfer more common material is needed,
that is done. And the main entity doing this
here, is able to do this, because no changes
are made in how it does its action, because
it came from partially separate entity (that
was retracted to super entity that was then
again re deployed to partially separate
entity). Any changes that needed to be
made, were made in the first transformation
to partially separate entity, and not in
subsequent transformations to partially
separate entity. And since it didn't change,
it didn't leave evil free status, and could
return to the high parts even though rich
And the main entity would continue on as
being satisfied and not doing further hunger
satisfying, not according to cycling(which
maintains our choice for both the individual
as well as collective directive), but
according to that we do not need to do a
human hunger activity that we do not have
a hunger for at this time. And we can
continue on in whatever we have made our
evil free form as with our sogp at rest in the
high parts in this form; until we again
experience a human hunger that brings our
sogp back out of rest and this whole thing
starts all over again.
END SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
But perhaps we are not able to create things
brand new or generate super entities that
have every possible combination, seeing
how we are an unbalanced individual.
I should get more realistic and work with
what we have. We have a societal entity
that is complete and balanced by taking the
best skills of each individual entity. Then
we have each individual entity (which can
range from completely self sufficient, to,
totally unbalanced to the point it has no life
anymore as an individual entity but is only
a component part (of the societal entity)).
And as the individual entity becomes ever
more unbalanced, a love between any 2
individuals is also severely unbalanced.
But this is ok, because we can use this and
work with this. Note that the reproductive
drive area is imperfect and needs to be at
medium ability. But the societal entity is
always at high ability; and the payment to
each individual for their work allows them
all access to a degree of high capability. So
when one is doing imperfect reproductive
drive actions, one needs to temper that high
capability down to medium ability. And
this can be done by generating at full steam
in one's or the two's unbalanced way,
and delivering the comforts and goodnesses
of ones (unbalanced) activities to the object
of ones affection, while holding the
shortages generated, to oneself. This is
done for one cycle period. The fact that
one is expanding into a new area, also
helps to generate medium ability due to
spreading resources thin by taking on a
new area. The cycle period is because
previously this new action was not done at
all; representing the 'off' part of the cycle.
Now that the new action is being done, it is
first done at the full 'on' part of the cycle.
(One can thus make a choice for balance
between individual vs group directives with
this cycling way.) But now then, after a
cycle period is over, then one can stop
going full bore at this action, and go at
moderate level. (This also represents a
choice for balance.) So that now,
one has shortages from the previous full
bore activity, and also some of the desired,
but imperfect action present, all here at
medium ability; because the shortages
saved up, do dampen the high ability
provided by the individual's share of the
high ability societal entity's payment for
the individual's work. (But of course, not
every action one does is imperfect-human
-hungers, so that one does not always seek
the medium ability like this.) Now, once
one has put out their unbalanced love in
such a way, in medium ability; it frees
itself from its internal evil, and becomes of
high ability and also evil free. So that one
no longer needs to find this medium ability
this way. And one can move onto other
imperfect couplings and also set them evil
free in the same manner. However, what
one should avoid, is multiple loves all at
once, because when multiple people get
together, their unbalanced skills start to
combine into a balanced entity. And a
balanced entity doesn't generate unfilled
shortages; and with no shortages, the high
ability of the societal group cannot be
brought down to medium ability; thus
leaving the imperfect human hunger in a
rich environment where it doesn't free itself
from its internal evil. So, one at a time
please; at least in the initial purification
stages; and don't mix purified human action
with impure human hunger action unless it
is in a medium ability environment. So
that once one has freed their love for their
partner, they can allow their partner to free
their love in the same way, using theirself.
Better yet, a couple in love with each other
can generate their own imbalance together.
Because they are imbalanced, they
generate excess material in excess of what
they need. This extra material doesn't put
them at richness, because they don't sell it
into the larger society much. But the
shortages that come along with their
unbalanced production, do put them both at
medium ability, down from the high ability
provided by their connection to and work
in, the greater society. This medium ability
environment allows them to work their
imperfect human loves out unto evil free
high ability; together, at the same time.
So, we don't need to overcome the
imbalance of our state as unbalanced
individuals; to go and generate a complete
and balanced super entity; but can use our
imbalance to our advantage.
What we do is when we are doing a new
part of satisfying a human hunger action,
we keep the unbalanced production from
going into the societal entity, but we allow
the shortages generated by that unbalanced
production to go into our share of the
societal entity; to thereby generate medium
ability (down from high ability). Once the
human hunger has purified itself, then that
rich unbalanced production can be
released/accessed. No need to work at a
job that barely pays for much hard work to
achieve medium ability. (This represents
maximizing the societal (work) entity at the
expense of the individual entity.) Xxxx
Now, concerning conservative Christianity;
the gradual creep towards elimination of
the individual entity, leaving only the
societal entity; as we have theorized, the
lack of the ability to try many possibilities,
causes the leader/s to not have good
policies, which allows problems to fester.
And the lack of coordination also causes a
poor result. What this does is to cause the
societal entity, which usually generates
richness, to now only generate medium
ability environments. And this is great for
purifying human hungers. So now we have
found an excellent place for conservative
Christianity; which is to serve as the
instrument of purification for our human
hungers. And isn't this what Christ
promises? -the forgiveness of sin.
Jumping back, Note that unbalanced growth
is not in itself the evil intertwined in human
hungers; but it is useful in purifying that
evil.
Note that setting the individual as mainly
self sufficient, also sets the societal entity
at medium ability, which also is great for
purifying these human hungers. So, why
not just go with my unbalanced growth
idea, that comes naturally from individuals
being unbalanced for the societal entity,
and not need these other mechanisms for
purifying ones human hungers? Well, the
thing is, my unbalanced growth mechanism
doesn't allow for group orgies or multiple
loves mixed together simultaneously; and
neither does the giving the individual entity
too much self sufficiency (as they don't
tend to get together, but keep to
themselves; whereas orgies require people
to get together.) So we have now found the
proper place for conservative Christianity:
-to be the host for orgies and other human
groupings involving imperfect human
actions with intertwined evil. And I do
hereby place my stamp of approval on this,
and say, praise this conservative lord. And
note that we can use any of these devices to
purify our human hungers as need be.
However, not all actions are human
hungers, and there are times when a
competent and evil free rich societal entity
can be useful also; which is why we can
have a separation of church and state, and
hopefully generate a societal entity where
there is a better balance between the
individual entity and the societal entity:
hence the home of non conservative
Christianity and others. And I applaud that
also.
Now, on the off chance conservative
Christianity won't be receptive to my needs
for group sex, a back up plan may be in
order. Hence perhaps getting back into the
super entity ideas may be the way to go.
Like, the idea of the super entity (to do
hunger satisfying that will rise evil free into
the high parts) -a Super Entity that has
common material removed, so as to put it
at medium ability (down from the high
ability of the super entity with more
common material, or the partially separated
entity, which also has extra common
material); is very similar to a societal entity
which has eliminated the individual
position, just like the end result of
conservative Christianity will do.
Let me abbreviate conservative Christianity
as 'CC'.
With CC, the societal entity which normally
is at high ability, is at medium ability, due
to the lack of coordination and inability to
explore multiple possibilities
simultaneously (since the individual
components have no life of their own).
This is great for purifying intertwined
human hunger evils, resulting in purified
individuals. However, as the genetic drift
under CC completely eliminates the
individual position, there then becomes no
individuals left to purify; leaving the only
Individual left (the societal entity), stuck at
medium ability always lagging behind,
unable to bridge many barriers,
uncoordinated and slow at finding
solutions. So that ultimately, CC does not
work out to be a solution for anything; but
in the process of getting to this final point,
it does set many unbalanced individuals
free.
It can be said that by itself, conservative
Christianity is good for a season, but after
that, comes Armageddon. xxxxxxx
Now, the super entity, with a shortage of
individuality or common material, does
provide the medium ability environment
needed, just like CC.
Now, the partially deployed (partially
separate entity) does provide some
isolation and privateness to each individual
component, which is useful in providing a
place out of reach of the societal entity for
all the rich unbalanced production that
accumulates, but it is not at medium ability
but is at high ability (due to having all
human attributes present together but not
too cramped together), like a societal
entity. Lacking the medium ability
environment, makes it a poor place for
purifying human hungers.
But what if we were to minimize the
societal entity and maximize the individual
entity. These would be almost (but not
quite) fully deployed individuals on their
own. Any unbalance these individual
components have would cause unfilled
shortages (as well as overproductions)
according to their unbalanced growths.
As mostly isolated individuals (with only a
limited connection to the societal entity);
the rich overproduction of their imbalance
would not come together to generate
overall richness (like it would if it were put
into/made into a societal entity) -because
they are all isolated from each other -due to
being deployed as (partially) separate
individual components. But the shortages
from their unbalanced growths WOULD
bring them down. And if they only had a
limited connection to the societal entity,
then they would only be resupplied to
medium ability, and not richness. And this
is just what we need to purify multiple
unbalanced (human hunger) loves
simultaneously. The isolated unbalanced
loves would only share their shortages and
would only trade a little of their unbalanced
surpluses into the societal entity to alleviate
shortages to only medium ability. And this
works out as long as individuals are
unbalanced to some degree and not totally
self sufficient. However, if many
generations of offspring from multiple
loves occurred, then unbalance would give
way to total self sufficiency. So that CC or
some type of conservatism/morality is
needed to keep some degree of imbalance
in the individuals. Neither way is adequate
within itself, but each must be tempered
with the other. CC cannot be the only way,
or the absolute ruler; but neither can we go
it without CC.
In one plan, the individual is glorified, yet
still with a little bit of work (which
represents the societal entity). There are
many siestas and vacations, with just a little
bit of work. In the CC plan, the individual
must sacrifice for the societal entity, and
there is a lot of work: it is the workaholic,
where it is all work, and the individual is
totally given over to the societal entity.
Both these ways are able to entertain
multiple unbalanced loves simultaneously.
And both these ways must coexist to have a
long term future for a society. But if the
individual gets tired of working so much,
they can just reduce this to some kind of
morality of one man one woman. Perhaps
the compromise of allowing sexual
expression where offspring are not
produced; while reserving marriage for the
purpose of childbearing, only; is in order.
Christ writes 'Take upon my yoke, for I am
easy and my burden is light'. And from
this, we can gather that He wants us to
choose this non conservative Christianity;
where we purify our human hungers by
maximizing the individual entity, and
minimizing our societal, work, entity.
Once again I reiterate: there needs to be a
balance in the imbalance within
individuals. There needs to be some
imbalance; but not too much imbalance.
Imbalance in the individual represents the
degree the societal entity is given to, over
the individual entity: And there needs to be
a balance between the societal and the
individual entity; and one should not
supersede the other.
However, perhaps I have been too hasty to
achieve this balance as a matter of policy. I
now think that this balance can be stretched
a bit towards the societal entity and
imbalanced individuals, so that they may
use this imbalance to purify their human
hungers in the reproductive drive area; and
by so doing, relax that stretch back to
normal balance. Of course, I am still
against prolonged and excess imbalance
that totally sacrifices the individual entity
to the societal entity. So that when a
society stretches the balance towards the
societal entity; then it is right to relax that
stretch back towards balance. But in doing
so, one should maximize the sexual
satisfaction achieved ie the purification of
the human sex drive. And one should be
less inclined to manufacture mostly self
sufficient individuals, because they would
have no or little imbalance to purify their
sex drive with.
This doesn't mean interracial procreation is
to be eliminated, just that in the future, it is
not to be a major thing. (but for now, there
needs to be a group of intermediate people
or mixed breeds, that represents a
continuous line between all the differences
in people that can exist.) That one should
not procreate interracially as a matter of
policy, in order to mix the genes, to come
down from the excessive imbalance that
exists; but only when there is an intense
sexual attraction between the couple. (But
this may be incorrect.) What I am saying, is
that once there is an even field or
continuous transition between all the
differences that people can be; that one
should avoid procreating with someone
who is too different; but be open to
procreating with someone who is
somewhat different; according to one's
sexual desires, or that what will satisfy
one's sexual desires. And even in the
interracial procreation that needs to be done
today to generate a connecting population
of mixed breeds; that should be done only
between couples who are well sexually
attracted to each other. But even this may
be incorrect. Because if there is a
correlation; a connection, between the
sexual attraction felt by an interracial
couple, and the intensity of the sex drive of
their offspring; this will create offspring
who are more self sufficient, and thus less
imbalanced; but with a large sex drive to
purify. And with no imbalance to provide
medium ability, they will be unable to
purify much of their large sex drive. So the
suggestion may be to only procreate
interracially between couples who are not
very sexually attracted, so as to minimize
the sex drive in their offspring; and then the
sex drive can be increased from there, in
future generations between more similar
people with thus more imbalance. as I am
still trying to figure these things out; and I
leave it to each of you to decide for
yourselves what is the best way to go.
I don't think I have a clear picture here. I
am just beginning to realize the precarious
balance we all must walk. The
reproductive drive is so basic to all of us,
that if we don't take care of it properly, it
will eat us alive.
(Note that the phrase 'straight and narrow'
as a path, can refer to semen traveling
down an erect phallus .)
Now, previously I had been concerned
about generating people who were too
unbalanced so that the individual entity was
squeezed out completely; which results in
bad results for that society. But now I see
the advantage some imbalance has for
purifying the sex drive. When someone
has a good degree of imbalance, they can
use that imbalance to enjoy sexuality with
everyone around them, (ie, purify their sex
drive). But if they procreate with
everybody, the offspring will most likely
be less imbalanced and more self sufficient;
(which is a good thing in most other
respects), but which prevents these
offspring from being able to purify their
sex drive and enjoy sexuality in the same
way their parents are able to. So that as
parents who are able to enjoy their
sexuality; they want to pass that on to their
offspring, and avoid creating offspring who
can't enjoy sexuality like they do. So that
while these unbalanced people should be
open to sexual love with all races and
peoples; they should avoid procreation with
all their partners; and procreate only with
those who are similar enough to maintain
the same degree of excessive imbalance
that they have. -But not so similar that they
increase that excessive imbalance too much
more. You see, in pursuit of maintaining
sexual enjoyment/purification; one can go
too far in encouraging imbalance in their
offspring, resulting in total elimination of
the individual entity with the
accompanying dire consequences for that
societal entity. Thus the mating between
(2nd)cousins should be celebrated, instead
of being actively suppressed as it is now.
Now, for those of us who are more self
sufficient and less unbalanced; who are
unable to use imbalance to purify their sex
drive so well; there is still the conservative
Christian way or some other similar
workaholic, hard work, low pay way to
alternatively purify one's sex drive. But
that isn't quite as good for one's quality of
life. Xxx Ooops. This isn't quite the total
picture. Yup, now is one of those times
when I am changing my mind again in
completely the opposite direction and
reversing much that I have written.
There are several things to accomplish
when doing human hunger satisfyings.
First we need to provide the medium
ability environment for purification of the
human hunger; but also to keep material
here in the hunger satisfying mode long
enough to satisfy the specific hunger.
