PartOne

[Guest guest]

Hi. Here is my book. It is too long so I send it in 2 parts, this being the

first. Please skip over any boring parts. Thanks.

 

----------

 

 

 

Chapter 1/INTRODUCTION

"Nurture"

 

 

GROWTH OF GROWTH RESOURCES, WHEN WE WANT MORE

Some of us like our work; some of us like parties, food, drink, sex, religious

expression, exercise, good music, etc. But to be able to enjoy any of these, we

must be alive. (Inanimate objects are incapable of these.) The actions which

bring us life/resources; aren't necessarily the same as the actions of

enjoying-these-project-things, (with that life). Thus to be able to enjoy all

these good projects, we need a balance between actions that (a)supply us with

life; vs, (b)enjoying our projects with that life.

 

I think most would agree we can't make much of a life by ourselves living

totally independently; and that we need to join some group or system to have any

form of decent life. The big question is; which system? In one, growth is

destroyed. In the other, growth isn't destroyed.

 

When a boss expects one to produce something and work; aren't they

expecting one to grow? -to provide/produce something that wasn't there before?

(Why sure.)

 

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.

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.

There is usually more than one way to do a thing; and many of the possible ways

include evil (harm) as part of them. For us to obtain this thing without evil;

our actions would have to be free of harm; and this would eliminate many of the

possible ways from consideration. 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). Thus it takes more capability-power-life to obtain things

with a purity in our actions (that is, free of harm). 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.

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.

 

EVIL FREE GROWTH VS GROWTH LADEN WITH EVIL

Since you are always growing, (You are alive.); there is a property

associated with 'growth': -That there are always areas of you at present that

are lacking that you need to grow into, to gain approval in this area. It takes

life and living things to achieve growth, and the growth that is required of

you. You are a living thing. The thing you MAY have chosen to nurture the life

that is you, is the 3rd party stamp of approval.

You need life to cause growth. You have chosen the 3rd party reward to nurture

your life. At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from you(r

life). But you don't have the 3rd party approval for this as of yet. Without

this approval, your life is not nurtured, and thus you're less alive. WITH LESS

LIFE YOU PRODUCE LESS THAN ADEQUATE GROWTH. You thus fail to receive the reward

or approval. Your counselor or boss, bitch at you for doing such a lousy job.

Without nurture you cannot hope to produce the growth requirement.

(Abbreviation: fogoHC = force of good of High Capability)

Let's look at an alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of

(good) things to nurture your life; what's important isn't the inanimate objects

or meager skills you posses or can manipulate, in doing things on your own,

outside of a program of expectations; (independent of rewards a 3rd party gives

for those actions; but instead, valuing the actions for their own merit). No,

it's the life you can join with (that is the fogoHC). It is life beyond what

you ever were in your undeveloped self. And from this abundant life comes

abundant growth.

Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality. The more powerful a

being, the greater changes in reality it can make; and nurture all of you. The

unconditional love from the fogoHC nurtures you and puts you at high capability.

Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because the high capability growth is

evil-free. This is unlike the success you must achieve (and thus lack at

present). That type of success has growth laden with evil, because it expects

growth before it dispenses the nurture (of its reward). Without the nurture,

one has less life, and is at reduced capability. At reduced capability;

necessary evils must be done to achieve the same growth. The necessary evils

done, destroy gains made, and stagnate the group. (This is the trap of evil you

are in.) Again:

Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so

you can do evil free growth, (instead of being forced to allow harm in your ways

to achieve the required growth).

Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You have already

succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is

a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now

love.

It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high capability to

have the extra resources needed to grow evil free: -to neutralize evil parts of

our ways, and to use ways that may not be the most productive (or are more

complex) but that are evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil

free way); that we do advance and grow overall. There's no destruction

destroying the gains we make. And so life just keeps on growing. This is the

alternative system and it's not a stagnant system. (the tortoise and the hare

story?) The reward system thus looses the argument counter argument, because it

forces us to grow at reduced capability, in the trap of evil.

 

Since it is important for us not to operate at reduced capability, we

should depend on the fogoHC to fill the function of whatever we do, and not

depend on what we can do or produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC to full the function and our needs,

doesn't mean we stop or reject what we ourselves can do. It's just that we do

not depend on it, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can do.

That still exists; is valuable; and represents growth. But it is no longer

burdened with supporting us, and is now free; free to grow evil free.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

"The Beginning"

 

 

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter proves the most probable existence of a benevolent "God", or

that there will be one in the future if there isn't one now. It points out some

basic and inherent differences between good and evil. It proposes a way to

defeat evil for all time (for good). It shows some basic natural philosophical

laws existing in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capability is a very general term. What I mean by it, is being able to do

something -anything. Something that gives you capability, is something that

enables you to do something. Lack of capability then, is not being able to do

something.

If you think about it, capability is what separates living things from

non-living things. Living things can do a lot, whereas non living things

cannot.

Expanding on this area (because some have questioned it): The living world is

more powerful than the inanimate world, because 1) A volcano is big only because

a human has conceived in their mind that it is big -it takes life to give it its

largeness. 2) The growth potential of living systems (which the inanimate does

not have), allows life to someday control, manipulate, and harness, the

inanimate: therefore which is more powerful -the powerful inanimate

volcano/nuclear reaction, or the future civilization which harnesses that

volcano/nuclear reaction, to do its bidding 99% of the time (less 1% for

accidents)? I have to go with life over the inanimate in the long run in a life

system that is not stagnant. Note that pound per pound, matter associated with

living things, can do more than matter associated with the inanimate. It takes

evolution (ie: the inanimate) millions of years to form a human being. It takes

a living mother 9 months to do the same. Men are also quite !

able to kill each other, whereas inanimate objects find this difficult.

 

One point touched upon that I wish to make clearer; is that there are two

reasons the force-of-good has an edge over the force-of-evil: 1)That although

there is a 'bottom', where one absolutely can't go lower than nothing in terms

of the level of capability; there's no absolute limit or ceiling to how much

capability/life can be put into a piece of matter. Over time as we advance, we

become able to put more and more capability into a piece of matter. (Who knows

if there's a limit to how much we can put in, as we continue to advance.)

(This represents quality.)

2)That, capability is the key to crossing barriers. It enables one to cross

barriers to reach new supplies of raw materials (to make improvements upon).

(This represents quantity.)

If a force of good is stopped by a barrier it can't cross, it builds up the

quality of what materials it does have. It puts more and more capability, life,

and power into the matter it does have, until it can bridge the barrier, and get

in touch with raw materials further away or otherwise unavailable due to the

barrier.

 

An abbreviation used in this chapter, is fogoHC, which stands for force of good

of High Capability. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

 

We can categorize the universe into that which has capability/power/life;

and that which lacks capability/power/life. For example, a person may be

capable in some areas, but may lack capability in other areas. So, we can

divide whatever we're considering (a person, the world, etc.) into capability

vs. lack-of-capability.