And also; it would be nice to be able to
choose a the choice for balance between
the group entity vs the individual or
component entity; and avoid the choice for
just the group entity.
Now, if we use the imbalances that have
been bred into us; this can work fine for
generating the medium ability environment
needed for its purification. But it does
nothing towards us choosing the balance
between group vs component entities,
beyond the initial doing of the hunger
satisfaction (balanced against the long not
doing of the hunger satisfaction before we
started doing the hunger satisfaction); and
so we have to come up with something
extra to choose this balance.
What I am leaning to, is my earlier structure
to satisfy human or gray hungers involving
cycling frequencies of doing, then not
doing, the action; as well as the idea of a
partially deployed super entity. I had
dismissed the use of the partially deployed
entity because it was too rich, and had gone
on to try to make medium ability
environments with this concept. However,
the cycling between fully doing, and then
not doing, an action; not only chooses the
balance between group vs component
entities; but also delivers the medium
ability environment. So that we can take a
high ability structure like a partially
deployed entity and have it present doing
hunger satisfaction for a cycle time; and
then dissolving it for a cycle time; and then
reconstituting it for a cycle time, etc. so
that even though it is a high ability concept;
the act of turning it off and on and off and
on repeatedly, generates a medium ability
environment overall, because the off part of
the cycle is a barren environment. But
before I incorporate the partially deployed
entity concept, let me just stick with the
full intensity doing of the hunger, followed
by a low/no intensity doing of the hunger,
in a cycling frequency.
I want to get back to a simpler concept that
I had explained earlier about the human
hunger gray actions which generate
goodness and also destruction unavoidably
in the same action, but to different areas.
And that if we don't structure them to the
same areas, but let them be done randomly;
that we will achieve the medium ability
environment we seek. But now with this
turning on, and then off, of a human
hunger, we achieve the same thing, but
now in full control of the human hunger
doing. Because if doing a human hunger
causes goodness to be generated in one
area, but destruction to be done in another
area; then refraining from doing that
hunger (in the 'off' part of the cycle),
perfectly reverses the destruction and
goodness done, unlike any randomness
could provide; to generate a medium ability
environment. (And of course, additionally
gives us the choice for balance between
group vs component entities.)
But at this point, I wish to be more specific
about the cycling frequency of turning the
human hunger on, and then off (and on and
off etc). Realize that when first starting to
satisfy a human hunger; previous to this,
we had been not-doing the human hunger
for a substantial period of time; and that
this had made us very hungry. Ie, it made
certain areas barren, and other areas rich, in
accordance with what the 'off' part of the
cycle generates. So that if we did the
cycling rapidly with a short cycle period,
then the short 'on' doing of the hunger-
satisfying wouldn't lift the 'one' area out of
barrenness, nor bring the 'other' rich area
down from richness. So that initially, we
must do the hunger satisfying 'on' part for
longer than just a short burst; but of course
also, not too long either. Once the initial
conditions have been changed away from
barrenness in 'one' area and richness in the
'other' area; to medium ability all around;
then a rapid cycling can be done to lock in
that medium environment. But starting
with rapid cycling, just keeps the initial
barrenness and richness as is.
Now, there is another consideration. When
human hunger material exists in a medium
ability environment, the goodness in it
escapes the evil there, and frees itself from
its evil, and the evil-free good escapes and
joins the high parts, which have no direct
connection with imperfect human hunger
satisfying. So the goodness from doing the
hunger satisfying, and also the goodness
from not-doing the human hunger
satisfying, both escape this system and
become evil free to join the separate high
parts. But this leaves a vacuum in the
hunger satisfying arena; and if the hunger
hasn't finished being satisfied, then that
makes a barren situation and an unsatisfied
hunger. So what we can do, is to do the
human hunger to rich ability. This
generates goodness in 'one' area to rich
ability. The 'other' area, which is already
barren due to its good escaping to the high
parts, just remains barren as it is
pummeled. Then once richness in the 'one'
area is achieved, we switch to 'not-doing'
the hunger satisfying for half the time (that
it took to build to richness). This causes the
rich 'one' area to be lowered to medium
ability, and also the once barren 'other' area
to be raised also to medium ability. Once at
medium ability, a rapid cycling frequency
of equal on and off durations can be done,
to thereby keep this material at medium
ability; also which, in time, escapes to the
high parts.
Now, we can look at a hunger satisfaction
as piecemeal; as having sequential or
successive stages of achievement. Then
new stages may need to be done to
richness, while older stages are at medium
ability with a rapid cycling frequency.
However, this may be an error, because the
same areas may be helped and harmed even
though different stages (but of the same
human/gray hunger satisfaction) are
involved. So that taking the new stage to
rich in the 'one' area, may pummel the same
'other' area that was trying to operate at
medium ability from the older stage; and so
this would not be a good choice.
If the satisfaction takes too long, some
older stages (even the non staged hunger
satisfaction, now that we are no longer
considering stages) may have completely
emptied (with both areas (the one, and the
other) in barrenness), due to their good
material escaping to the high parts: that this
stage(complete whole) may again go to
richness (with a long 'on' cycle part), and
then to medium ability (with a half long
'off' cycle part); and then to rapid cycle.
We must wait until most of the goodnesses
in the medium ability environments escape
to the high parts, (thus emptying these
areas and making them barren, (whence no
more goodness escapes due to no longer
being at medium, but instead barren)),
because when we go to rich in the 'on' part
of the cycle; because we are dealing with a
human hunger which does both good and
destruction, 'rich' refers to the 'one' area,
whereas at the same time, the 'other' area is
decimated; so that if this other area is
already near barren, then little is lost. Xxxx
Here we have a method for satisfying our
human hungers that also chooses the
balance between group vs component
entities that we want. This is better than
the use of imbalances within us method.
Both concepts can be used together,
cooperatively, but the on-off method is
more central due to its solving both the
medium ability environment and the
choosing the balance between group vs
component entities. And also uses the flaw
or destructiveness of the human hunger
itself; whereas the imbalance method uses
outside methods to lower to medium
ability, which are not as directly targeted to
the proper areas.
So that the directives to procreate with a
spouse who has a good degree of
similarity; and to generate a degree of
excessive imbalance but not too much of
this excessive imbalance; and encouraging
2nd cousin mating: are all of lesser or no
importance. And if we get into the super
entity stuff, these things are even less
favored.
Before, with the partially separate entity, I
had tried to have the hunger satisfying
continue on as the partially separate entity
took different forms. But to be in line with
the on-off method, we need an 'off' part of
the cycle where the hunger satisfying
ceases; and so the different forms of the
super entity where hunger satisfying
continues, are discarded.
Now, let us get into what it takes to
generate a partially separate entity. (The
purpose of this entity was to bring us all
together as one, yet still retain some
individuality. So that the jealousies that
occur between couples would be
eliminated.
But come to think of it, a big reason people
don't stick with their mate is because of the
allure of new material. Because new
material hadn't been done before; there had
been a long buildup of 'off' activity; which
allows for a long and rich period of 'on'
activity, (before one should switch back to
'off' for half that time, and then to a more
rapid cycling on and off). It is in the
medium ability environments found under
the more rapid on off cycling, where the
goodnesses here do escape to the high
parts. This is a major value of doing things
in the human hunger areas. But one can be
distracted by the newness of other new
people and new romances, that they neglect
finishing what they have already started;
and neglect the important work of working
with this material in the medium ability
environment. But of course, if one does the
work of working with their human hunger
material in the medium ability environment
and waiting till the goodnesses in both
areas escape to the high parts; they needn't
restrict themselves from new material.
Now I wish to get a clearer picture of this
stuff. First I want to examine this rapid
cycling more closely. Not only is the cycle
time important, but also the intensity of
doing in the 'on' part of the cycle. So that if
the same intensity is being considered, the
shorter time of the 'on' period under rapid
cycling, means less can be accomplished
before the 'off' part of the cycle decimates
or reverses what had been accomplished.
And this is why I used it to fix a position at
medium ability once that had been
achieved. But rapid cycling isn't the only
way to fix a position. The intensity level
also represents a way to change or fix
positions, and we can use it instead of rapid
cycling to achieve our positions.
Consider that before we started the hunger
satisfying, that we counted the long time
previous to starting it, as a long 'off' period,
which diminished 'one' area, but greatly
advance an 'other' area (to richness). And I
get this from that a human hunger does
goodness to some areas, but destruction to
others; and that not-doing the human hunger
perfectly reverses this, and does destruction
to some areas but goodness to the others.
Another factor that comes into play here is
that whenever one of these areas is at
medium ability, its goodness escapes to the
high parts, which removes material from
these areas and moves them towards
barrenness. Whereas if these areas are
either rich or barren, goodnesses do not
escape to the high parts.
From these concepts, we can map out
several scenarios of what we can do.
Let us start out as just starting a hunger
satisfaction. At the start, the 'one' area is
barren or hungry, and the 'other' area is
rich. We can do the 'on' part of a cycle for a
medium period, or do a medium intensity
of hunger satisfaction. That will bring the
'other' area down to medium ability, and
also bring the 'one' area up to medium
ability. With both areas at medium ability,
they both loose goodness material to the
high parts, and both tend towards
barrenness. In response to this, we can
increase our intensity of 'on' doing of the
hunger satisfaction to bring the 'one' area to
richness, and decimate the 'other' area even
further; but since it was already barren, it
just remains barren. We can then lower our
doing of the hunger satisfaction, and thus
the 'one' area to medium (off from
richness), which will then bring up the
'other' area from barren to medium. With
both areas in medium again, we can start
this over again.
But this isn't a real plan because when both
areas are at medium ability, and then they
start loosing goodnesses to the high parts,
thus putting both areas towards barrenness;
they no longer loose material due to being
towards barrenness, thus they recover
towards medium, so that both areas
stabilize just below medium; so no area is
already at barrenness when it is decimated
when the other area is made rich.
But there are other, better ways to do things.
When both areas are at medium and are
both loosing goodnesses to the high parts,
instead of increasing the 'one' area to
richness by excessive (intensity) doing the
hunger action; another way is to stabilize
the 'one' area to the low side of medium, by
lowering the intensity of doing so that the
'other' area is enriched. But the 'other' area
never increases above medium because it
just looses the material to the high parts.
Still at medium ability, it continues to loose
to the high parts. The 'one' area is brought
lower to achieve this, but it is not brought
so low as to be completely barren. Hunger
satisfaction is still done at a low rate to
continue this. If we go completely to no
hunger doing, and complete barrenness in
the 'one' area, that will deliver complete
richness to the 'other' area, and will
overcome the material lost to the high parts
to move the 'other' area from medium to
richness, whence it will stop loosing
material to the high parts and thus move to
richness even faster. But we do not do this.
We willfully entertain, at first a decent
doing of hunger satisfaction, which brings
any richness in the 'other' area down to
medium ability. Once the 'other' area is in
medium ability, we start shrinking the
doing of hunger satisfaction. This loss in
the 'one' area causes an increase in the
'other' area, but that increase is not realized
in this 'other' area, as it just makes up what
is lost to the high parts, so the other area
stays at medium ability and continues to
loose to the high parts. We adjust the 'one'
area lower and do less, but still some,
hunger satisfaction, just enough to not let
the 'one' area fall any lower. What this
does is to give from the 'one' area to the
'other' area, because when the 'one' area is
lowered, that raises the 'other' area. But the
'other' area looses that raise to the high
parts. And also, the 'one' area, being on the
low side of medium, also looses some to
the high parts. So, if we maintain these
areas at these levels; a lot of material is
saved to the high parts. And as we have
seen, that is a main reason we do
human/gray hunger satisfying in the first
place. So that even if things don't work out
well in the hunger satisfaction, much
goodness has still been freed to the high
parts.
Now, we could reverse these roles, and let
the 'other' area serve the 'one' area. But this
would force us to do ever increasing
hunger satisfaction, because it is possible to
reach states where losses to the high parts
are excessive; so that one would be forced
to do excessive hunger satisfying just to
maintain medium ability. Whereas in the
reverse situation it would be easy to not-do
hunger satisfying for the most part (just do
a minor hunger satisfying just off of
barren), to supply much richness to the
'other' area; -the other area not receiving
that richness, but instead loosing it to the
high parts.
Also, the failure to successfully satisfy the
human hunger, say if the potential mate
declined; would prevent the 'one' area from
replacing what it lost to the high parts.
Also, most of our lives we have probably
done more hunger satisfying than this
'reverse' hunger satisfying, so that the high
parts are more stuffed with escaped hunger
satisfying material, and might prefer some
escaped 'reverse' hunger satisfying material
to balance it out.
Also, the nature of satisfying human
hungers are that when we are finished and
are full, we wish to stop and no longer
continue feeding. With the reverse hunger
satisfying, or the 'one' area supporting the
'other' area; the 'one' area is near barren,
and is easily stopped without much trouble;
whereas with the other plan, the 'one' area
is at medium and is heavily involved
feeding material into escaping to the high
parts; it is not in a good position to easily
bring the hunger satisfying to a stop; and it
has an inertia that wants to keep going with
the hunger satisfying, even after one is full
and no longer desires this hunger
satisfying. Thus this reverse hunger
satisfying plan is the best state to be in
when one is ready to finish the hunger
satisfying and come to a stop with it until
next time.
Note that this propensity of hunger
satisfying to desire to be done for a time
until one is full, and then to stop; represents
its propensity to do on-off cycling as
opposed to constant medium intensity
doing (as is found in the 'rest' plan to be
discussed shortly), in finding medium
ability and also choosing the balance of
group vs component entity.
So the better plan is to have the 'one' area
support the 'other' area. But both plans are
workable under many situations, and both
can be done at one's discretion, mix and
match, just that the 'other' plan is more
advantageous.
However, since hunger satisfying has the
propensity to do on-off type of cycling;
since the more advantageous plan
represents the 'off' part of the cycle, or
leads to the 'off' part of the cycle; we need
to do an equal amount of the 'on' part
of the cycle (which is the not so
advantageous plan of direct hunger
satisfying) at first. -This doing of an 'on',
'off' cycle, represents a choice for both the
group entity and individual or component
entity.
Of course, doing a constant amount of a
moderate intensity hunger satisfying (and
not cycling on and off), also represents this
same choice. But for the same reason that
we allow some conservatism to exist
(which is to allow individual areas to
develop mostly free of the interferences
from, and constraints of, the other areas, for
a time; we also do the 'on', 'off' cycling for
this same reason. But we do not eternally
allow individual areas to be free from the
constraints of each other; but instead, bring
them all together as one so that we may
assemble each individual area together as a
coherent unit to consolidate the gains made
in the individual units into a more powerful
whole; whence we alternate back and forth
between allowing individual components
more freedom vs putting them all together
(where they experience each others
constraints, and thus have less freedom), so
as to generate the maximum and best
possible life/power/and ability. xx
Now, these plans require constant
monitoring to coordinate the 'one' area with
the 'other' or vice versa, to keep one of
them at medium ability. But when we rest,
what then? Well, a good rest plan, is to just
do the first scenario mentioned. That is, use
one area to bring both areas to medium
ability, and let them sit like this. Sure,
losses to the high parts bring these areas to
less than medium ability, but they
automatically stabilize at points slightly
below medium, and still deliver some
production to the high parts; comparable to
the active plans because with the active
plans, one of the areas is moved well off
medium ability towards barren, in order to
put the other area at medium ability. Xx
Come to think of it, both these active plans
put an area near barrenness, from which we
can knock it down into barrenness in order
to bring the complimentary area to richness
without doing much damage to the area,
because it is already near barren, so that
any amount of destructiveness to it doesn't
bring it any lower than barren. We don't
stay in this state long, but just use it as a
transition to get to the rest state, by
lowering the rich area to medium, thereby
raising the barren area also to medium
(both of which then proceed to loose to the
high parts (in both areas), but stabilizes
shortly, just a little below medium, for each
area. And from this state, we can then favor
the one area at medium, or favor the other
area at medium, whichever way we choose.
If we tried to achieve this rest state directly,
it wouldn't work. With the 'one' area near
barren, and the 'other' area at medium;
if we did the hunger action that uplifted the
'one' area and at the same time brought
down the 'other' area, we would end up
with both areas between medium and
barren, and would not be able to bring both
areas up to medium. xx
So I suppose I should run through one cycle
of hunger satisfying. First we might do a
fairly robust hunger satisfying, with the
'other' area taking damage and listing
towards barren so that the 'one' area may
remain at medium while also loosing to the
high parts. Then as we start to become full,
or this present stage starts to become
complete, we raise the 'one' area to richness
and completely loose the 'other' area to
barrenness (for just a short transition time);
so that we can then lower the 'one' area to
medium, which also brings the 'other' area
up to medium, and we continue lowering
the 'one' area even lower (pretty low) so
that the 'other' area is now favored, and this
makes up for losses to the high parts that
the 'other' area incurs while it is at medium.
We continue on like this until the present
stage is finished or we are satisfied and
wish to stop hunger satisfying action.
(Just realize that once the 'one' area has been brought low, that we cannot raise it again without totally decimating the 'other' area to barrenness; seeing how this configuration is for supporting the 'other' area at medium. Instead, we must go completely to nothing with the 'one' area for a transition time, which allows the 'other' area to raise to richness, whence it will then be lowered to medium when we raise the one area from nothingness to medium. So that if the cycle period for on is different than for off, that will just have to be made up in the next cycle.)
Next we lower the 'one' area completely to
barrenness and continue to favor the 'other'
area until it rises from medium to rich;
whence we leave that transition by bringing
the 'other' area back down from rich to
medium, which also raises the 'one' area up
to medium. From this 'rest' state, we no
longer need to cycle in on-off mode, and
can just do medium intensity instead; until
the next time we become hungry. Xx
Note that superimposed upon all this, is that
for every action we do in a hunger
satisfying mode; and also every action we
do in an 'abstinent' mode, we do a kind of
shepherding action with our Jesus
representation (generated previously from
our rest period where we did not favor any
on or off state and did our human actions at
a medium level), to keep the human area
away from the high parts, and to keep all
evils away from the human area. Xx
Note that when doing the on-off cycle, we
have to constantly monitor it and work with
it to keep it generating material for the high
parts; while in the constant medium rest
state, none of this close supervision is
needed. So that it is costly to keep up a
commitment for just one mate (which
represents the high intensity 'on' part of a
cycle, followed by 'off' parts in this
cycling); so that one should minimize the
time they exalt one person above others, for
the time that they need that; but should
return to equality between all peoples in the
rest state once that need is satisfied.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
So how would we build a super entity?
First we consider who we are and what
resources we have. We are unbalanced
individuals who have our best part that is
contributed to the societal entity, but we are
also made up of other parts that are lesser
and much less competent, that we don't
much depend on, but instead, depend on
other people's best parts of the societal
entity to supply. It is these inferior and
rarely used parts of us that represent the
common material that we must bulk up on
and make duplicate copies of in order to
generate super entities and a partially
separate entity. As we can see, this would
be easier if we were more self sufficient,
and that our imbalance hinders us from
doing. Even so, the amount of partially
separate entity is fairly small in comparison
to our size; -we are only able to make a
small or miniature entity due to that it
requires massive amounts of the material
we are weakest in. But even though small
or miniature, maybe we should still do it,
since it brings us together as one, yet still
able to hold onto some individuality; in an
imperfect world where we are often cut off
from one another in an imperfect society.
Just realize that the more self sufficient and
less imbalanced we are, the more of this
super and partially separate entity that we
can make. Xxxxxxxxx
NUANCES OF THE NOW DEFUNCT
IMBALANCED METHOD:
Note that with CC, in addition to the
crippled societal entity which serves to
purify individuals in their hungers; an
additional, fully functional, high ability
societal entity would be needed along side,
to actually fulfill the duties of a societal
entity; and represent freedom from all evil,
and the high parts. Because not all actions
are the intertwined human hunger actions;
and some actions are actually evil free
actions not part of human hungers, which
seek to do good in the world.
So with CC, a crippled societal entity exists
along side a fully functional societal entity.
But with the other plan that uses maximized
individuality and minimized societal
entity; one cannot satisfy human hungers,
and do effective societal, work, actions at
the same time. One can satisfy human
hungers with a weak societal entity, but
then adjust the societal entity to be much
more dominant so that one can do effective
work actions; but one would think one
could not do both simultaneously. Yet, let
me convince you otherwise. When one, as
a human being, is smitten with the human
hunger loves, then one acts with
maximized individuality and minimized
societal (work) entity. The unbalanced
productions that one creates, are mainly
isolated from each other and any societal
entity, and are not put to much use here.
Since the societal entity is not very
prevalent, there is still plenty of room for a
societal entity, seeing how there is so much
of this rich isolated unbalanced productions
just laying around, unused.
But any human who is under the spell of
human loves, should not be part of such, as
the richness in it would cause them to be
burnt down (due to the evil intertwined in
this human hunger). However, at medium
ability, these human hungers eventually
free themselves from their intertwined evil,
and become evil free. It is only when
human minds experience this human
hunger, and work it out into evil free status,
that they can make a societal (work) entity
out of all this rich unbalanced isolated
material laying around. And at the same
time, parts of that human mind that are
smitten, but not yet evil free, do act to
avoid most societal entity (work)
structures, and do ruminate with their this
human hunger until it has become evil free.
Only when it has become evil free and
joined the high parts, does it then come and
participate in major societal entity actions
with this latent rich material generated
from the smitten human hunger stage. So,
although the advice to young people, is to
buckle down and do their work; the wise
thing to do, is not be so attached to work,
(which is the societal entity); but to
minimize work (the societal entity) until
one has ruminated out their human
hungers, and is then ready for major
societal entity (work) activity. xx
Since teenagers are just being smitten for
the first time, they haven't had a chance to
work out these human hungers. So that
putting them in either a rich, or barren
environment, traps these human hungers as
they are, and prevents the intertwined evil
from being worked out. So the tough love
taken to the extreme (and the resulting
barren environment), does no good; and
does not allow the intertwined evil to be
worked out, thus keeping the person
enslaved to this hunger. Just as solitary
confinement for prisoners, also doesn't
rehabilitate well, due to its barren
environment. xx
And one can have parts of themselves in the
smitten zone, which are avoiding most
work; and parts that have become evil free
human hungers, and just evil free parts, that
take on the work, and are part of a heavier
presence in the societal (work) entity. The
thing you don't want to do, is take the
advice to be more productive and get down
to work, when that part of you is under a
human hunger that has not worked itself
into evil free; because all that does is just
burn you down.
Do not take their calls to get off welfare
and become productive. No, shove them
away, and avoid most work. Until YOU are
ready. And not until. Thank you. Tell
those villains to lay off. Spouting about
how much you owe the society you are in.
Do it for me. Thank You. They give work
a bad name.
This brings up a point about casting off all
evils from human hungers. Who is going to
do it. The person or part in the human
hunger is not going to be able to do it,
because they have a minimized 'work'
entity. It must be done by another part of
themselves that although is sogp, and not
part of the high parts, still has a hefty
presence of the 'work' entity, and therefor
has already worked out that human hunger
into evil free, or isn't so involved in that
human hunger at this time. Just realize that
from the perspective of a human hunger
part, not to depend on doing this oneself,
but to also look to outside help for it.
In passing, also realize that although the
sogp that casts off evils off of human
hungers, is quite capable (due to its heavy
presence of societal (work) entity; that it
voluntarily keeps itself away from the also
capable high parts (that are also into a
goodly portion of the societal (work) entity.
And also realize that any sogp that is
actually doing or generating in the human
hunger action, has become weakened,
because it must avoid most societal (work)
entity. xxxxxxxxx
Note that material that has worked out its
human hungers into evil free, and/or other
high parts; have the balance between the
individual entity and the societal entity that
is normal and not skewed to generate
imbalance for the purification of human
hungers. xxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, I have realized that there is a
profound difference between the sexes; so
that by 'different', this means that men and
women are good at different things; so that
when they(men and women), as unbalanced
individuals, do come together, they are thus
more balanced. Normally this would be a
good thing, but since we are dealing with
the imperfect human hunger of human
sexuality, this loss of imbalance hurts the
couple's ability to purify that human
hunger, by allowing them to generate a rich
environment instead of being hindered
down to medium ability by imbalance. So
the concern is not so much whether ones
partner stays true to one, vs, being
promiscuous (promiscuity representing the
mixing of many types, resulting in a more
societal type entity with a corresponding
loss of imbalance); but whether or not there
is any connection between a man and a
woman of any kind; as any kind of
connection causes a reduction from off of
their individual imbalances. -imbalances
which are needed to purify this human
hunger. So that the saying 'you can't live
with them and you can't live without them'
as referring to the opposite sex, rings true;
and one needs to seek a medium or a
limited connection to the opposite sex to
make it work. So that one may need to
isolate from their mate and generate in that
isolation for a time, before joining their
mate in a limited way, to achieve the
medium ability needed to purify their
dealings with their mate. (In achieving
isolation with generatings involving ones
mate; one doesn't destroy the part that is of
ones mate, but just removes it from this
entity that is oneself, and delivers it to ones
mate.)
(Realize that the emphasis on making sure
spouses don't cheat, and remain true, is just
a diversion and takes one's attention off of
what it needs to be on: and that is carefully
managing any connection between the
sexes, including true and non cheating
connections of husband and wife.) Xxxxx
Note that this realization means that
although the marriage structure provides an
incentive to find a mate who is just like
oneself; that this is impossible to
completely achieve due to the inherent
differences between male and female; even
if based on the identical genetic material.
END NUANCES.
End important inserts)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Conservative societies put in place the
expectations in the relations between men
and women that they expect their mates or
boy/girlfriends not to cheat. But human
sexuality the way it comes naturally, is
what it is, and it is not in line with this
conservative way. It must be corralled and
molded so as to be in line with the
conservative way. And then so many
people are disappointed when their spouse
or boy/girlfriends don't live up to the
expectations of being true only to them.
When human sexuality, the way it comes
naturally, doesn't conform to this at all.
These conservatives just try and force
natural human sexuality to conform to
these standards, and is it any wonder that
these conservative expectations are not
met. What's the deal here? Why sex at all?
Many of the lower life forms such as
worms and fungi reproduce by cloning, or
asexual reproduction where they make
exact copies of each other. But higher life
forms seem to enjoy the greater genetic
variability of sexual reproduction so that
their offspring are not exact copies of each
other.
The way human sexuality comes naturally
is a result of many eons of evolution; or
that they were created that way. Who are
humans to take charge and change what
evolution or creation has created? What is
the reasoning or understanding behind such
an action? (Perhaps the conservative way
won't pass the test of evolution, given eons
of time.) The conservatives are not much
on reasoning, but are more toward take it
by faith, and we told you to do it, so do it
(just because we said so, and we know best,
don't question us). Truly, it can be said that
we know not what we do when we corral
human sexuality off its natural course, into
some contrived conservative mold.
Untamed sexuality causes chromosomes
and genetic material to be well mixed so
that there is increased variability spread
over the whole population. But with the
conservative way of sexuality, that genetic
material doesn't get mixed as well. From
this results family groupings where each
family is good at one thing, but not very
good at anything else; since men and
women with like interests (that they are
good at), tend to remain together. Whereas
with free flowing sexuality, these traits
would be shared throughout the society and
everyone would be good at all things, (or
not). But with conservative sexuality,
family groupings exist where each group is
good in one area, but not in other areas.
This forces them to join together and
participate as a greater societal whole,
where each good area can work together in
an effective all encompassing good;
because as individuals, being good at only
one or a few things, makes for a bad life as
an individual. This requires that they join
together with each individual contributing
his/her talent that they are good at. This is
great for those who run the society as they
have a ready supply of forced labor, as
there is no other realistic alternative but to
join the greater society in order to function
effectively. But keeping the individuals
weak, and in need of joining the ruling
societal group; strikes me as a weakness,
and not a wise way to go, in the long term
evolutionary picture. But this conservative
sexuality way, sure works well for those
who wish to harness and enslave others for
their benefit. Just don't be surprised when
human sexuality, doesn't live up to the
expectations of the conservative mold.
Why should it?, that's not what it is.
Note that a woman who is looking for
happiness through marriage to a man, will
be disappointed as no one man has all areas
mastered well. But with the occasional
harem of the Arab world, and polygamy;
the genetic material can be spread around a
little more. But this is all for the benefit of
society's satisfaction of its sexually based
need. -One society type sees the value of
generating more well rounded individuals
(at least occasionally); while the other
society type seeks to keep its individuals
unbalanced and severely beholding to it.
In considering which came first, the
chicken or the egg: realize that whatever
came first, the life forms here had to go
through many generations of sexual
reproduction. Let us consider the nuances of
sexual reproduction itself. When organisms
utilize sexual reproduction,the offspring are
not exactly the same. Differences arise.
When conservative sexuality is applied,
those differences are not allowed to
equalize back through the whole
population. Hence with longstanding
conservative sexuality, different races are
created, (because eventually the differences
(from sexual reproduction that are not
permitted to be spread through the whole
population) become so great that a new
race is created). Hence conservative
sexuality is a cause of racism (or at least
provides for its continuation) because it
creates the situation of different races
living side by side.
By not allowing differences from sexual
reproduction to spread back throughout the
whole population; not all the possibilities
are tried, and less possible combinations of
genes are tried. With less combinations
tried, sexual reproduction is weaker at
generating different combinations that may
survive the tempests that nature or our own
destructiveness throws at us.
Some mock that others feel they are entitled
to this or that. And this is understandable
because even with all the hard work these
people do, they have to fight management
tooth and nail to be entitled to the pay they
do receive. -So that how could one who
does no work at all ever hope to receive/be
entitled to anything?
But, now a call to all the self starters out
there/ self start this:
The conservative way breeds individuals
who are helpless by themselves unless they
conform and meld together into the societal
group.
Yet it is the conservatives who emphasize
individual responsibility and blame
individuals for what goes wrong in society.