We can divide the universe into capability vs. lack of capability and make

a record of this. But the universe does not stand still, and after a time, our

picture of the universe would change. Some things would have gained, and other

things would have lost, capability. What I want to concentrate on then, is

change in the universe in terms of capability; and not (so much) on a static

picture of the universe (in terms of capability).

And there are two directions of change possible: there is

increase-in-capability; and decrease-in-capability. I want to state that only

CAPABILITY can cause these changes. Lack-of-capability cannot cause either

change. For example, a living person can either help or hurt; increase

capability or decrease capability. But a dead person can do neither. Has empty

space or nothingness done anything? (to help or hurt you)?

(If it did, then it would be capable of that. This thus also reflects the

definition of capability./ But whatever capability and life is; if we destroy

that, then what is left over cannot do anything: neither helping nor destroying.

-(Don't you find this to be true?))

Not only do we have 2 directions of change (increase and decrease (in

capability)), (which I will now call forces); but we know that these changes (or

forces) have capability behind them. They are caused by capability. The

lack-of-capability cannot support or cause either (change) force.

Next I want to establish is that capability is the key to crossing

barriers. For example, if you are on an island, there is the barrier of the

ocean that keeps you from the rest of land. But if you have more capability in

the form of a boat, then you can cross the barrier of the ocean. I hope you

will agree that capability is the key to crossing barriers. Certain

capabilities allow one (us) to cross certain barriers, but in general,

capability is the key to crossing barriers.

Now we are ready to consider the 2 forces (increase and decrease in

capability) in different situations. The situations are: 1. The

force-of-increase only; 2. The force-of-decrease only; 3. Both forces are

present.

Let's consider the situation where only the force-of-decrease-in-capability

is present. What this force is, is capability used to destroy other capability,

(or even itself). Well, the force-of-decrease goes about destroying capability,

and there is less capability. Where capability once was, there is now a

lack-of-capability (a hole). Since forces are made of capability, (and not

lack-of-capability), this force isn't a growing force because it destroys what

can support it. And if it destroys the specific capabilities making it up, then

it is a shrinking force. Pretty soon all the capability in the immediate area

is destroyed and there is no more capability left to destroy. When this force

runs out of capability, it can't destroy (capability) any longer. Thus it

ceases to exist in an active sense. But this force could continue to destroy

capability, if it could get in touch with that (capability) which was further

away. -or in some way separate from it. To do th!

is would require the crossing of barriers (to reach the more distant or

not-so-obtainable capability). The force of decrease in capability, however,

cannot cross these barriers, because it destroys the key to crossing barriers

-capability. The force of decrease thus boxes itself in and ceases to exist in

an active sense. So, this possibility of just the force of decrease alone, is

unworkable.

Now, let us consider what happens when the

force-of-INCREASE-(in-capability) is by itself and is the only force around.

This force takes lack-of-capability and produces capability in its place.

Pretty soon, everything is so capable, that this force begins to run out of

improvements to make. -Lack of capability becomes in short supply. If no more

improvements can be made, then no increase can be done, and this would stop

active existence of this force of increase. This force could keep on existing

if it could get in touch with lack-of-capability that was further away or in

some other way, separated from it. To do this would require the crossing of

barriers. Since this force produces the key to crossing barriers -capability,

it does continue to exist in an active sense. (-Whether it be barriers to

putting more capability/life into a piece of matter, or reaching more distant

raw materials; the force of increase has the key to crossing these barriers, in

capability/po!

wer/life.)

›It is easy to see that one can go no lower than nothing in terms of the level

of capability. What is not so certain in my mind is; is there a ceiling, a

limit that you cannot put anymore capability into a piece of matter? Being of

higher capability would allow one to put more in. Well, maybe there's a limit

and maybe there's not. But no matter.› (-See chapter introduction.)

So, the force-of-increase can exist in an active sense, when it is the only

force around. When alone, not only does it exist, it grows and builds itself up

to very high levels of capability. It is a growing force, because what it

produces -capability, is also the stuff that forces are made of. And with

nothing to knock it down, it just keeps on growing. (It can always cross

barriers so it keeps growing (forever).)

Then there is the situation where both of the forces exist together. Here

on earth, this is the way it is. When the two forces are together, one produces

capability and the other destroys capability. The force-of-increase doesn't

grow because the capability it produces is destroyed. The force-of-decrease

doesn't shrink because it has a continued supply of capability to destroy. This

type of setup can go on indefinitely, and the force of decrease does not burn

itself out here. But the 2 forces oppose each other in what they seek to

accomplish, and a medium or mediocre level of capability results. The force of

decrease can exist indefinitely, even forever.

The force of increase exists here also, but only to supply capability for the

force of decrease (to destroy). It exists in a cramped or limited sort of way,

as it doesn't grow.) For example, suppose there is a man trying to build a

house, but vandals keep destroying it. And suppose there is another man

building a house but who is separate from any vandals. With the time and effort

and resources that the first man puts into trying to build his first house, the

2nd man can build many houses. So, from the force-of-increase's point of view,

it's not so important how much capability it starts out with. What's important,

is being separate from the force of decrease, the force of destruction.

Even if a force-of-increase starts out very small, it will grow to very

large size and have lots of capability, IF it is separate from the force of

destruction. The reason is growth. (Here it can grow.) The largeness it

obtains is dependent on the degree it is separate from the force of destruction.

And as it grows in capability, it can use that capability to obtain greater

separation.

Speaking of evolution: if a small amount of capability develops out of the muck

and mire, and both forces are present in equal amounts, then it will stay small,

and not grow. If more of the force of decrease makes it up, then it will

consume itself and disappear. But if more of the force of increase is present,

it will grow to be large and very capable. So, if at any point in the past or

future, a force of increase no matter how small, appears from the muck and mire,

and is separate from the force of decrease in capability. -or if a force of

increase at any time and no matter how small, escapes from a system where there

are both forces:: then it can grow, and grow to a very large size. Because of

this, it is very probable that there exists now, or there will exist, a force of

increase (in capability) that is of high capability, an infinite amount of

capability, and that is completely separate from the force of decrease (in

capability). And also, that this force is a kin!

d benevolent loving force, not a stern vengeful or mean force. So, I will

include the existence of such a force in my considerations. This wraps up my

thoughts on the 3 situations involving the two forces. The conclusions are:

that the force of decrease cannot exist by itself, while the force of increase

can. And when it does, it builds itself up into high capability. When the 2

forces exist together, things stagnate. -The force-of-increase ceases to grow

and the force-of-decrease ceases to shrink, and the situation can go on forever.

The advantage of the force-of-increase, is that it can exist alone and do very

well, while the force of decrease cannot.