And it is the conservatives who squawk so
loudly about the welfare and how that is
sapping society so. Really, people helpless
of taking care of themselves and in need of
welfare is just a product of the
conservative's own breeding policy, and
they really have no right to complain about
it, as it is them that caused the problem of
helpless individuals in the first place.
All this is just a jab at us all to conform to
the societal will and cause no dissent;
because if we do, we will be cast out of the
societal way and find ourselves as helpless
individuals, needing welfare. These threats
by the conservative way for us to conform
are not in line with the promise of freedom
proclaimed by the American way. Hence,
in this respect, going with the conservative
way absolutely, all the time, is decidedly
Un American. (Land of the free, home of
the brave? We are certainly not free when
absolutely under the conservative way.)
xxxxxx Yet perhaps there is value in
allowing a (family) group to develop and
perfect an area in freedom from being
overly burdened by the demands of other
areas. However, at some point in time, the
advancements gained in the disparate areas
need to be put together, in order for this
type of way to be a better way. Some may
say that the occasional marriage by people
of different best skills, (in order that the
couple may compliment each other so as to
survive better) will do this mixing.
However, I disagree since the rulers of the
society have grown to depend on the
separation of skills (so that people are very
good at only one area) so that the
population is forced to conform to their
dictates (or be cast out and be a helpless
individual in need of welfare); as a means
of control over the society. Hence mixing
of these skills and assembling them all
together is not allowed, and is sought to be
prevented. This holds us back and does not
make this way a better way. So, although
there may be a place for some
conservatism; it is no good for there to be
absolute conservatism or to have it all the
time. In this imperfect area, there is no
place for absolutes of any kind.
And while I am recanting positions, let me
recant somewhat my opposition to the
conservative breeding program that creates
unbalanced individuals that aren't self
sufficient by themselves. Yes, perhaps as a
safeguard to governments and individuals
who would generate large quantities of self
sufficient people who would be devoted to
doing evil/destruction; does the safeguard
of being helpless as individuals have some
use. In other words: combining the concept
of that when there is evil, we should seek a
medium ability environment; with when
there is an abundance of humans in an evil
environment, they are treated poorly and
are food for evil (whereas if there is a
shortage of them, this would force better
treatment of them). I would state that the
unbalanced individual is the medium
environment sought. So that if some
government or individual woman wanted to
overproduce humans so as to use them as
fodder for their evil/destructive designs,
that they could not easily produce complete
humans, but would be limited to
incomplete humans. But if we as
individuals are to give up our self
sufficiency in order to provide this
safeguard and medium ability environment
in a world full of evil, then we need much
more to ensure that we individuals have a
vote over the greater society (that we as
individuals create in coming together); so
that this greater society that we defer to
doesn't then turn around and screw us, as
now non-self-sufficient individuals. Our
responses can vary widely depending on
how much evil there is in our environment.
The presupposition here is that there is evil
in the environment, hence the individual
needs to be at medium ability by making
him/her less than self sufficient. But if this
is so, then no one entity should have all the
power (neither the individual, nor the
greater society), and all entities should
have checks and balances on each other
and be at medium ability. That vote the
individual should have over the greater
society that bosses him/her, is by allowing
we as individual couples to have unfettered
say over how many offspring we have.
-That we have many offspring in a good
situation where there is no evil; -That we
have a limited number where there is some
evil; and that we have few offspring where
the greater society is mostly all evil and is
treating us badly. So that the conservative
attempts at stopping birth control and
violating women's ability of choice over to
have or not have an offspring; are much out
of place. And also, the conservative
breeding program can be enacted quite
successfully enough by limiting its rules
only to having children; and need not
burden us by extending their coverage to
our sexual expressions outside of
having/creating children.
Now then, I am changing my mind again.
This latest idea makes no sense. The idea is
that the individual needs to be at medium
ability because there is evil, and hence
should be less than self sufficient, and that
if we let the individual be of high ability
and self sufficient, the governmental
groups of these people will be used more so
to do more destruction. The problem is is
that no mater whether the individual is self
sufficient, or not, the greater society or
government is able to put together the
individual strengths of less than self
sufficient peoples to obtain high power
anyway, and that the only entity that high
power is denied, is the individual. So that it
makes no difference (there is no gain or
loss) to the greater society whether the
individual is self sufficient or not,
concerning what level the society is at
-always high level, not medium level. And
the less than self sufficient individuals run
the risk of being at low level, not medium
level because of their lack of self
sufficiency. (And low level is not any good
in an evil situation either.) An individual
needs to be self sufficient in order to be at
medium ability in these situations. A
greater society made of self sufficient
individuals would be more powerful than
any individual self sufficient individual; so
that it takes self sufficient individuals to
achieve medium ability in this situation,
whereas non self sufficient individuals
would be at low ability in this situation
(which is undesirable).
-And that no mater what; the greater
society is at high ability irregardless of
whether the individual is self sufficient, or
is less than self sufficient. So once again, I
now change again and dissolve any
allegiance to the conservative breeding
program that breeds less than self sufficient
individuals. I may say, that there is a place
for the conservative way in order to allow
development of the different areas without
undue interference from each other; but
that it should not be allowed to be the
absolute boss. And the conservative way
tempts greater societies to use their
individuals and consume their individuals
as fodder because it forces them to conform
due to their lack of self sufficiency.
I have made argument that where there is
evil/destruction, we should seek to make
that environment at medium ability so as to
encourage separation of the forces. But this
is only if there is some goodness trapped
herein that needs separating from the evil.
If the good has already separated from the
evil; do not continue to intervene to keep
the all-evil at medium ability. If an area has
only evil, then allow that evil, now alone
and by itself, to burn the medium
environment down to barren so that it will
then cease to exist: thus taking advantage
of that good can exist while alone but evil
can't.
In another out of place insert, I just want to
say that with all this considering of gray
areas and all the nuances of how to handle
gray areas:
-Not every area is a gray area. That there
ARE areas that CAN be separated into
wholly good components, and wholly
destructive components. And that here, the
advisements of how to handle gray areas,
don't apply. That here, we DO separate the
components into separate areas `of black
and white'; and that doing so here is good.
Consider `rules' over these non gray areas:
Rules don't allow the `bad' to exist at all.
They create a vacuum (which high forces
of good fill to medium ability, (in a special
way that prevents their purity from being
compromised)). But the action of
separation DOES allow both the bad, and
the good, to exist: -just in different,
separate areas. -Even the gray actions are
separated away from the all-good (due to
their badness that partially makes them up);
(so that the ability of the all-good to contact
the good parts of gray actions is tentative at
best). So that when you're not satisfying
some human (gray action) need that has
good and destruction inseparably
intertwined; you can commit your main
center to absolute goodness (Jesus, God,
Ala, etc), which as a base part of it, has
separation of all good from all
evil/destruction. (Only when satisfying an
earthly need, need you be open to the
destructiveness from gray areas.) Through
separation, the evil/destruction still exists
and is not eliminated, but it is separate
from the rest of you/your goodness; where
it does not bother nor consume your all
-goodness. (and it soon self consumes itself
and disappears).
(Note that freedom/separation from
evil/destruction is just a base part. The
goodness then acts to grow perfect
goodness, which then matures, etc, (as
detailed elsewhere in this writing).)
Let me reiterate this in a different way:
Some actions are human gray actions
which contain both good and
destructiveness inextricably intertwined.
And around our human gray actions have
grown up rules governing the expression of
our human gray actions. These rules do not
eliminate the destructiveness in our gray
actions, but instead just rearrange where it
is done and put a structure to where the
destructive part is done. These rules
themselves then also tie to themselves the
fact that they are not totally free of
destructiveness either. But not all
actions/areas are these human gray actions.
-Some actions CAN be separated
completely into that which is good vs. that
which is destructive.
And in these non-gray areas exists a purity
of action in that they are either all good or
all destructive, that does not exist with the
gray actions. (As we know, when an all
destructive area is generated, it soon
consumes itself and disappears; thus
leaving only pure all-good areas.) Thus
there can exist structures with an absolute
purity in their action, and also other
structures which are always impure and can
never be pure in their 'human' actions. For a
human gray action say of satisfying a
human hunger, to join with these NON
gray areas would be a pollution of the pure
good area and a torment as the evil in the
gray action would grow rapidly in the rich
environment of the all good area. But the
rules over the gray actions are also likewise
impure, and for them to join the all good
area would be the same result. Human
sinners know that they are impure and
know better not to join the pure all good
areas. But rule enforcers over gray areas
may mistakenly aspire to be godly and see
themselves as joining the all good, but they
also must be separated away from the all
good to maintain the purity of the all good,
as these rule enforcers are as impure as the
sinners they enforce against. Yes, there are
areas that are non gray and are absolute
good within us. And we keep these separate
from every(all) destructiveness, including
destructiveness of our gray human hunger
satisfying, as well as the also destructive
enforcers of rules over the gray areas.
These all good areas are not only separate
from destructions, they are also our engines
of growth into perfection. These all good
areas are even in addition to this, are also
givers of goodness unto only medium
ability in a one way gift to the gray areas,
in order for those in the gray area to work
their way out of the gray and into the all
good. But of course, there is no gift of
medium ability to any all destructive part.
-only to where there is some good is there a
gift to medium ability.
Now when a human situation exists which
needs the intervention of the all good to
supply a one way gift to bring to medium
ability; the all good then splits a small part
off. The reason the part split off is small, is
to represent that the all good is to be kept at
high ability, while the one way gift is only
for bringing to medium ability. And not
only is the splitting done; the smaller one
way gift also must leave and become
separate from the all good area; since it is
to enter an area where there is some evil,
and that the all good area must be kept
separate from. So, although the small gift
part leaves and separates away, and in the
arena containing some evil, brings things to
medium ability, where the life there darts
about and avoids and tries to run away and
to obtain separation from the evil; the main
part which is all good, remains and stays
and holds its ground and does not run away
because it has already obtained freedom
and separation from evil.
xxxxxxxxx Skip this SEGMENT the first read,
-too complicated:
Looking at the human area , in the
satisfying of a human hunger: the one way
gift to medium ability causes: -The area of
human hunger can proceed for awhile in
medium ability. -Then to generate and
share existence with a regulatory action
(also of medium ability) to remove all of
the godly part to God (due to a maturation
process); and soon after that to generate
and share existence with a second regulatory action (also sharing medium
ability from the medium ability gift) which in response to the havoc caused by the first
regulatory action, to take the remaining
now incomplete matured human parts
which had godly parts removed from them,
to only partially take these incomplete
matured human parts and meld them
together with complete matured human
parts, so as to only partially restore their
function of satisfying a human hunger.
Here is another segment that is best skipped due to its overly complex nature:
Then there are the times when our smaller
split off part is in a lull, where not much is
going on in the generating of human/gray
area parts. It then may turn its attention on
generating all good parts, to the best that it
is able. (Those all good parts are more pure
and more all encompassing of every good
thing than it is). As the all good is
generated, it is generated as also devoting a
part of its new self to also generating new
all good parts, so that eventually, the
smaller split off part has to bear less of the
load of generating all good parts. But then,
all of a sudden, the lull is over, and new
action in the human/gray area appears that
is needed. It is the purpose and function of
the smaller split off part to deal with the
imperfect human gray area, not the all good
area. In this imperfect, impure, and non
absolute area of the human/gray areas;
there is one absolute: and that is when a
new, lull breaking human need appears, the
smaller split off part (which had been
distracted into generating the all good),
then removes all (not just part, all) of the
young all good material that is destined for
all good, but which had not matured into
that yet, away from the human area and
human generating; to the best of its ability.
-However, it must share this directive with
also, in a reasonable time frame, to
generate in the human needs area. -Just that
this smaller split off part itself, doesn't at
all mix the new generating of human needs,
with its distraction generating of the all
good, especially the immature all good that
just happens to be caught when the lull is
broken. -It ejects this away from itself
before beginning the lull breaking human
need generating.
Xxxxx Note that the newly generated
mature all good can break a small part of
itself off to be its contribution to the
smaller split off part, and thus add material
to help this situation here.
End SKIPPED SEGMENTS
When there has grown up around our gray
actions of satisfying human hungers;
absolute rules that bring an absolute nature
to how we are allowed to do gray actions
(ie; as when Christians go about destroying
all things sexual outside of what they have
allowed); then as I have previously stated,
those absolute rules need to be smashed
down to medium, to no longer be absolute,
so that medium environments are favored
over patchworks of rich and barren.
However, such an action to do so, is also an
impure action that also contains
destruction; -as is also, the enforcement of
absolute rules over these gray actions is;
-as is also, the gray actions of satisfying
human hungers itself, are. So that although
the high good wants to fill to medium
ability, the vacuums created by these
absolute rule enforcers; the high good is
sometimes unable to do so directly due to
the contamination to itself that would
bring. The high good, then does so
indirectly by splitting off a small part of
itself in this one way gift mechanism to do
this*; much like God the Father split off a
Son, Jesus, to come to the impure earth,
and smash down the absolute nature of the
Jewish rules over living everyday life,/ the
works of the devil. When there exists a
human gray action (which has good and
evil inseparably in it), the one way gift
maintains it at medium ability, in a medium
environment. But if in addition, there is an
evil/destructive action that can be separated
away; I mean, who is going to separate a
human gray action with some good to it
from a destructive action with no good in
it? All-good actions have separation from
all evil, but a human gray action is
inseparable from its inherent evil, thus any
all-good action would risk being
contaminated by evil if it attempted to save
a(n impure) human action from another, all
evil action.(-the all evil action feeding off
the good in the human action). And of
course, this is where the one way gift of
-and-to medium ability comes in.
Realize that the goal of the one way
gift(also referred to as 'sogp'), is to help the
good in the human action obtain separation
from evil - by providing a medium ability
environment/level, and doing whatever else
is needed for that directive, such as
removing it from other all evil actions that
are using it as food. When the human
action is freed/removed from the all evil
action; the all evil action is then alone, and
without food, consumes itself and
disappears.
Let me restate this. Some actions are human
actions, containing growth and destruction
inseparably within them. But not all actions
are human actions, and some actions can be
separated completely into all good, and all
destructive components. And when they are
separated, the all good components are
separate from the all destructive
components. This puts a hurt on the all
-destructive components because when
alone they consume themselves and
disappear. But if they can find some human
actions, they can continue to survive by
feeding off the good in the human action.
And who would separate an all-destructive
component away from a human action
(which also contains some destruction)?
The human action is inescapably (at this
level) contaminated with some destruction.
No immediate purification is obtained by
separating a human action from an all
destructive action which is feeding on the
good in it, as the human action still has
some destruction no mater if it is separated
from the all-destructive or not. And any all
-good action would contaminate itself trying
to do this. So, this is where the small one
way gift comes in: to not only bring out of
the vacuum of barrenness and nothingness
unto medium ability, but also to separate
human actions from all-destructive actions
that are feeding on them: thereby causing
the all destructive actions to self consume
and disappear: paving the way for the
contaminated but now medium ability life
to work its way out of its contamination
and eventually obtain freedom from
destruction. The evil within human actions
is difficult to separate away.
But the evil from an all-evil action that is
feeding on the good in a human action, is
not so difficult to separate away, provided
the one separating it away isn't concerned
about being contaminated. One might not
say that the rules (religious and societal)
over human gray actions are all destructive
and are feeding off the gray actions,
because no matter what you do to a gray
action (whether destroy it all, partially
destroy it, or do no destroying to it), you
end up with some good and some
destruction. But this is just a matter of
semantics, because the end result is just the
same. The rules act to cause patchworks of
rich and barren; the rich are burned down
to barren by the destruction always present
within gray actions, leaving only barren. In
only barren environments, the good and
destructive are forced to be together.
Destructiveness has been fed, and its
survival is ensured and there is no hope of
eventually getting away from it. So that
even though it was the destruction from the
gray action that did the actual destroying of
the rich areas created: it was the rules that
formed the environment so that this and
nothing but this would happen. And being
barren is a result of all destructive things
and is what they produce. So that the all
destructive is bred, fed, and grown out of
the human gray actions, and does feed on
the human gray actions; as caused by the
rules.
Because of the rules, the all destructive does
feed on the human gray actions and thus
does not self eliminate. But if the small gift
comes and separates the all destructive
from the human gray actions; then that all
destructive WILL self eliminate. Jesus will
do what the rules (the religious/societal
law) never will.
*Note that rules use destruction, and that
the result of destruction is a vacuum. High
good will not fill these vacuums, even
though it is the input of good, and that the
high good also has the necessary life
making it up; -due to the loss of purity in
this area due to the impurity of the
destructiveness from the rules. But to the
smaller one way gift, this vacuum not only
has its input, (and it still has enough ability
making it up to do good to this vacuum
even though it is smaller than the rest of the
all-good), and finally, this vacuum is no
threat to purity as it isn't primarily
concerned about purity: thus it is these
smaller one way gifts that make use of
these vacuums created by rules. God the
Father does not come down in power to fill
these vacuums; instead, Jesus the meek Son
comes down to fill these vacuums. And the
parts of us that are meek inside of us,
which are split off our high good areas,
should also do the same, in our world. Note
that although some destroying of rules is
done; the majority actions used here are not
the use of destruction, but are the use of
creative abilities of goodness and growth,
to put something of medium ability into
where these vacuums and nothingness once
were. When we start out, we have a high
good area part that is (almost) totally
separate from any human-hunger
-satisfying-gray-action. But this isn't
actually the case, as our gray areas do have
a small one way piece that was once from
the high good area, and still gets small
replenishments from the high good area.
Still, the connection to the human gray area
is tentative at best. But we do have major
parts of the high-good-area-of-us, that are
not newly generated(thus have already
given their contribution to the small one
way gift), that are totally separate from any
human hunger satisfying gray action. These
parts have tremendous growth, but they are
against a barrier in that they don't posses
any of these gray areas, evil free, at high
good, but only have themselves at high
good. And high good is always trying to
bridge barriers and do more growth. It is
the small one way gift of us that gets it on
in the gray areas, so that it isn't fair to say
that the high good has always been aloof
and has no contact with the gray areas, as
the small one way gift which began as high
good material, does come and have contact
with the gray areas. Here, it casts away
absolutely, all evil that can be separated
away in the gray areas, but doesn't try to
cast out evil that is part of the gray actions,
as that is not obtainable at this time. It also
generates material to medium ability for the
vacuums in the gray areas caused by
destruction in the gray areas (doing so first
in isolation, then releasing that material to
the whole of the gray area). The point I'm
trying to make here is that while doing
human hunger satisfying in the gray areas
with the small one way gift part of oneself;
to remember not to draw the established
high good parts of oneself into this, but to
at this same time, keep them completely
separate from this (and to block any impure
or all evil action from trying to get to the
high good).
Eventually, because of the small one way
gift's doings in the gray areas, the good in
that will work its way out of the gray areas
and separate from the evil that was once
unseperatable, and will join the high good
parts. Hence the high good parts will at this
later time, have bridged their barrier, and
will have range over not only their high
good area, but also over the purified gray
area material.
When our gray, human parts plus one way
gift parts of ourself are satisfying a human
hunger, there is simultaneously a
coordinated effort between the high-good
-non-gray parts of ourself, and our one way
gift, to keep the high parts completely
separate/ away from these
impure(contaminated with destruction)
imperfect human/gray hunger satisfying
actions. Whatever part of us is made of
high-good-evil-free parts will be opting
away from any human hunger satisfying,
while at the same time our human parts and
one way gift will be doing the human
hunger satisfying actions/cycle. These two
directives (one of human hunger satisfying
-to medium satisfaction; and the other of
getting away from human hunger satisfying
and not doing any human hunger
satisfying) do not despise each other, but
instead, work and coordinate together so
that each may coexist, mainly (but not
completely) separate from each other,
within us.
(This starts to get too complex) Let me take
this to the next level (up a notch). This is
kind of a recipe for human hunger
satisfying. Keeping in mind that we are
composed of both all good areas, and also
human gray areas; we see that we cannot
apply one set of rules to us, but must
differentiate between what is all good, and
what is gray, in us. The first order of
business when satisfying a human hunger,
is to remove the all-good parts of us from
that. and that includes the purified parts
from a previous satisfaction of that human
hunger. Then we satisfy the human hunger
with our remaining human parts. Here are
some suggestions for that:
Note that the small(er) one way gift (or
Jesus representation within us) does
generate human material in isolation, and
then releases that material to the larger
human hunger satisfying area. The purpose
of this is to limit exposure to the
destruction in human material so that the
gift can keep some semblance of high
capability and limit the compromise of its
purity. Taking this idea to the next level,
we can have more than just one level of
separation, but multiple levels of
separation, like the layers of an onion; and
thereby generate a spread of varying levels
and togetherness of human materials in this
human hunger satisfying.
SKIP THIS SEGMENT THE FIRST READ.
So how do we create the different levels?
Well, this starts with how we, (or the one
way gift), can variably release material it
generates to other less pure levels of the
human area.
There is a difference in how an evil is cast
out vs how we satisfy a hunger. (After our
all good parts are removed and not
participating in this): when the one way gift
is casting out an all-evil, the casting out
action it generates in separation, is totally
delivered to the human area to completely
cast out the evil that can be cast out and
removed from the human hunger satisfying.
But when the one way gift is generating
material for human hunger satisfying, it
need not release all of it to the human area,
but can leave half of it unreleased, still in
separation. The reasoning behind this is
that forces of good like to generate
material, but it is not good if too much
material is generated so as to be at high
capability in this human area. So, if the one
way gift leaves some material unreleased to
the human area, it will still maintain
medium ability, as the extra material will
be separated away from it by a barrier.
And the one way gift will have gotten to do
what it likes to do, that is to generate
material and fill voids. And this can be
carried between the levels. As enough
material coalesces in a human level to allow for increased generation of human
material, some of that material can be released to a new area, while the rest of that
material can remain behind; so that we
have two levels of medium ability as
opposed to one level at high ability. This is
how we generate new levels. At this point
the two levels are the same. But then the
one way gift, which is of the highest ability
of any of the levels, because it is the most
separate from destruction; generates a
small fragment, which is the next step in
the human hunger satisfying, and releases
half of it to only one of the two levels. Now
the two levels are no longer the same. The
level with the next step as well as all the
previous steps, is now a more corrupted,
and also a more satisfied level. The one
way gift then leaves the half of the
fragment that was not released, so as to
generate another fragment that is the next
step after that which was the next step, so
as to release half of it to the broadest most
all inclusive level of human hunger
satisfying. And the addition of this next
step material causes this level to generate
more whereby it creates another level by
releasing half of itself to another area. And
this keeps going on till the human hunger is
satisfied in only the final broadest level.
This way all the possibilities are generated,
and a complete spread of all levels of
ability are generated, so that if the final
level that had a complete human hunger
satisfied, does burn itself down, or is
purified and leaves the human area to be
with the all good; there is still a human area
at medium ability, which is more than a
vacuum that is left behind. And the one
way gift does leave each of the previous
fragments in order to generate the next new
fragment, so as to limit its exposure to the
destruction in the human action, so that it
can remain at semi high capability, so that
it can generate the needed fragments that
the more corrupted levels cannot due to
their greater exposure to destruction from
the human action.
Note that it is easy for the one way gift to
release, and also to remove itself from
these fragments because they don't
represent what it directly needs; and in fact
their removal and absence DOES keep the
one way gift at semi high ability, (higher
than any of the other levels) and is
therefore a positive thing for it. This is hard
for the more corrupted, broader levels of
the human action to understand, as they
value the final fragments they receive,
which they aren't able to produce
sufficiently on their own due to their
greater exposure to destruction. But, then,
they aren't asked to give up these final
fragments anyway, like the one way gift
does. They should realize that the one way
gift does not value these fragments to the
extent and intensity that they do. The
casting out an all evil from a human hunger
satisfying may be more difficult in some
situations. After the all good is removed
from this, the one way gift then does this. It
can do so by first generating casting out
action in isolation, then half of the one way
gift releases part of its production (say half)
of it to the broad human area.
But before it releases all of it, the one way
gift then retreats to isolation again (to
generate more casting out action). -(Then at
this point, the other half of the one way gift
comes out of isolation to release its half
part, so that the retreating part no longer
has the heat/burden focused on it. -Note
that this second half of the one way gift
that is now coming out of isolation and
releasing its half part; also releases (to the
broad human area), the half part that the
first half of the one way gift failed to
release because it was instead retreating to
isolation again.) And the two halves of the
one way gift cycle back and forth between
release from isolation to the broad human
area; and retreating to isolation.) This way,
the casting out action is mostly all released,
as is what the all-evil deserves, but in such
a way that the all evil can't get to the one
way gift very well, because the one way
gift is shielded by casting out action that it
is retreating from, with the unreleased
casting out action between itself and the
all-evil. But that the unreleased casting out
action isn't wasted because the other half of
the one way gift that is coming out of
isolation at this time, uses its released half
to also push into release, that previously
unreleased material from the other half.
Now, with the satisfying of a human
hunger, things can get even more complex.
Not only do we have the two halves of the
one way gift releasing and retreating to and
from isolation what they produce. (And
note that here, they leave unreleased half
parts as unreleased and do not push these
into release from the other side like is done
for casting out evil, as this is satisfying a
human hunger, which is different like this
because medium ability is sought.)
Not only do we have the two halves of the
one way gift doing their cycle, but they can
start to deliver their production to different
levels that are not the direct recipients of
the production, with these other levels then
handing that production off to the direct
recipient level in a second action. And the
one way gift can in time, stack it back so
that it is quite far away from the recipient
broad human area level. This leaves room
for the one way gift halves to generate the
next step in the hunger satisfying directly
to part of the broad human area, and then to
also work even that production back so that
it is far away; and so on and so forth till all
the steps of the hunger satisfying are
generated. And while this is going on, the
intelligence part of the broad human area is
expanding itself so that different/more
(medium ability) levels are generated;
whereby the one way gift halves only select
part of the expanded broad human area to
deliver the latest step in human hunger
satisfying. Thus the whole spectrum of
human hunger satisfying is generated.
Let me go over this again with my newest
version. I have kind of gotten away from the 'stacking it back' idea.
What I do for human hunger satisfying is,
oh yes, first the all-good parts of me
removes itself/are removed. But then, the
one way gift starts to put into the vacuum
of no activity, some activity, so that a
medium measure of activity is present. (It
of course does so in the two halves, each of
which produce in isolation, then deliver out
of isolation to the broader hunger satisfying
area). But once a medium measure of
activity is present, the one way gift
removes itself from the broader area.
The broader area then goes along, and it
usually takes the activity from medium
measure, to high. At this point, things break
and things give. Some of the material may
become evil free, and is then removed from
here. Sometimes much of the material
becomes corrupted and evil starts to burn it
down. At this point, the broader area's
intelligence has found its limit, and backs
off the high measure back to medium
measure, and it does so by expanding itself
so it is of larger area doing medium
measure, (as opposed to what it was, which
was a smaller area doing high measure).
This intelligence then chooses a part of
itself to split off and become a new level,
which commences to do the next step in the
hunger satisfying, (leaving the rest of the
split to remain as is and to not do the next
step). Usually this new next level doing the
next step (in the hunger satisfying), is
inadequate, and produces insufficient doing
of the next step, and it is at low measure. It
is at this point when the one way gift which
had been aloof, comes back in, and raises
this next step from low activity measure, to
a medium measure of activity. (And during
this time the one way gift part of us
actually does this step in the hunger
satisfying, in medium activity.) It then
again leaves the broader hunger satisfying,
leaving the broader hunger satisfying, with
the broader area intelligence (which was
once a split off part of the one way gift in
the beginning, before so many levels were
generated), to continue on. And once again,
the broader area usually takes this new next
step to a high measure of activity. (Once
the broader area nears the completion of
the hunger satisfying, a larger part of the
material can become all good and be
removed.) Sometimes this removal causes
not much to be left over in the hunger
satisfying area.
This remnant then falls to way low activity
measure. But this doesn't always happen.
Sometimes the remnant is of sufficient
medium activity measure. But when it does
happen, and the remnant is of way low
activity measure, it finds itself unable to do
much. This is when the intelligence in the
broader area is wise to lay still and look to
the aloof one way gift part. Yes, in these
occurrences, the one way gift breaks from
its aloofness, and comes in to replenish
back to medium, these way low parts; and
then thereafter goes back to being aloof
again. Then the broader area grows in area
but stays at medium activity. Again, it
splits off part of this area to become the
next level, and commences doing even the
next step in the hunger satisfying only in
this new level. Once again, this is
inadequate and of low level, and the aloof
one way gift comes in again to bring it to
medium, and then leaves again to be aloof.
And this cycle continues until there are all
stages of levels up to and including the
complete satisfaction of the human hunger
(which often goes to being part of the all
good, and removed from this). This is my
newest recipe /no longer as it is not near
the beginning/.
END SKIPPED SEGMENT.
Then I am hearing on the history channel
how some of the early Christians were
preaching absolute celibacy (especially
towards women) as the only way to obtain
salvation. From what I understand, the
Romans killed Jesus because they were
trying to prevent rebellion by the Jewish
people. And the Jewish people did rebel
(unsuccessfully) several times including at
Masada during that time period. But
obviously, if the roman women didn't have
sex, they would also have no offspring.
And the roman war machine depended on a
goodly supply of offspring to keep it going.
-Hence the roman persecution of early
Christianity. This act by the Christians was
ultimately successful in overthrowing the
roman empire where Jewish revolt had
failed. And in their time under a mostly
evil and cruel empire, the total denial of
offspring was the right course to take. But
in today's world, this absolute celibacy isn't
necessarily the right course any longer.