The force of decrease-in-capability has specific characteristics of its

own, which cause problems. These characteristics, problems and solutions are

what I want to discuss next. An important idea that fits here, is that being at

mediocre capability forces one to destroy and decrease capability in some areas,

to obtain increases in capability in other areas. Whereas if one had more

capability and was at high capability, they would not be forced to destroy

capability (to obtain these increases). For example, we have to eat to survive.

Having enough to eat increases our capability. But we must kill animals or

plants to obtain food, which decreases their capability. Now, if we had more

capability and technology, we could synthesize our food chemically from the

energy of the sun. -And no one's capability would be decreased. The reason we

are forced to destroy and decrease capability, if we are at low capability, is

because we are incomplete. Let me explain.

In obtaining a good, or increasing capability, there is a task at hand.

The doing of this task requires a certain amount of capability, and certain

types of capability (depending on the task). If one has enough of the needed

capabilities, they can perform the task period, and no capability is destroyed.

But if one is at low capability, then they probably don't have enough capability

to perform the task. Now you would think that the task would go undone, and

that would be the end of it. But not so. If you have a collection of life

forms all at low capability; if you consider the total capability of them all,

then (if you have the right collection of life forms); there is enough

capability to perform the task; but it is divided amongst many life forms. For

the task to be performed, the capabilities must all be together, in one unit.

-And not divided up. If the many life forms cannot merge into a single life

form and assemble their capabilities into one unit (which !

is doubtful since they are all at low capability); then the only way to put the

smaller amounts of capabilities together into one unit, is to remove them from

the individual life forms and put them together. -The act of removing the

capabilities from the individual life forms, is where destruction and decrease

in capability/power/life occurs. Also, the less capability one has, the less

complete and the smaller the task, one can do. Like, to burn coal does not take

much equipment. But to burn it cleanly does take a lot of sophisticated

anti-pollution equipment. So, if one is at low or mediocre capability, they are

forced to do destruction to obtain some increases in capability. But if one is

at high capability they can obtain these increases without having to do

destruction or decrease in capability. The situation of both forces together,

results in mediocre capability. And being at mediocre capability causes

decrease and destruction to be done, which keeps the group at !

mediocre capability; so that the force of evil is not easily eliminated from

this situation.

There is one unfortunate result or symptom of the fact that being at low

capability forces one to do destruction to obtain many goods. -That is, a

circular process that keeps one at low or mediocre capability. For example, if

a group of life forms are at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do

destructions as part of obtaining many increases in capability. These

destructions balance any increases obtained, and keep the group at low or

mediocre capability. Being at low or mediocre capability, forces them to do

more decreases in capability. This keeps on and on, and there is no escape to

high capability from within. It is a trap (of evil). Outside action is needed

to break the cycle (on any kind of a regular basis). Let me describe an

example. Let us take a group of life forms, that are all at high capability,

but are also ignorant about many things especially destruction. They are

learning about life and the universe (from a vantage point of being at hi!

gh capability). Then along comes the idea of destruction. Here is something to

try out. So, one of them tries it out and clobbers one of them over the head

(or themselves). Now one of the life forms is at decreased capability. Being

at decreased capability, this person can no longer obtain many of the

increases-in-capability without doing destruction. This person does not give up

these things, but obtains them now with an accompanying decrease in capability.

Other life forms have their capability decreased and are now at less than high

capability. They in turn must decrease capability to obtain the good things

they have been used to. More life forms fall from high capability, and this

keeps snowballing until all life forms that are in contact with the system fall

from high capability, unless they get separate from this system. -The

interesting thing is that high capability in itself, is no protection against

this. And once everyone is at mediocre capability, they ar!

e trapped there, and cannot get back to high capability. So now, these people

know about decrease-in-capability, but the price we pay for knowing about it, is

being trapped by it. Some of the properties of decrease-in-capability, is that

it is very infectious, -that it spreads through a set of life forms that are

within each others grasp. And that once it traps us, we cannot get out.

Some of us like decrease-in-capability by choice. Others of us are against

it by choice. But no matter what our choice is we are forced to do it, and are

trapped by it. When we must decrease capability to obtain an

increase-in-capability, this kind of decrease is forced upon us. It is not by

our choice. An increase in our capability would allow us to obtain the goods

without destruction, and we would then cease to decrease capability. I would

call this 'necessary evil'. But there is destruction that is caused by choice.

I would call this 'unnecessary evil'. Destruction can be shown to be

'unnecessary evil', by the giving of capability. This type of destruction is

not caused by lack-of-capability or being at low capability. -Because the person

already has the capability to avoid doing this destruction, but does the

destruction anyway (by choice). (It is interesting to note that the doing of

one unnecessary evil causes a long chain of necessary evils to be done, !

long after the initiating unnecessary evil is gone).

If all of us liked the force-of-decrease-in-capability and chose it as what

we wanted to do with our lives, then it'd be OK to let the force-of-decrease

feed off of a force-of-increase, and we'd live this way forever, with the 2

forces being together in our lives. But that's not how it is. Most of us don't

choose the force-of-decrease But even so, it traps us. How shall we get out?

Who will help us? Well, it would have to be a force-of-increase, separate from

the force of destruction, and thus of high capability, that helps us out. But I

submit, that just helping us out will not solve our problem. For example; say

that the force-of-increase-of-H.C. (High Capability), is helping. He is giving

everybody lots of capability and bringing us up to high capability equal with

him/her self. But the force-of-decrease is present also; and now has access to

much capability. (Those with the force-of-decrease, use their lots of

capability to do lots of destruction). Thus th!

e force-of-decrease becomes nearly as powerful as the force-of-good-of-H.C. that

is present here, helping out. All are brought down to mediocre capability in

the togetherness of the 2 forces, where we started from.

But now we are minus one force-of-increase-of-H.C.. This force is still a

force-of-increase, but of mediocre capability like the rest of us. This does

not solve the problem. The force-of-increase-of-H.C. is unable to help until

the force-of-decrease is dealt with. What is the solution to our predicament?

Take a look at this plan: First the force-of-good (increase in

capability)-of-H.C., divides into 2 parts; each of which are of very High

Capability. One of them stays back and remains separate from this whole

situation. The other confronts the problem and comes together with us, and uses

his lots of capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas of life, and in all

areas. (-even if we wanted to, we couldn't separate the 2 forces in all areas,

here on earth, because we don't have the capability to. And we never will

because we're trapped at mediocre capability.) But both forces-of-good-of-H.C.

do have the capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas; and the

confronting HC force-of-good DOES, (or at least provides for, in the area of

choice). With the force-of-evil (the force-of-decrease-in-capability), alone

and separate, it consumes and destroys all capability within its grasp. And

because of its infectiousness, and that this confronting-force-of-good-of-H.!