Note that since women are the source of the
next generation and they are born with that
goodness, they thus become targets of
destructive forces seeking life material to
feed off of and destroy; and some become
corrupted or occupied by such destructive
forces. But it's not their fault. They can't
help that they are born with this prize that
destructive forces of the greater society
seek. Some just need the small gift to come
and separate off these destructive forces
that have found a home here. Perhaps this
is why religion sometimes sees women as
sources of what is bad, and puts them
down.
out of place insert: Consider that the many
gods of the roman empire are replaced by
one God. Consider that the state of having
many gods could not be long lasting. A
world of many 'gods' all powerful and
growing in power, there would not be room
enough for them to be separate, but that
they would need to get together and
cooperate, essentially forming one God, or
if unable to get along, annihilating each
other with their great power. end insert.
But concerning more spiritual matters and
spiritual salvation, we can rehash that the
sexual area is an imperfect area that
contains destruction no mater which way
we go, just in different areas. So that when
Christian leaders/instigators preach
absolute celibacy for salvation, they are
just as guilty of sexual destruction as the
sinners are. However, a case can be made
that the believers who attempt to achieve
salvation under such, are blameless and are
not guilty of doing any sexual destruction,
but that that guilt goes with the leaders who
instigated this behavior. Being free of
destruction, these believers then have made
an all good area in a gray area. However,
destruction still exists in this gray area, and
these believers still suffer its effects, it is
just they are not to blame as its source
(others have taken the blame for them).
Unfortunately, they are under a structured
gray area, due to their rules for obtaining
salvation, so that they generate patchworks
of rich and barren, resulting in ultimate
total consumption of the life in this area
due to the force of destruction. What is
needed is medium ability in this gray area,
and this way hasn't provided that, never
mind who is to blame, who is guilt free,
etc. So we thank the Christian tradition for
overthrowing the roman empire, but realize
that this way doesn't help in the imperfect
human gray area of human sexuality. The
better way to help it pretty much Scott free,
is to do as God the Father and Jesus did
(do), and that is to split off a small part of
the all good area (Jesus), who then
separates from the all good area, and comes
to the impure human gray areas so as to
bring to medium ability. This is the better
Christian tradition.
But rules over the gray areas; what about
them? Since rules contain the use of
destruction (to always eliminate any
alternative path -which is why there's a
vacuum there; (and that destruction is
absolute and not a partial destruction, as
none of the alternatives are allowed to exist
at all) -high good then acts to fill these
vacuums to medium level, so that
alternatives exist in spite of the rules
attempts to eliminate them).
But rules over non gray areas; what about
them? If we apply the action to separate the
all-good from any bad, including any bad
of gray actions; then since imperfect rules
contain/are sources- of destruction in their
action, they are also separated away from
the all-good. Imperfect rules then find
themselves thrown down to the gray
actions and to the destruction only areas.
But as we have shown; rules don't help in
the gray action area either, and are out of
place here too.
Why do we have rules? Supposedly to act
against destructive elements in society. But
rules themselves contain (absolute)
destruction inherently as part of their action
(in that they eliminate all alternatives but
the prescribed path). So rules contain
inherently in their action, that which they
seek to act against. And if one doesn't
know it all and get it exactly right, and the
destruction of their rules destroys
something other than just what is
destructive; then the rules themselves
become the source and perpetrator of some
destruction.
One could end up chasing their tail if they
let rules rule their life. If the rules thus
introduce what they seek to stamp out
(destruction), then they never will be
successful at accomplishing what they seek
to accomplish: and to an all good part, they
are impure and a pollution of an all good
part, if joined with it. But the action to
separate that which is all-good away from
any evil, (including that within gray
actions), itself need not be destructive (like
rules are); so that this separation action can
be a part of and together with that which is
all good. It has no contradiction within its
own system like the rules way does. Now it
is possible for perfect rules to supersede
this. But, to do perfect rules, you have to
know in depth and in advance, because
rules detach one from any other alternative;
so that finding perfect rules is nearly
impossible in an imperfect rule ridden
structure, if you don't already have them;
whereas such absolute knowledge is not
needed to use the separation method, unlike
that it is needed to use the perfect rules
method.
--------------Wait a minute: there is no such
thing as perfect absolute rules in the gray
actions, because rules absolutely eliminate
alternatives (attempting to achieve bareness
there); where what gray actions need is
medium ability ie partial elimination of
alternatives. Thus there are no absolute
perfect rules over gray actions. Let me
reiterate that not all parts of us are gray
parts, and that these non gray, all good
parts of us need to be separate and not
participate in the ways of gray parts, but
instead participate in their own ways of
growth and richness.
Also, let me say that in the gray areas,
variability is a useful tool for this area to
change out of its imperfect state. The use of
structure over gray actions, which directs
destructive parts to one area, and good
parts to another area; can be useful in
causing variability. So that instituting
absolute anarchy over the gray areas is also
unwise. Some structure should be allowed
in the gray areas; just that it mustn't be
allowed to be absolute. Neither absolute
anarchy nor absolute structure seems to be
a good idea; but somewhere in between
does. END INSERT.
In another out of place tangent, I wish to
say that I notice that some have taken
objection to the Harry Potter books, saying
that it promotes witchcraft, and that
Christians should be against it. And I also
remember as part of our Christian heritage
here in the U.S. That historically they had a
witch hunt where they actually burned and
killed people on suspicion of being witches
in Salem. And then of course there is the
history of the inquisition where they would
accuse one of witchcraft in the middle ages.
One thing I wanted to point out was to
consider Jesus, the head of the Christian
religion. He was a very spiritually active
and gifted person. He went about healing
people and bringing people back from the
dead and it is even reported that he cursed a
tree and the next day it died. If such a
person had done these things in Salem, or
the middle ages, they would have probably
been burned at the stake or drowned as a
witch; so that Jesus probably would not
have been able to survive among these
'Christian' people. Crucified, burned at the
stake, drowned; they all just want to kill
Jesus (and south park's Kenny).
What I am suggesting is that we should not
condemn people for being spiritually gifted
per sea, but it is what a spiritually gifted
person does with their giftedness, either
good or evil/destructiveness that we should
be paying attention to. There may perhaps
be such a thing as witches and witchcraft
and voodoo where people use spiritual
abilities to do destructive things to others;
but such things are not easy to prove as
regular murders and assaults are. Without
proof, only actions to bring an environment
or person to medium ability where
destructiveness obviously is present, is
warranted in extreme cases; not the
absolute destruction of burning at the stake
or drowning anyone. Christians really have
little new testament basis to be against
witchcraft. -it is not a big concern in the
new testament narrative. There are no
words in the new testament saying to put to
death anyone for witchcraft. And lest their
own Jesus, or even when one of them
speaks in tongues, be considered and
condemned as a witch, they really should
not be acting destructively where they do
not understand. And just because some
assholes who called themselves Christians
in old Salem, and also in the inquisition,
got in a snit and decided to take some old
testament writings/rules literally as an
excuse to kill people and burn them at the
stake, or drown them, doesn't change the
fact that the Bible, especially the new
testament Bible doesn't really emphasize
witchcraft as an impending evil needing
attention. So I would ask present day
Christians who they are going to follow:
-some assholes from old; or the Bible?
Another reasoning that may be at work
here is that Wicca and paganism were and
are competing religions to the Christian
religion, and that competing religions often
are intolerant of each other. End out of
place tangent.
But here is another insert: Then there is that
incident where the man was arrested for
having sex with a dead dog, which some
jokester shoves in front of your face. Such
a spectacle makes each and every one of us
feel like Jesus must have felt when they
brought the adulterer woman to his feet and
asked him to condemn her. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx As repulsive as it may be; this
guy really didn't harm anybody (but
himself). The dog wasn't harmed; it was
already dead, hit by a car. But the greater
society will be guilty of harm for sure, as
locking someone up for years, is quite
harmful and destructive. So here we will
have the greater society being the sole
source and perpetrator of certain
harmfulness and destructiveness. Kind of
makes the greater society out to be no
better than a criminal in search of
correction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx For sure, having sex with a dead dog
has no chance of producing viable
offspring. Just as gay sex has no chance of
producing viable offspring. It seems the
greater society of late has taken to being
destructive to individual's sexual
expression that has no chance of producing
viable offspring. We individuals all have
sexual desires/needs that we must find
ways to slake. But so does the greater
society have sexual needs that it needs to
fill. It needs to have us individuals have
some sexual expression which produces
viable offspring, and a family structure for
raising those offspring; in order that it may
continue past our generation. If the greater
society punishes our individual's sexual
expression, then perhaps we individuals
should punish the greater society's sexual
expression. The greater society's sexual
expression is for us to have and raise viable
offspring through individual sexual
expression. To punish that, we avoid
having offspring. So it seems that we
should slake our individual sexual needs by
entirely expressing them without any
offspring being produced; so as to punish
the greater society's sexual expression;
because the greater society is punishing our
individual sexual expression: -has taken the
position that sexual expression is to be
punished; -or is trying to eliminate
individual sexual expression that steps
outside its needs, and replace it with its
own sexual expression; when it is perfectly
able to let both exist peaceably. Do not
worry when the greater society punishes
you for your sexual expression that does
not produce offspring. Just realize that as a
group of individuals, we shall bring this
societal punishment of our sexuality to an
end by not having offspring, as that greater
society itself thus will be brought to an end.
Speaking of mean and cruel societies that
need to be brought to an end, I had the
chance to be indoctrinated in the ways of
some of today's women. At a lunch table,
they spoke of the upbringing of their few
children and how they were discouraging
them from sexual activity until later in life,
after they had gotten their college degree
and were well off in their careers. Here I
see that these women and those like them
have not only made our country rich by not
having an excessive number of offspring
and by limiting the number of their
offspring; but that they are trying to pass on
this rich way of life so that it may continue.
Unfortunately they focus on stamping out
individual sexuality of the young in order
to achieve this goal; thus spoiling an
important part of any good life. So that the
good life they seek to pass on, isn't quite as
good after all. In fact, if you don't get the
college degree and the good job; life is
pretty rotten for a lot of people; where a
rinky dink boss goes around nit picking and
attacking you while you work your butt off
for minimum wage. In response to all this
rottenness, these women naturally parrot
the overall rotten greater society by chiding
the young generation these days for having
no ambition; for their not getting with the
program and studying at school, and
buckling down. Little do they realize that
they have the power in their hands as
individual women, to bring this rottenness
to an end: by having even less children than
just a few: by having very few children or
no children. And by doing this, they need
not take on into themselves the rottenness
of the overall society by making their kids
buckle down and try to satisfy greater
societal requirements; which can be quite
cruel. You see, the human infant is quite
helpless when born. For the mother to
apply the greater society directly to their
infant when born, would eliminate cruelty
in the greater society in short order, as
human infants wouldn't survive it; and
without surviving infants, any cruel society
is doomed. But no, these mothers nurture
their human infants until of age, and then
cut off that nurture at this time; hence
allowing the cruel society a source of
fodder to feed on (because when of age, the
child is no longer helpless); allowing the
cruel society to continue. By doing this,
they themselves become responsible in part
for the cruelties in society, that they could
have eliminated, but instead acted to
support. And as a child, who happens to be
under bad parents, it is up to us to do
better: to not do as our parents have done,
but to do in ways that eliminate the
cruelties of society. And this has nothing to
do with buckling down to get the degree,
but has everything to do with controlling
our reproduction as individuals, and not
having the greater society eliminate our
control over our own sexuality and
reproduction. It is the way of inherent
democracy that we are born with; -the way
we as individuals decide which societies
we will keep, and which societies we will
scrap. And this inherent democracy can
exist quite well with the young (and old)
expressing their individual sexuality in
ways that do not produce offspring, as well
as in ways that do produce a few
offspring--when that couple is placing their
stamp of approval on their society. So get
out and vote for democracy. Vote
Democrat; but vote Democrats that won't
take away individual's inherent democracy
in their reproductiveness through cloning.
Cloning takes away from the individual
control over their reproduction and puts it
in the hand of the greater society. Some
greater societies may need to be eliminated
by their individuals because they are cruel.
Do not allow cruel societies to escape the
wrath of their individuals through cloning.
Note that the greater society is stronger and
more powerful than its individuals that
make it up. And an individual has little
hope of success in going against the wishes
of any greater society. The greater society
tells the individual what to do in every
other area; why should the sexual area be
any different? But it is different. It is here
in this sexual area of reproduction that
individual women have the power to
completely annihilate the greater society if
they deem it too evil, no mater that this
greater society may be much more
powerful than they are as individuals. The
greater society may try to take this power
away from the individuals by regulating
their sexuality, outlawing abortion,
preventing them from using birth control
-calling it a sin; but it cannot prevail if
women unite and stand firm. Because
although the greater society may be able to
destroy all or many individual women, and
punish and reward individual women:
individual women can annihilate this
society, even though they be also killed. If
killed, their deaths will not be meaningless,
as they will have accomplished putting an
end to this hated greater society.
Sometimes I hear the calls for those on
welfare, who are taking advantage of the
system, who are not pulling their weight, to
be cut off and made to suffer. A society
that can dictate our economic lives, that can
force us to do menial tasks in exchange for
our survival food and shelter, is one thing.
But what about those people who reject
that, and who disobey what they have been
told, and who don't enslave themselves for
their survival needs? What does a society
do with them? Well, one option is to deny
them any assistance with their survival
needs.
But let us apply our newly learned concept
about putting things that are not all bad nor
all good, but some of both; in medium
ability. What is the right thing to do? What
is the wise choice? For a society to deny
completely the survival needs of
individuals who disobey the burden their
society requires them to bear, is to throw
that individual into barrenness. If that
individual is all evil with no good
whatsoever to them, then this is the right
thing to do.
However, most individuals aren't all evil
with no goodness to them. Even individuals
who shirk at some of the burdens a society
may want to put on them, usually are not
all destructive, but usually are a mixture of
both goodness and destructiveness. In these
cases, the best thing to do, is to put them at
medium ability, not at bareness, nor
richness. For a society that has an
abundance of resources, that can do
whatever, with ease; to deny these shirking
individuals who are neither all good nor all
destructive, is to throw them into bareness.
All this does is show the incompetence of
this society itself, and shows its lack of
vision and lack of realization that goodness
and kindness are valuable, and are a better
way to be than not. Never mind, as the
small one way gift will fill the needs here
to medium ability, and will even partially
destroy elements of a snooty society that
try to prevent this.
Sometimes one can be surrounded by a
societal group that makes a big to do about
the negative aspects of a promiscuous
lifestyle, while being totally silent about
the equally negative aspects of a chaste
lifestyle, especially in conservative circles;
when in actuality, no matter which way you
go there is always some ups and some
downs (just in different areas). The
reproductive area is an imperfect, human,
gray area that no matter which way you go,
or what you do, has negative/destructive
results (just in different areas), due to it
being one of those human hunger areas that
has inescapably intertwined some good as
well as some destruction (at our level of
ability). The negative aspects of men who
violate a woman outside a bar is brought
up. But silent is the pain of all the other
gentlemen whom countless women have
forced not to have sex with them against
their will, and also thereby violated them.
Especially including the unmarried couples
whom in the past have been forced not to
have sex against their wills by the police
enforcing anti cohabitation laws.
And then they bring up the child molesters.