C. is here within its grasp; it destroys it too. Because capability is life,

lives are lost and people are killed. The force of evil thus self destructs and

brings itself to an end; but everybody is dead, or many are dead -even the

confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who came together with us and did the

separation of the 2 forces, was killed. What occurs next, is the other 'stayed

back', 'stayed behind' (represented by '*') force-of-good-of-H.C., who has been

away and separate from all this, comes into action. Since the force of evil is

gone and has burned itself out, there is no danger to this

*force-of-good-of-H.C.. And this *force-of-good-of-H.C. sorts the remains of

those who like increase-in-capability into one place, and the remains of those

who like decrease-in-capability into another place (and gives them what they

want). This *force-of-good-of-H.C. then does what forces of good do - that is

to increase capability, and brings these people back to life. And not ju!

st to mediocre capability, but to high capability. The confronting

force-of-good-of-H.C. who provided for all this and was killed; was brought back

to life of high capability too. Those who like decrease in capability are in a

place where they can do that. (This is what makes hell so unpleasant -everybody

goes around hurting each other with their high capability (that keeps on being

replenished). -This is what they like to do, and thus want.) But they are kept

separate from us who like to do increase-in-capability. This solves the

problem. -Those of us who know about the force-of-decrease and who don't like

it, are no longer trapped by it. We are at high capability, and are not forced

to do it. -And since we know about it and have decided against it; we don't do

it. So now we see that the force-of-good-of-H.C. has a sure fire way to defeat

the force of evil for good.

 

 

The nature of hurt, harm and pain is a strange one. If you cut off and

incinerate someone else's finger; you may say that it didn't hurt you, because

you are not the capability-and-life that received the destruction. But the only

capability and life that received destruction was the person's finger. It no

longer exists, and so does not feel anything or any pain. What feels pain, is

the remnant part of this person that received no damage, but that (who) was

connected to the lost capability (the finger). The only reason you wouldn't

feel pain, is because of the separation keeping people as separate entities.

But as evil seeks to bridge separations, so as to harness forces of good and

burn down capability/life within its grasp (so as to feed); then the pain and

suffering will be felt throughout. So when you hurt someone, it will most

surely come back on you as well as everybody else who is connected to this

system who does not have separation from evil. I hope you s!

ee the futility of hurting people, even to punish people (especially non

destructive rule breakers/victimless crimes). It just makes all of our lives

who are connected to this system, a living Hell. It really doesn't matter whose

fault it is or who is to blame. (With the exception of stopping those who are

presently destructive, who themselves are more destructive than good. -then it's

a tradeoff)

It is not the capability that was destroyed, but the remaining capability that

was connected, that reacts to the loss, and feels* the pain -as it tries to

carry on, now at reduced capability, now without the help from the destroyed

material it had previously depended on. It must obtain the same good it used to

get evil-free, now with chains and chains of accompanying necessary evils. It

has just been thrown into reduced capability, the trap of evil; from its

previous vantage point of being evil-free. And that doesn't feel very good.

That's what pain is. *(There has to be something there, something alive to be

able to feel.)

 

 

GOOD VS EVIL IN GREATER DEPTH: ATOMIZATION,, AND STAGNATION'S

PRECARIOUS BALANCE.

There is the 'inconsistency of the trap of evil' in my writing. If the

trap of evil traps everything it comes into contact (togetherness) with,

because of its infectiousness: How then can anything once trapped by evil, ever

get out (to achieve separation of the forces in all areas)? How sturdy is this

trap of evil?

What I am trying to examine, is raw evil against raw good; with these

forces on equal footing, without outside interference (that is, before a fogoHC

is created), to see how they turn out, and how well good fares against evil. We

have already noticed that stagnation sets in when the forces of good and evil

are together, and that this stagnation can go on forever. I want to examine

this situation more closely here.

How sturdy is the trap of evil? Can it be proved impossible to get out for

anyone over all time? Well, first of all, since evil (at best) is at mediocre

capability, it would not be able to contact and control all the life that sprang

up in the universe (randomly). And because of randomness, it is probable that

some life systems spring up with mainly the force of good as their make-up.

Now, because of the statistics of randomness, they would be in the minority; but

that doesn't matter; because all it takes is one to succeed. These life forms

of good, do not need to be successful at getting in contact with other life

forms to succeed: only to overcome any remnant force of evil that is within

them. They need to work within themselves to obtain complete separation from

evil (by using (some of) what they've gained from previous separation, to

accomplish more separation).

For the force of evil to succeed on the other hand; it must get in contact

with all life in the universe. Its success requires this contact of other life

forms to make sure no force of good outgrows it and becomes greatly more

powerful than it; (and not so much doing work within itself). But the force of

evil is unable to contact all life forms due to its own trap of mediocre

capability.

Now, let us examine this trap of evil more closely, to see if it really is

100% effective in trapping everything it touches. The thing is, it has to be

100% effective to even have a chance of overcoming the force of good. 99.999%

is not good enough. 99.999% means that one out of 100,000 will escape. And all

it takes is one.

The trap of evil is that one is at mediocre capability, and is forced to do

a large proportion of necessary evils just to survive, or obtain many of the

good things they are used to. These necessary evils done, then negate any gains

made, and keep the group at mediocre capability. This is how the trap of evil

is proposed to work. But there is the area of 'good things we are used to'. If

we refrained from some of these good things with much necessary evil; but

instead obtained some other good thing with less necessary evil, with the

resources, then we might be able to work our way out of this. So what we do, is

to expand areas that do not have necessary evils, while we get by with as little

as possible in areas that are loaded with necessary evils. (There are some

processes that are not diminished by their use, while there are others that are.

Like the use of a library does not diminish its ability to be an information

center. But the use of a bag of cement for one!

building, diminishes its use for anything else, (unless you happen to be at a

rather high capability).) So we work with an emphasis on areas that are not

diminished by their use until we build up enough capability to get into other

areas in this non destructive way.

When we are forced to do an equivalent amount of necessary evils just to

survive, what then? But my question is, what is an equivalent amount that will

exactly negate the gains produced by our survival? It seems to me that

stagnation is a pretty precarious balance: -that we would tend to either go down

in flames; or grow larger. ›This train of thought will be continued from the

paragraph with the (*) in front of it. But for now I need to explore some

background in some other areas; like the tendency towards atomization in systems

with the forces of increase and decrease together.›

What I want to state now, is this: it is a conceptual impossibility to do

both good, and evil, in the same area at the same time (to the smallest most

specific unit of capability). Take any specific capability. What does it mean

to increase and decrease at the same time? This is impossible. At any given

point in time, a capability is at some level. This level is either increasing,

decreasing, or constant. It cannot be both increasing and decreasing

simultaneously. There may be a force trying to cause increase; balanced by a

force trying to cause decrease; acting simultaneously on this one thing. But

there is no movement in the level of this thing. Take for example a rocket

ship. The force of gravity pulls downward on it. The thrust of the rocket

engines pushes upwards on it. But the rocket itself can only have one direction

describing it. We can say the rocket is increasing (if the thrust overcomes the

gravitation). We can say the rocket is decreasing (if !

the gravitation overcomes the thrust). We can say the rocket is constant (if

the gravitational pull equals the thrust). But we can't say that the rocket is

increasing at time t1, and then turn around and say the rocket is also

decreasing at time t1.