But my question is, which child molesters
are they talking about? Is it the matriarchs
of some African villages who genitally
mutilate their young girls (brought to them
by their mothers) so that when they grow
into puberty they won't enjoy sexual
intercourse so that they won't get a
venereal disease so that their womb won't
be harmed so that they can have lots of
babies with their husband so that we can
hear about all the starving children in
Africa? (I consider this child molestation).
Or is it the pervert who violates young girls
perhaps giving them a venereal disease and
more certainly damaging them
psychologically in the sexual area so that
they can't have a family of their own when
they grow up. Thus spoiling society's
sexually based need for a certain number of
offspring to be produced in a family
structure?
And when you directly violate or spoil or
damage the expression of society's
sexually based need (for offspring), in a
society which is intolerant of even
misdirected sexual activity that is not
directly destructive to the satisfaction of its
need, (and that has acquired the practice of
controlling the sexuality of its individuals),
then you engender the full wrath of that
society. Pity the man who is born with a
sexual attraction to young girls, as opposed
to sexually mature women, as his life will
be short. I still maintain that most sexual
expression has some good and some bad
inescapably intertwined, but these are
extreme cases where there isn't much good
to them if at all. It is just not a wise choice,
if you are able to choose. Sexual
expression, as an imperfect action, needs to
be out from under the control of larger
entities which seek to impose absolute
rules. A child is under the control of the
state and parents. To engage in sexual
expression with a child, even with a willing
state and or parents; just brings that sexual
expression under external control; and that
is not a wise choice. Also, a child is in a
state of creation -of their sexuality in the
process of being formed; so that such
creating entities may not want to be drawn
into the imperfect sexual area any more
than they have to. So, unless you are forced
to, it is better to keep your sexual
expression out of the hands of controlling
societies and parents. Especially since these
often represent a ravening all evil that is
attempting to prey upon this human area
for its survival; when it should not be
allowed to prey on this human area so that
this all evil self consumes and disappears.
Note that there are those, mainly
conservatives, who emphasize the negative
/bad aspects of sexuality, while omitting the
positive/good aspects. Yes, human
sexuality is imperfect. But are we of a
caliper to be able to replace it with
something better? If not, then all the
bantering and over emphasizing sexuality's
negatives, is just a ploy for them to
advance their conservative structure on
human sexuality; which itself acts as an all
evil to prey on human sexuality; causing
much damage. Do not bring up the
negativeness of child molestation (which is
most probably all bad/destructive/evil) to
distract us from the all bad/destructiveness
/evil of the conservative way. They should
both be cast out and off of human
sexuality.
I personally know of no child molesters
trying to infringe on my personal sexuality
nor the sexuality of any child. But I am
aware of many people in the name of the
conservative way who make it clear of their
intent to regulate my and everyone else's
personal sexuality. Thus I feel the removal
of the conservative way from human
sexuality is more urgent. End insert.
Concerning the idea favoring the production
of medium ability environments: in the
gray areas of actually living earthly life,
where there is a mix of both goodness and
destruction: the plan to segregate each to its
own kind shouldn't even be attempted.
-Because it is a gray action, we're unable to
segregate the good parts from the
destructive parts.
But we shouldn't even try to segregate the
good from the bad here. This is because the
good force here achieves that separation on
its own, and no additional (outside) action
is needed. It is hard work for the good here,
yes, but this is what it generates naturally.
So perhaps this is why the bible is reluctant
to have God separate the good from the bad
here on earth until the end of time;
-because he wants to allow the good on
earth to do so of itself, and thus grow here.
So that the destruction (which the force of
destructiveness does here), helps provide
the medium ability environment, which is
so ripe for allowing good to escape that
destructiveness.
The small one way gift does act not only to
generate unto medium ability in the
vacuum left by the destructiveness of rules
(as well as other destructiveness); it also
acts to protect this medium ability material
(as well as itself) from additional
destruction, from rules, as well as from
other destructive sources. This includes, to
a certain extent, destructiveness from and
within the medium ability material and
gray action itself. You see, one of the
results of rules is that it amplifies and
accumulates the destruction within gray
actions to the point it becomes an all evil or
that it can be separated from the gray
action. You see, the thing about gray
actions is that they have some
destructiveness as part of them that cannot
be separated away. But the result of rules is
that the destructiveness (from gray actions)
becomes concentrated to the point it is a
destructiveness that can be separated away
from the core gray action(which has a
destructiveness that can't be separated). For
the one way gift to attempt to separate the
destructiveness within a core gray action,
results in not only a failure to achieve this,
but a similar result that rules result in. So
that the one way gift does not act to
separate the destructiveness from within
any core gray action; but on the other hand,
does act to separate any destructiveness
away from the gray action that CAN be
successfully separated away. On one hand
the one way gift doesn't interfere and it
does nothing and lets the gray action
ruminate; but on the other hand, the one
way gift does interact and does remove
destructiveness that can be separated away
from gray actions, including those that
accumulate from older gray actions
themselves. So the one way gift is leaving
alone, not interfering in, and not acting on
or in a gray action itself. But this leads to a
contradiction when the one way gift is
generating to medium ability out of a
vacuum. When the one way gift is
generating (to medium ability) some part of
a gray action which the other parts of the
gray action need but have none of; then
these other parts of the gray action cannot
use it but must instead wait till the one way
gift is finished generating it and then leaves
it, before it can then be activated and used
by and added to the other parts of the gray
action.
What I'm trying to say is that the gray
action is impure concerning good vs
destruction, while the one way gift, from
the all good, is pure, at least initially, and is
more pure than any gray action. But the
purpose of the one way gift, is to bring the
gray action to medium ability never
minding the loss in its purity. This involves
creating material to medium ability where a
vacuum once was. But if the one way gift
and what it is creating can be segregated
from the rest of the gray action, until it is
done creating in this area; and then remove
itself before the rest of the gray action joins
the new material; then the one way gift can
preserve some of its purity and not suffer as
much loss, due to the inescapable
destruction inherent within the gray action
itself; then the force of good will have done
well here. -Needing less replacement one
way gift; the major all good won't be
drained by this process.
Also, keeping the one way gift separate
from the core gray action, keeps the one
way gift from being tempted to regulate or
attempting to separate the forces here
where it is unable to do so (at this level of
ability). The force of destruction is a
weaker, inferior force. Because of this, in
order to even survive, it needs to have two
tier structures. It needs to have small set
aside areas that are protected, that allow
life to grow and generate a little, before
being thrown into the larger evil arena,
where they are devoured as food for
sustaining evil/destruction. Like the small
nurturing environment of one's family
allows helpless infants to grow up into
something more capable, to then be thrown
out into the crueler greater society so as to
feed the evil/destructiveness therein. Like
going to church to be mindful of God, then
leaving church to go back into the regular
world which is not so mindful of God. Like
collecting all the good, rewarding things
together, accessible with money, so we can
create a second reason for doing things,
outside of the inherent effects of (work)
actions themselves. (ie, of being paid and
rewarded with outside rewards (from
money) for doing these work actions that
we may otherwise not do, if only
considering their inherent, often destructive
effects of these actions themselves. This
seems a little pessimistic, and actually it is.
However, my point is that the force of
destruction absolutely needs these two tier
structures to survive. Note also, that the
structure I have proposed for the one way
gift, is also a two tier structure. It doesn't
absolutely have to be so, but for efficiency
and for minimizing losses to destruction, it
is this way. So that just because one sees a
two tier structure, does not necessitate it to
be a tool of evil. So that the child who is
thrown out of the house when of age, is not
necessarily a bad thing as I had previously
indicated. However, it can easily be a bad
thing. We need to be more precise in
analyzing these situations. You see, this is
just another case of incorrectly applying
absolute judgments to gray areas of life,
that are not at all absolute.
-If a child of age is to be considered
material created by the one way gift, which
is to then participate in the greater world of
imperfect work; then we will have thus
assumed that this whole person is all
imperfect gray action. And this is just not
the case. There are some areas of a person
which are much more free from
destructiveness than other areas of this
person that are much more gray,
-having good and destruction much more
inescapably intertwined. The destruction
free areas of this person represent the high
good. This high good, is mostly not forced
to be polluted with the impure gray areas,
and it is only the small one way gift that
breaks with being holy and separate from
the gray areas, which does come down and
get it on with the gray areas. So that the
parent creators of a young person cannot
throw this whole person into the crueler
greater society of the gray work world; but
only their gray parts and a small piece of
their high good parts (which is their one
way gift): and still be considered to be in
line with the one way gift structure. And
there is the question of violating the will of
their one way gift.
Also, the one way gift creates and generates
component parts to the larger gray action it
will then release it to. For a two tier
structure to release life to a gray area that it
has no relation to and is totally not alike
(just so that it can be destroyed/devoured as
food for an evil), is not in line with the one
way gift structure either. What is released
into the greater gray action, is material that
is a component part of that gray action, as
generated by the one way gift, in order to
maintain that gray action at medium ability,
out of bareness. So that just throwing a
person or part of a person unprepared into
the greater society and told to figure it out
for themselves; is not in line with the one
way gift structure, since what was
generated was not a component part of the
greater society. And any of these two tiered
structures that are not acting as one way
gift structures; are thus acting as what is
left over. And what is the left over purpose
of two tiered structures, is to be provision
for maintaining and feeding the force of
destruction. And that's nothing to be proud
of or to support.
Note that the presence of a two tier structure
either indicates the actions of the one way
gift; or the feeding of evil. Note that in
either case, it indicates the presence of evil
(as the one way gift structure is for dealing
with evil, including gray areas that have
good and destruction/evil inextricably
intertwined). Note that this does not
represent the high all good that is free from
all destruction. So that wherever there is a
two tier structure, evil/destruction is
present, and does not represent the finished
work of the high good.
Unfortunately, the concept that the good
in gray areas naturally outperforms
destructiveness and gets away from it; is in
contradiction to Jesus' exhortation to resist
not evil, and if one smite thee on one
cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Xx
Now, if evil isn't able to smite one on the
first cheek, then one isn't bound to turn the
other cheek by this saying. But in the
earthly arena of gray areas; the good here is
well within the grasp and reach of the evil
/destructiveness here. This apparent
contradiction (between that God won't
separate the good from the bad here on
earth until the end; vs. Christ's exhortation
to the earthly good here to submit to
destruction); is actually a confirmation that
God wants us to play both sides. What I'm
saying is that because God has hidden
himself and not overtly shown Himself;
that He is thereby encouraging us to
consider the possibility that He doesn't
exist yet, and that we must, in part, do what
we can within ourselves instead of just
saying 'I don't have to deal with this or do
anything because I'll just depend on God to
take care of it for me'. Jesus in saying 'turn
the other cheek', is representing the Godly
position. He believes that God does exist.
And if a powerful God does exist; He will
take care of the defense of all that is good.
Just like we in society are not expected to
take the law into our own hands to provide
for our own personal protection against
attack, but are expected to defer that to the
professionals, the police, to call the police
to provide for the defense of our person
against destructive acts perpetrated by
destructive people. Basically what Christ's
position seems to be is that it's not our job
as measly earthlings to provide for our own
protection, and that we should sit back and
let the more powerful God do this for us.
Here in God's world, it is not the
underlings who are expected to provide for
the rich and powerful God, but it is the rich
and powerful God who provides for us
weaker underlings. -Kind of a welfare from
God type of thing. And we should develop
an expectation that God will protect us and
make better any destruction evil does. -that
it's not for us to do this; that it's not our
job. (This is quite different from how our
richer more powerful bosses here on earth
treat us.) But this flies in the face of the
dynamics of how earthly good in these gray
areas naturally outperforms and escapes
destruction. But of course if God really
exists then this minor advantage is of no
consequence and it is actually better to let
the all powerful God handle this. On the
belief in God side, no matter what small
bedraggled remnant is left after destruction
has destroyed is easily made whole,
replaced and perfected by/in God. But even
if the earthly good on the believe in God
side is totally destroyed; any holdback
good parts of us, are thus outside the
believe in God side. Instead they are on the
`we must do it ourselves (in case God
hasn't been created yet)' side. Being on
that side, they are no longer bound by `turn
the other cheek', and are able to take
advantage of that earthly good naturally
escapes the destruction here (more often
than not). And when they mature, being
uncertain as to if there exists God yet or
not; they thus devote a small portion to
God to hedge their bet. Then the godly side
once again has something (and is no longer
totally destroyed), and the whole of the
Godly side is thereby recreated by/in God
from that small part again. Thus if you are
playing both sides (as I am), then with the
earthly good of your Godly side, you resist
not evil and allow it to be destroyed by
destruction. But not so with your earthly
good in your do-it-yourself side. Here you
don't let destruction destroy it but instead
allow it to naturally escape destruction.
And as it produces and generates new
good, and when that new good matures and
part of it chooses the Godly side; then your
whole Godly side can be recreated from
this small part even if a destruction had
completely wiped out your Godly side
earlier. (This is a change, because usually it
is the Godly side that is the engine of
growth. But here in this one instance, the
earthly side saves the day.) And if
destruction wasn't able to completely
destroy your Godly side, then the whole of
it is easily recreated from whatever
remnant remains, without needing to go to
your earthly side for this.
Concerning the attraction members of the
opposite sex have for each other; what
purpose do you think it serves? Consider
perhaps that without it, many life forms
wouldn't take the time/effort it takes to
have and raise offspring. Even though we
are above the animals, and know in our
minds that we must reproduce, to maintain
future society (because we all eventually
die off); we still might not do this, because
we'd want to shove this burden off onto
someone else, and might try to avoid the
expense ourselves. But if we come born
with an attraction for the opposite sex,
well, problem solved. Or sort of. Some
might consider that sexual desire is an
imperfect method to provide for our
societal reproduction, and that human
reasoning might do a better job. And this is
entirely possible. Consider that when
animals have sexual relations, there is only
one result: -that offspring are always
produced. But that when humans have
sexual relations, offspring need not
necessarily be the result. With the use of
birth control and condoms, sexual relations
can be for fun, and not have anything to do
with reproduction. This is something that is
uniquely human; and is not seen in the
animal world. Consider that if sexual desire
can be diverted into an avenue separate
from reproduction, consider that something
else (such as human reasoning) can have
say over human reproduction. But no.
religion won't have it. And wants sexual
desire to be for human reproduction only.
Next represents some very interesting
material, but not necessarily completely
what my current position is.
Jesus states his commandments are not
burdensome. But to package and make
absolute rules over the reproductive drive,
is actually burdensome. But what Jesus is
actually saying in the reproductive drive
area, is not what people believe today.
When the bible talks of marriage, adultery,
fornication etc, we then go to the dictionary
which is not a holy book, to learn their
meanings. But Jesus, the head man himself,
has defined what marriage is, in the bible.
And from this we can infer the other things.
He has said of marriage, that the 2 become
one flesh, and what God has therefore
joined together, let no man put asunder.
Well, think about it. Can married people
prove that they have become one flesh?
Flesh is something visible that can be
touched and seen (unlike the spirit which is
invisible). And, yes, we can say that in
married people, the two have become one
flesh. Not that they morph into a shape
shifting mass (outside of when making
love), but in that married people have
children. That the two have become one
flesh in the form of their child (children).