›If the rocket rose and fell at the same time, then at t1+5 seconds, it would be

in two places at the same time. (It would have to expand to do this.) And this

expansion (a byproduct of the togetherness of rising and failing), has no

shrinking to counteract it.›

Now, if the rocket blows up, then some parts may go up and some parts may go

down; and then we can say the rocket is increasing and decreasing at time t1.

But if we are at the most basic and specific unit of matter or capability (in

this case a rocket fragment); then there can be only one description of its

motion (or lack of motion).

What does this lead to? Well, if we are forced to do actions that contain

both increase and decrease, then that increase and decrease must be upon

different (separate) areas, to have both increase and decrease be done. An

action that tries to do both increase and decrease on the same area is likely to

break it apart into smaller units; separate and divide it up. If it is not

blown up (divided up), then no increase-and-decrease will have been done.

Forces of increase and decrease done on a unit, often act on different component

pats of the unit; and have a tendency to blow that unit apart if it is not

strong enough to hold together.

We live in a world where both good and evil are heavily together. As we

have just seen; systems with the togetherness of good and evil, cause all in

their grasp to be divided up, blown apart, or 'atomized'. Since these fragments

are all of less capability than the whole, they are less able to overcome the

trap of evil (that forces them to do necessary evils, as a result of being at

low capability). This isn't where the magic occurs. The magic occurs when

these fragments attempt to grow back together. There are so many actions that

do both good and evil, that every unit of life is atomized and fragmented.

Those parts that happen to have more good done to them, and that are themselves

good; are better able to grow. And they are better able to grow together to

form groups-of-fragments. Thus the good grows together leaving the evil (and

the disadvantaged) behind, still separate. (Separation itself isn't bad, but if

something is evil it will consume itself in separati!

on.) So in this coming together of the fragments, there's a tendency of the

good to come together; and there's also an element of randomness. I want to

state that, that element of randomness cannot completely be eliminated (or even

nearly be eliminated) by the ruling forces of evil, Because of evil's mediocre

capability.

›When things are coming-or-growing together after being fragmented; this is

the problem or barrier of necessary-evil. -The problem of many life forms

assembling themselves into a single life form, and thus being able to pool

their resources without doing decrease in that pooling.›

SEMI TANGENT: In my description of necessary evil, I suggest the barrier of

many life forms being able to assemble themselves into a single life form so as

to pool their resources without decrease. But the journey of escape from the

trap of evil (necessary evil), contains many barriers and milestones, of which

this is just one (albeit a major one). END S.T.

(*)-STAGNATION IS A PRECARIOUS BALANCE CONT.- Although there is variation

in the resulting size (of the fragments coming together before they're atomized

again); there can be calculated an average size. The ruling forces of evil

could then base the amount of destruction they allow, on this average size; so

that the evil done, just destroys the gains made; as a way to maintain

stagnation. The trap of evil is that on average, as much destruction is done as

increase, so that no net gain is made. When low-capability-fragments with more

good and growth are coming together; there's an element of randomness that

neither these fragments nor the residing force-of-evil can totally or even

mostly eliminate (due to their low or mediocre level of capability). This means

there's a variation in the amount of capability that can grow together before

its atomized again. Most of the time, a certain average size is observed. But

once in awhile and more INfrequently, larger group size!

s and power are obtained. It's these less frequent but greater

capability-groups that can be able to achieve their nearest milestone (to escape

from evil), and eventually work their way out and escape completely from evil.

You may say all the ruling force of evil would have to do would be to increase

the mix of evil (in the actions that contain good and evil) so that not even

these infrequent, larger powered groups would be able to grow to reach their

nearest milestone. But if evil did that, there'd no longer be stagnation! The

smaller and more common group size would not be able to take it, and would

shrink/vanish (die). If conditions were such that the infrequent, more powerful

group was only able to hold its own; then the more common (average sized)

smaller groups, would get blown away by these harsher conditions; and it'd be a

shrinking universe with evil on its way to self destruction; (thus making room

for some other life system to evolve). All it takes is for one !

to escape evil, for them to be able to come back and rescue the rest of us who

are trapped by evil. Thus if there is not a fogoHC, there's a good chance there

will be created one. And if there is a fogoHC, we can depend on him/her to

rescue us from the trap of evil.

What we've just seen, is that due to variability, randomness, and that some

do better than others; a few will be able to escape the trap of evil. It may

take a long time, but a few will be able to escape. Once this has happened,

things do not continue on like this with only a few escaping evil over a long

time period. Now, with the existence of an escaped and powerful fogoHC; this

fogoHC then does the plan to rescue all of us who want to be rescued; and now,

everybody who wants to, escapes evil!

›A tangent: Given an action that has the togetherness of good and evil

closely knit together within it; the results of that action, have both good and

evil present, but the good and evil are now separate from each other to a

greater degree (when this action blows something apart). So we see that the

natural result of actions containing the togetherness of good and evil, is that

they decay to produce good and evil that is more separate.› End tangent.

As an aside, I might note that atomization is a way of providing

separation. The acts that contain both good and evil together; are a way of

doing and providing separation. (This argument might be posed.) But this type

of separation doesn't separate (just) the forces. It divides up whatever is in

front of it, into little pieces. This type of separation does harm, and traps

its subjects in the trap of evil. There is one unfortunate problem with using

this way of separation: it never achieves separation (complete), because it

depends on the togetherness of good and evil to provide it (just what separation

sets out to eliminate).

 

Once free from the trap of evil, we no longer need to depend on the uneven

distribution of resources to enable some to escape from evil (to come back and

rescue us). Equality can then be instituted without the detrimental effects of

stagnation.

 

 

 

Chapter 3

Dependence on God, the Nesting Problem, and Time"

 

 

Since its important for us not to operate at redued capability, we should

depend on the fogoHC (to fill the function of what we do), and not depend on

what we can do/produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC (to fill functions and needs), doesn't

mean we stop/reject what we ourselves can do. Its just that we don't depend on

IT, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can. That still

exists/is valuable. But it's no longer burdened with supporting us and is now

free to grow evil free.

There are the things we can do. And there's the fogoHC. The fogoHC can fill

in for and substitute for our actions of these very things. This creates a dual

structure.

When we depend on the fogoHC, that itself is an action too. Our depending

on the fogoHC while letting OUR doings go free -not burdening them, is itself

also an action, and a 'thing' (#1). We treat this 'thing' (#1) do different

than all the other 'things' (A-Z), so we also depend on the fogoHC to supply the

function of this thing(#1). But our action to depend on the fogoHC for this, is

also a 'thing' (#2).

Thing #1 and thing #2 are very similar in that they both involve depending on

the fogoHC; but there may be some slight difference in that thing#2 is part of a

nested, repeating set of awarenesses that is one order higher than thing#1.

But it is mostly the fogoHC Himself, and not our action to depend on Him

that gets things done and actually fills the function (of everything we're

depending on Him to fill). It's the versatility of the fogoHC that allows Him

to do this (His infinite versatility comes from being at high capability)

Though, its still true that the action-to-depend-on-the-fogoHC-to-fill-functions

remains a bona fide action.

When the fogoHC does an action, that action is a part of Himself. These

actions by the fogoHC (to fill the functions of things) are at high capability

growing evil free because they are (part of) the fogoHC. They need no

additional action of dependence-on-the-fogoHC to provide this because they are

(part of) the fogoHC. It's only actions not done by the fogoHC that need the

help of the fogoHC (to escape reduced capability the trap of evil). The

action/awareness that we are to depend on the fogoHC, is the closest an action

can get to the fogoHC while still being an action done by us. All the other

actions and things done by us are further from the fogoHC. So all these other

actions often come by this dependence action in their path to the fogoHC. All

things make their journey to the fogoHC (or the fogoHC to them). And this may

or may not include additional actions/awarenesses of dependence on the fogoHC.

When (if) it gets to nested actions of: depending on the fog!

oHC, (to provide dependence on the fogoHC for, the providing dependence on the

fogoHC) for, filling the function of all our other actions; -it is usually

easier for a dependence action to finally find the fogoHC than to create another

order of nesting. (another order of nesting doesn't add much of anything new.)

What I kind of mean by 'the journey to the fogoHC' is that these things

grow so they have an awareness that the fogoHC is filling their function and to

depend upon that and not themselves (so as to grow evil free). What I really

mean by the 'journey to the fogoHC', is that these things grow eventually to

become part of the fogoHC themselves.

The bottom line is that things experience evil free growth. The fogoHC

plays a prominent role in this, as it is He who provides it.

 

A disclaimer:

I have no love for organized religion either. In the past they supressed

Galelao. And they still heavy handedly suppress those who say what they don't

like. For all the concerns by the Church against violations of human rights:

they themselves lack a very basic human right -freedom of speech/expression.

As for belief in God, I am perfectly content to have you believe how you see fit

concerning God; and also to have me believe how I see fit concerning God, even

if it means that I believe and you disbelieve, or whatever.

The Bible it is said, is divinely inspired. Do not settle for second hand

inspiration. Demand your own personal inspiration from God. (Why would God

change His method -of personally inspiring people, in mid stream? by then

leaving people to rely on 2nd hand inspriations) I think that God would reveal

himself to you clearly, and that you would not have to strain to percieve Him.

I would recomend that you search for God only when you want to, not because of

any idea that you should or are supposed to.

Let me list a concrete fact:

We know for certain that if God exists, He has taken a hands off approach, and

has not directly, visibly, absolutely revealed Himself to us.

What if someone wrote some stuff about God, and claimed it was inspired by God,

but that was in reality, inaccurate or even a lie. Would this be enough to

cause God to break His silence and set the inaccuracy straight? Well, I can see

the possibility/probability that such a God would continue to be silent. So

that just because the Bible is a book aboout God that claims to be true and from

God; doesn't actually make it true (It doesn't make if false either. It could

also be partly true or partly false). If God inspired these men who wrote the

Bible; then He is entirely capable of inspiring each and every one of us in the

same way. To accept anything less than your own personal inspiration from God,

(such as second hand inspiration), is to allow possible inaccuracy in how God is

really like. Each and every part of a writing about God, then requires an

independent confirmation from God (in order to eliminate the possibility of

human error/deception). Anything that involve!

s men, I am suspicious of. In my experience, men lie. Men deceive. Men can be

inaccurate. And the Bible has man's influence, as the hand of God did not

visibly come down from heaven to pen the Bible. Man was involved in its

writing, so much so that God's participation in such is visibly obscured. So

that I have more problems with interpreting the Bible, than with the existence

of God.

 

 

 

THE NESTING PROBLEM

There is a central recurring problem I keep stumbling on; especially

concerning common actions needed to be done to all things. In general form, the

problem is: "Given things need to be acted on to fix or empower them; the

action to do so is also a thing, that also needs to be acted on likewise. And

if we then so act; then even this action is also another thing that too needs to

be acted on likewise. Etc. etc.. This keeps snowballing with an infinite chain

of nested actions each regulating the one before it. It's impossible to

completely finish this task, and attempting to will exhaust all resources in

useless, nested, regulating of regulation actions.

In my previous writing, I sidestepped the issue by saying a thing becomes

part of the fogoHC and no longer continues in these nested actions. (The idea

is not to bother wasting resources trying to accomplish an impossible task.)

Now, my final thinking concerning this problem:

When we're successful at something, it interests us, it generates new material,

and we tend to work with it. But when we fail at something, we may tend to be

frustrated and work all the harder; but eventually if we keep failing, we loose

interest and don't do anything in it but move on to other things. We tend to

let go of our failures, not wanting to remember them (and also unable to work

with anything new in them because they didn't grow anything new). We'd much

rather dwell on our successes and work with what we do well at. But whether we

succeed or fail, it's wonderful to realize there's an almighty God (fogoHC) out

there who loves us. Given such a God who cares about us; we can understand how

He might desire we grow and advance in power and love, to also eventually be

forces of good of high capability. To be able to advance and grow like this, a

basic requirement is that we are able to make good choices for ourselves. If

we're unable to think and decide, but need s!

omeone to do this for us, then we haven't grown much (above inanimate objects or

instinct driven animals). Some believe we should be as little children in that

we let someone else think and decide for us and blindly obey (although little

children never blindly obey anything). That's not what God has done. Look

around you, at what is self evident. God has for the most part, stepped back

and allowed us to have our way with this world. God hasn't interfered with

man's will. Just look around you and on the news all the pain and suffering and

all the wrong things in this world. Why has God allowed all this suffering? Do

you see a throne in the sky, or a glowing building where you can talk with God

and here Him talk back audibly, and where He enforces his laws? (No, God

deals/talks with each of us in the unseen ways through His Holy Spirit.) This

world around us is not the finished work of perfection wrought by an almighty

God where we are all living in harmony and love. !

No, what we see around us is dirty rags: a world in travail waiting to be born.

Obviously, God highly values the development of our ability to think / make good

choices; because He has let us have our way and our freedom (to screw up and

make a stagnant mess of this world). An almighty God could step in and put a

stop to this. But a God who loved us would value our development and

advancement to grow in life and to think and choose well. It's like the non

interference directive on Star Trek. Look around you. Has God stepped in

visibly to rule here? It's obvious, that if there is a God: He has stepped back

and let us humans have our own way. He thus must value our advancing into the

ability to choose well and think and not just blindly obey.