So that marriage is defined by Jesus as
having children exclusively: -not as having
sex exclusively. Now if we were like the
animals, this would be a distinction of no
importance because when animals have
sex, they invariably have offspring. But
with humans, the use of condoms and birth
control, etc, having sex doesn't necessarily
mean having children. And we can infer
from the definition Jesus puts forth of
marriage, that adultery involves having
children with someone other than your
spouse, not necessarily having sex with
someone other than your spouse. And that
fornication is a person with no previous
children having a child with someone who
already has children by someone else. This
Jesus based definition and regulation of our
sexuality upholds the family unit, as the
family unit is one source of goodness. And
it does so without basing it on a shaky
foundation. And I tell you, trying to base
the family unit on suppressing the sex
drive, is a shaky foundation. Whereas with
basing the family unit on the child
connection, the foundation is firm. The
additional rules over our sexuality that
insist on sexual exclusivity, are not from
God, but are from men being led astray by
the forces of destruction: doing the work of
destruction by their added rules. Have you
heard the latest gossip? Have you heard so
and so was seen cheating at the Bar X
motel last night? Sounds like someone is in
non compliance with a rule directed
towards human sexual behavior. This is the
thing about rules. -You're either in
compliance or non compliance. There's no
middle ground. -Everything is either black
or white, all good or totally evil, ones or
zeros. Rules force you to make an absolute
judgment about something with no room
for middle ground. So that inside your
head, what something is, exists as a black
and white representation. But in our world,
few things exist as absolutes. We are
dealing with humans not Gods. So if you
see the human animals before you in the
light of compliance vs. non compliance to a
set of rules and regulations, then what they
are in your mind is not what they are
outside your mind. Because in your mind
they are splotches of black and white
whereas outside your mind they are
something in between all good vs. all
destructive; in between rich vs. poor: they
are middle class. So, through the light of
compliance vs. non compliance to rules and
regulations, a fantasy world can exist inside
your mind. Fantasy worlds can be
entertaining, but don't expect me to take
them absolutely seriously. So that to me, a
person's human sexual behavior is neither
all good nor all evil but is somewhere in
between regardless of whether they are
faithful or cheating.
Thinking of this another way, we see that
we are humans and that we live on this
earth, and that a lot of what we are and do
is neither all good nor all evil, but is
somewhere in between. But that when we
apply rules to these gray areas (areas which
are far from absolute), that forces us to
make absolute judgments about these areas.
That in reality, over a large range of what
we do or how we are in these human areas,
we produce some goodness and also some
destructiveness. And that this just shifts
around (the goodness and destructiveness
shifts around) to different areas as we do an
area in different ways. So that what we
produce is some good and some
destruction. But when we are classified by
rules over the human areas (as either being
in compliance or non compliance); we are
treated as being all good, or all bad as a
result of that classification. We should
receive the reward of what we produce, and
that is neither all goodness nor all
destruction. But we don't receive that but
instead receive either all goodness or all
destruction based on how we are classified
by the rules over the human area. And
when we humans who in reality are some
good and some bad are treated with either
all goodness or all destruction, neither of
these environments helps us change out of
our state of being half good and half bad.
Only when we receive what we produce,
that is being rewarded with some good and
some bad, will we be in a medium ability
environment which is the only environment
where our good can outperform our bad
and where we can thus change from being
partly good and partly bad, to being all
good. Otherwise we are forced to remain as
part good and part bad and are prevented
from changing out of this. In this aspect, I
know who I am. I'm a human being, who
over a large range of what I possibly could
do; does neither all good nor all
destruction, but does some of both good
and, due to the fact that many of the actions
available to me produce both good and
destruction (in destruction different areas)
out of the same action. This just restates the
previous paragraph:
But when the large range of what I could
do, gets carved up into absolute
classifications; and depending on which
classification of this range I'm in, I get
treated as either all good or all evil as a
result: neither of these treatments helps me
change out of being partly good and partly
bad, but instead preserves me in my state of
being partly good and partly bad.
Now, since when the forces are
separate(alone), they find it harder to find
input raw material to work with (with both
forces: -of good, and especially the force of
destruction); there may be some room for
delaying the separation of good from the
bad in us humans. But not to the extent of
perpetual delay. So then, if we apply the
concept of seeking a medium environment
when evil is present; to whether a woman
should have children: I see this: woman
who are in an absolutely evil society with
no goodness, may act to not have any
children, and thereby put an end to this
destructive society similar to the doing
destruction to destruction concept. And
men who are supposed to work, can do no
work and also thereby not feed evil. But in
a society that contains some evil, but also
some good, women in this society can have
a limited number of children (not an
excessive number of children (rich
environment)), and so help create a
medium environment, where the evil can
separate away. And also, men who are
supposed to work, can do a little work (not
an excessive amount) and thereby help
create the desired medium environment.
And of course, women in a totally good
society can have many children and men
can do much work; as here, the rich
environment won't be burned down by
evil.
Oooops I have made a mistake. I no longer
think that women have the unrestricted
source of inherent democracy within them.
You see, I no longer think it is a good plan
for women in an absolutely evil society to
stop having kids. Because even though this
will eventually bring about an end to this
evil society, in the interim, it will make this
evil society rich (because they no longer
have to afford resources for the care of
children). This richness in the presence of
evil, will just feed evil and make it large
and big; thus burning us all down in a
firestorm. So I no longer think it is a good
plan for women to use their childbearing
(or lack of it) as a tool to root out evil. It
still remains a useful tool in good societies
where there is no evil, to give women their
rightful place and for them to gain equality.
But in these good societies, women
shouldn't take this to extreme; and should
still have some kids so as to continue this
good society (but not an excessive amount
either, because poverty for a good society
is also not a good plan). In evil societies
that restrict the bearing of children so as to
become rich and also evil (using their
richness to control every aspect of their
citizen's lives), we non evil societies are
forced into an unpleasant situation, of
being overtaken and having our people run
in absolute control over our lives too.
In this situation, we are forced to suffer
through rich evil, because the only option is
for every woman to stop having kids and
eventually end this. But if women have a
choice; in evil societies, they should have
kids and plenty of them. (Pay no attention
to this. ) As you can see, I am unclear in
my advice to women on childbearing. But
at this time, I now change back again to
seeing women as the unrestricted source of
inherent human democracy.
You see, in bad societies run by dictators
who control every part of the lives of their
subjects; people are already divided into
rich and poor. Some are taken from and
have their lives spent enriching the dictator
and his(her) ruling class. These poor
impoverished people have no recourse and
are too poor and powerless to overthrow
the hated government.
What I'm saying is that in these societies,
there is already a division between rich and
poor. The dictator and his ruling class have
already enriched themselves and made their
evil/destructive ways rich on the backs of
these poor people. For these poor people
and those around them that hate this way;
for them not to have children (all the sex
they want, just no more children); is an
expression by them to reject this way and
to bring it to an end. These people are
being starved to death and are dying
anyway: there is nothing much more the
dictator can do to coerce them. And the
enrichment that they will give to the
dictator by not using resources for children
won't be that much more than the dictator
is receiving from them already by running
their lives into the ground in starvation. So
that yes, here in these bad societies; it is the
thing to do for the individual to express
their acceptance or rejection of their
situation (in this case, rejection of this
situation), by not having any more children,
and thus eventually putting an end to this
situation. No need for George Bush to
come in and overthrow your dictator; you
can do it yourself within your own country.
In countries with a sharp divide between
rich and poor (with little or no middle
class), the poor can express their
disapproval of their situation this way,
without having to resort to violence and
fomenting revolution etc. But in countries
with a decent sized middle class, and a
good way of life for all; hopefully the
women there would see the goodness of
continuing that situation, by having a
reasonable number of children, but not an
excessive number of children as an
excessive number would just impoverish
what was once a good life due to all the
extra resources needed to raise an excessive
number all at once. Women could still use
`not having children' here as a bargaining
tool to gain equal or slightly better
economic status, but I would warn that they
not take this to finality because they would
eliminate a `good life for all society', if
they did. So, we are back in business with
this women empowerment thing and
women as sources of democracy thing.
-because the counter argument that women
not-having-children would enrich the bad
society is mute because that bad society
already enriches itself on the backs of its
poor; and the extra richness gained by not
having kids, would be quickly gobbled up
by the poor themselves; or even if the
dictator was able to extract it; it would be
just a little more of the same, as the dictator
is already extracting from the people at
pretty much their maximum already.
Also, because extra resources are needed to
power a system of absolute control over
every citizen's lives: the extra richness
gained from not having children, would
cause a move out of poverty and into
medium ability; and not a move from
medium ability into richness. And in this
environment with an evil dictator, it is the
medium environment that is needed, not
either poverty or richness.
Let us now consider the claim that if one
believes on Jesus, he receives heaven, but
if one does not believe, he receives hell.
This applying absolute rewards (either all
rewarding or all destructive) to us non
absolute humans, isn't helpful to us at all,
but just preserves us as humans (in the case
of receiving heaven), and if we receive
total destruction, preserves us as humans
until we are destroyed.
Any of these systems of severe punishments
or absolute rewards for the various ways of
being human, are just preservatives that
prevent us from being anything other than
human. But after asking God/Jesus for an
explanation of this, the resulting answer
turns out just to be a matter of
interpretation of this. The answer I got is
this:
God is an absolute. Not only is God an
absolute, God is an absolute good.
And when God is going about being
himself, he is going to produce a lot of
goodness, and generating a lot of rich
environments. When I as a non absolute
human being come into contact with one of
these rich environments, it is detrimental to
me because I require a medium
environment to function. Now with the
environment being rich, the destructiveness
within me no longer separates and dies, but
stays with me and consumes me in an
eternal burn; and I am in torment. God
realizes that His absolute goodness does
this to me, so He in kindness, provides me
an out: He allows me to put down my old
human ways and let them expire, and
replace them with absolute Godly ways,
that is, when I run into (where there exists)
these all good absolute Godly ways. And
this is accomplished by Jesus providing a
limited path of medium ability environment
where I can let my old human ways expire
without the evil in them getting out into the
absolute goodness to consume me (a
purgatory if you will).
But of course, I have a choice. God isn't
going to force me to do this. If I wish that
the evil in me (from that part of my human
ways) continue even in the presence of the
absolute goodness of God, I can have that
too, by just not reaching out to Christ, and
continuing in my own way. This is how I
interpret Christ's outreach. The
exhortations to love your enemies and to
love all people do act to create rich
environments, and this may cause
tribulation. But that is just from the effects
of absolute goodness.
Absolute goodness is one of the
possibilities, and for us to not be able to
deal with absolute goodness represents an
innocence that cannot last forever,
especially with the growth potential of
absolute goodness. Absolute goodness can
exist and if so, should not be expected to
give up its existence just because we
middle ground humans don't know how to
deal with it. So that when we are
confronted with absolute goodness, we can
accept Jesus to guide a smooth transition
from non absolute human ways to be
replaced with absolute good ways.
But when there are no absolute good ways
yet, and the only way available is the
human ways, we can continue to have
human ways (otherwise we'd be in
barrenness -also a preservative) until such
time as absolute good ways can replace
them. (As we are not preserved eternally as
human, but advance into absolute
goodness)- we can thus have the presence
of both absolute good ways and also human
ways in us. (For religious leaders to shame
our human parts, puts them into barrenness,
which prevents them from also advancing
into absolute good.)
It is the presence of both absolute good
ways, and human ways in us that can take
on a similar structure as the playing both
sides structure outlined in other places of
this writing -that being based on whether
God exists now vs. that God is yet to be
created and we need to do it ourselves now.
You see, whatever we do can be seen as
God in us doing it (that we are extensions
of God). Except when our actions are
imperfect human actions which contain
both good and destruction. These cannot be
seen as God in us doing them. So some
actions can be placed on an absolute good
side with God, and the human/gray actions
are on the other side. The object then is to
place human ways in a medium
environment. When we feel a need to do a
human/gray action, we can separate off a
smaller portion of ourselves to do it, so it
will be done in a medium environment and
not a rich environment.
Also, when we remove godly parts as some
of the actions mature to become a mix of
human and godly fragments, we can
Incompletely repatriate human fragments
(left after removing the godly part) into
being one with complete human actions:
-for the purpose of maintaining a medium
ability environment. And also not
completely separating away outside
destructions that enter in; also for this same
purpose of maintaining neither a rich nor a
desolate, but a medium environment. In
such a way, the good of our human actions
is able to escape their humanness and join
the absolute goodness. So that we just wait
and let the goodness of our human actions
purify and find their own way back into the
absolute goodness of the major part of us
that we left behind to do the human action;
as they will do.
Let me go over this in more detail:
(This segment can easily be skipped. What
I'm saying, is it is OK and good to skip this segment.)
When an action is first generated, it goes
along and goes along until eventually it
matures and half splits off to be godly and
the other half humanly. The perfected
godly parts generated then (after an initial
place marker) are generated as devoting a
partial percentage of their activities to also
generating new action (which also must
wait to eventually undergo maturity itself).
As the perfect-like new actions generated
from the mature godly side are maturing,
they may (or may not) be under need to
satisfy earthly desires and do earthly
actions. If not, they just mature to the half
and half split off of maturity; as an
immature action can rest as temporarily
devoting itself in the godly direction but
still able to change to the earthly direction
if needed.
In the generation of new actions in the
satisfying of new earthly needs, As some of
these immature actions mature in the
earthly side, they split off half and half
also. Now with mature parts in the earthly
side that are now for godly; unless these
parts are removed, their presence in the
earthly side but being unable to act in most
earthly directives will halt the functioning
of the earthly directives in satisfying
earthly hungers. And even after being
removed, some fragments of the earthly
side are totally crippled because (half of)
what did function for the earthly side when
immature, now as mature, is unable to
function for the earthly side. It is then by
the Partial repatriation of crippled remnant
fragments previously spoken of that
generates the medium environment which
is neither barren nor rich that is needed
here in this earthly situation. Also, note that
when earthly parts, both mature and
immature find a moment when they are
done with earthly concerns and needs; and
not busy and without anything to do; they
can align themselves in the godly direction
(as best they can). True, they are not built
for that, but in whatever limited way, they
can do this, to also (help) generate
perfected godly material. Then when a new
earthly need arises, they can switch back to
earthly concerns.
End skipped segment.
When I drop the phrase `the creator'; who
or what am I referring to? One could think
I'm referring to almighty God. But
consider that I'm also referring to all the
human creators here on earth. And that the
human female is in part, the creator of new
life here on this earth. (This makes them a
target for evil to corrupt that which is good
and growing.) Now, if we as a people,
don't treat the human creators who we can
see, with dignity and respect, but instead
treat them as second class citizens, then I
don't see this as welcoming to an almighty
CREATOR who we can't see; but who
shares a kinship with the many human
creators who we can see, through the
common link of being a creator. It is not
enough to believe in God. If we believe
God exists, but also mistreat God, then any
religion that does this, I think we can see,
won't be well received by God. And isn't it
a waste of our time to practice a religion
which will be rejected by God/Allah?
No comments:
Post a Comment