So when we're working with things, the fogoHC may be able to do so much

more, but He stays out of it, because He doesn't want to violate/interfere with

our will or what we're trying to do here.

When you try something; just by the law of probability, sometimes you're going

to succeed and sometimes you're going to fail (even when doing the same thing

repetitively).

When we fail, we realize we can't hope to depend on or succeed in what we've

done (for we've done nothing). Since the things we fail at are permanently out

of play (they can do nothing on their own, and are so far gone that only the

fogoHC can do anything with them); then there's nothing to interfere with the

fogoHC's workings; for the fogoHC to gain permission from, or be free from evil

from. Thus the fogoHC has a free hand here and creates wondrous results; far

greater than the successes we create. We thus depend on our failures for the

mainstay of our existence.

Since we've no preoccupation with depending on what we've done, (neither

are we presently working with it): We thus have no hesitation to removing our

will from most-of-us (giving our will-resources to a small-part-of-us); so that

the Lord will have a free hand over this most-of-us, and can then come in and do

wonderful things with it.

The reason we take resources-of-our-will away from most of us and give them

to only a small portion of us that's most likely to succeed, is two fold.

First, as just discussed, such an action clears us out of the fogoHC's way as we

turn that part over to Him. But secondly, this action concentrates resources

upon what small part we do give our will to. This is important so what we do,

isn't at reduced capability, but is at as high capability as we can muster.

The purpose of our successes, isn't to be depended on for the mainstay of our

existence, but to provide new ideas, new areas, and new growth for the fogoHC.

We ourselves are the new growth. WE are the product. The fogoHC is advancing

and developing US as living thinking intelligent beings able to handle more

freedom and make good loving choices. However, we only need a small part of an

area to do this. We don't need to take up the whole area. Our successes and

our will only represent US, not the supplying and satisfaction of OUR needs. We

depend on the fogoHC; not our own strength. (Look at your hand. It's made of

meat. But you don't eat your hand even though it's meat because it's part of

YOU.) If you try to put more of a burden on what-you-are, than just being you,

you'll drive it to reduced capability. Remember, it's just barely making it

being YOU, and pales in comparison to what the fogoHC is doing right beside you.

We should move out of most of an area and inhabit only a small part with our

will. We need this degree of concentration into an area, to put US out of

reduced capability; and to allow the fogoHC to produce as much as possible

(since the fogoHC can do so much more). In any case, there's a fixed proportion

where we move our will out of most of an area and into a small remaining part.

When we do this action (called the #1 action) to take free resources of our

will from most of an area, and give them to only a small part of this area: this

is also an action/area. Who does this action? Well, this area is treated as

all other areas; and free will-resources are taken from most of it and given to

only a small part of it. The end state (just like in all other areas) is that

the fogoHC oversees/does most of it, while our name's only on a small part of

it.

We're always growing and new parts of us are always being created. When a

thing is first created (MAINLY FROM WHAT IS THE FOGOHC'S): When it is first

created, it is all US 100%. Then 'we' do an action to move US out of most of

this part and into a small fraction of this part. (This I call the #1 action.)

Once the fixed proportion is achieved, the task is complete and no more of this

#1 action is done on this part. When the #1 action is complete, each part of us

has 2 representations. One is run by the fogoHC and is very powerful -a source

of power for us; and is always free from evil. The other contains our will and

just barely lives up to the glory of God and is often vulnerable to evil.

The Nesting problem: It is the fogoHC representations which are powerful

enough to create and grow the new actions we do. But the new things created by

the powerful-fogoHC-representations, aren't powerful because the #1 action

hasn't been done to them yet. Only after the #1 action has been done, do

newly-created-actions join the fogoHC representations and become very powerful.

So all newly created actions need the #1 action done to them. But the #1 action

is also a newly created thing that also needs it done to itself. So if we

create a #1 action-(1) (from our powerful fogoHC representations) to be done

upon the #1 action we did upon some other thing; then that #1 action-(1) is also

a newly created thing that also needs the #1 action done to it. As we can see,

this goes on and on and we'll never be able to catch up and do the #1 action to

all newly created actions. This is the nesting problem I had spoken of earlier.

What shall we do? Any solution first recogniz!

es that the task of doing #1 action to all newly created action, will never be

totally completed. But we can't live all our life at once either. This gives

us a way to keep time, as we live out our lives.

The solution I propose, is to carry some over from the past. We need to

realize there'll always be carryover from past actions. So what I do, is create

a desired project action from my powerful fogoHC representations. I also

simultaneously create a new #1 action(a) upon this newly created project action.

And I also create a new #1 action(b) upon all past actions that have not yet had

#1 action done to them (which happen to be old #1 actions themselves, in this

setup). Note that #1 actions (a) and (b) are new actions, but that I allow them

to go without doing #1 action upon them AT THIS TIME. When #1 action(b) is

finished being done upon all past actions; I make a mark here in time by

creating a new #1 action(b) (now free from #1 action upon itself) and is

directed upon all past existing (#1) actions ((a) and (b)), that before I had

let go without #1 action upon them, but now am doing it to them. All actions

which had been allowed to go without #1 action, now have #!

1 action done to them; with only the newly created #1 action created after this

point now being allowed to go without #1 action.

This goes in cycles. Each time #1 action is finished on the old 'past' actions,

a new cycle is started, and all which was free of #1 action up till now, is now

the new 'past actions' and now has (b) #1 action done to it in a new cycle. 'I'

or (my powerful fogoHC representation), can vary the time it takes between

cycles. By adjusting the proportion of project-action-and-#1-action(a), to, #1

action(b), that 'I' create, 'I' can change the cycle time. When I do lots of #1

action(b), then the past actions have the #1 action completed upon them much

faster, thus spurring a new cycle much sooner. (This I usually do when evil is

around and I am dissatisfied.) But when there's a project I have interest in,

which takes a certain time, and there's no evil attacking; then 'I' can do more

project actions-and-#1action(a) and less #1 action(b). With less #1

action(b), it takes it longer to finish with the past actions. And 'I' can

adjust this so when my project is done, then my c!

ycle's also done. But if my good project of interest has no time constraints

and can be done in any quantity in any length of time, then 'I' can just do

equal amounts of project-and-#1-action(a), vs, #1 action(b).

 

PERMISSION

Before the #1 action is done on a newly created part of us; that part is

still US, and the fogoHC needs to get permission to do the #1 action on it.

Since the fogoHC representation created this part; it creates in with it, the

permission needed.

When our will is moved out to make fogoHC representation, none of our will is

found in fogoHC representation. So 'we' never act out of our fogoHC

representation (as an individual will).

Our fogoHC representation is balanced as it includes all non evil things. If

we focus on something of interest, we may leave out things. This action is OUR

will, and not fogoHC representation. So what we create, doesn't automatically

have permission created with it. WE must also create permission via 'our'

meager representation. And we must emphasize creating-permission, until our

complete obsession has permission; so we can then return to the (balanced)

fogoHC representation's way of creating.

The permission we create within what we do, has its permission for itself right

there, and doesn't get into the nesting problem. But the permission we must

create in our already-existing-self (for present actions), does have the nesting

problem. (Since the person and the permission aren't the same entity here (the

person was created long ago: the permission for a current event has just been

created); then distinct permission actions are needed for each of them.) The

permission we create as part of each new action, can keep an instantaneous tab

on things. And since this permission doesn't need any complex past/present

cycling, we can carry on quite simply for the most part. When we periodically

update permission in our main self, just remember to also do some of this

permission for past permission not yet 'permissed' for.

In 'our' representation; or US before the #1 action has been done to us, we can

easily be too overloaded to do these complex things. Note, I no longer

consciously do this mental cycling. I include this only to illustrate a

solution to the nesting problem.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4

 

"Gripping"

 

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter is the one referred to as 'the chapter on gripping' at various

points in the book.

This chapter describes a struggle between good and evil as to which will get to

neutral capability first. After this, we spend a lot of this chapter on the

reasons why we need a balance with the actions that give us life. The

discussion is centered around avoiding (the concept of) 'overextension'. END

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

There is a fallacy in my arguments on the separation of the forces in all

areas. First I described what it'd be like if only the force of good totally

alone and separate, were present. -That the force of good would grow forever

and become very powerful. Then I described what it'd be like if the force of

evil were the only fore around. -The force of evil would consume what could

support it, and would shrink and burn itself out. It would come to a stop.

Then I described how one fogoHC did an action of separation that would separate

the forces in all areas. I assumed that action of separation would bring about

this absolute separation of the forces, as if they were in universes completely

by themselves. I went on to say that only forces were separated, But what about

neutral capability? Neutral capability is neither force of good nor force of

evil. Do we put it with the force of good, or the force of evil, or in a place

by itself separated from both forces? (Force!

s of evil do not themselves produce capability; and only forces of good produce

capability including neutral capability.) We decided the action-of-separation

didn't guarantee protection of neutral capability. If the fogoHC were to

protect all neutral capability, then there'd be no possible way to have any

destruction or force of evil. With evil being impossible, there'd be no ability

of choice; no ability to choose between good and evil. Because intelligent life

does exist, this would prevent us from having a choice. Our

capability-of-choice would be decreased or prevented from advancing. As we'll

see later, it's imperative that the ability of choice even in this area, be

advanced into; and this is why neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection.

The big problem is: if the neutral capability (produced by forces of good)

is destroyed by evil, then what is expected from the action-of-separation (that

is, a universe with only the force of good), isn't achieved. -If evil destroys

the neutral capability the force of good produces, then the force of good

doesn't grow. There is stagnation just like with the force of good and evil

together. Good doesn't grow, and evil is fed and doesn't shrink. Effective

separation then, is up for grabs.

Since neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection (because of free

choice); evil can then destroy neutral capability. If evil destroys all the

neutral capability a force of good produces, then there'll have been no increase

in capability. With no increase done, the thing here can't be called a force of

good. The former force of good is now neutral capability. It can then be

destroyed by the force of evil as neutral capability, as it no longer is

protected by force of good status.

(In future writings, 'undeveloped capability' is synonymous with 'neutral

capability').

FogoHC life may not be aware of what everything is, but it certainly is

aware of what it grows into and comes in contact with. Any evil parts it comes

into contact with are not allowed entrance. Anything non evil that comes into

contact with this fogoHC life, becomes a part of this life, together with the

fogoHC, and becomes fogoHC life too. So, this fogoHC life can grow into non

evil areas just be coming in contact with them. And when a neutral

capability(1) becomes part of a force of good(2) by being in contact-together

with it(2); it(1) becomes protected due to its new 'force of good' status.

When undeveloped capability comes in contact with the min (minimum) fogoHC

(through the contact growth of gripping), it becomes a force-of-good and fogoHC

life. To be a force of good, means capabilities are increased. What

capabilities does this new force of good increase? Well, it only takes one

capability increase to be a force of good; (but this would mean choosing one

capability over another), so all capabilities are increased.

A tighter grip on the parent materials (which produce new capability) won't

cause what's yet to be created, to be fogoHC-life before it's created. A

tighter grip on the parent materials, however, will put what is created, closer

to the fogoHC life, so it is transformed into fogoHC life much more quickly.

Let's look at the parent materials that are being held or gripped by the fogoHC

life: Since thse parent materials are being gripped, they are in contact with

the fogoHC life, and are thus made part of this fogoHC life (#1 action and

togetherness). This is then fogoHC life gripping itself. And yes, the tighter

the gogoHC life can hold itself together, the more quickly it can come in

contact with the new capability it creates.

If an undeveloped life isn't being attacked, then it feels fine and feels

no pain. Eventually it is touched by the fogoHC life and becomes fogoHC life

(#1 action and togetherness). But if the force of evil steps up its attack,

then evil may catch undeveloped life before it is touched by the fogoHC, and

destroy it. The response or reaction by fogoHC life is to grip tighter so the

fogoHC-life touches the undeveloped-life before destruction gets to it.

We must realize that there's a struggle going on, and that pain is just the

battle report for what area needs reinforcement. It's a contest to see who can

get to the newly created neutral capability first. We must realize the cause of

pain is from the force of evil, which acts independently of the fogoHC. It's a

struggle that's not yet over, but that victory is in sight. Effective

separation is gained piecemeal, in the play by play, in the 'nitty gritty'.

Gripping is only part of the reaction I've been speaking of, to enact

effective separation. What the fogoHC grips (and joins together with), is as

important as the gripping itself. All fogoHC life has awareness of what is

good, evil, or neutral. FogoHC life grips selectively from the undeveloped life

only that which is non evil. Anything evil is not gripped because forces of

evil are always separated from forces of good (of HC). This selectivity is

actively pursued, and every non evil part is ferreted out and gripped, while the

evil parts are not gripped. Even with an individual action or person that

contains both non evil and evil: there is found a way to grip all the possible

non evil there; while leaving the evil parts alone. This selectiveness in the

gripping works hand in hand with the gripping itself to provide effective

separation. The action of separation does not separate undeveloped capability.

This is provided by gripping and selectiveness in gripping.!

 

Note that the pain from evil need not lead us as to our path of growth.

Gripping (#1 action and togetherness) isn't only useful in keeping effective

separation when under attack by evil: it's also a pleasurable thing to do even

when not under attack. At first contact, undeveloped life becomes fogoHC life

and is thus protected from evil. But growth doesn't stop here. It continues on

and includes tighter and tighter gripping, and advancement of the new force of

good. A by-product of this is that it protects newly created undeveloped life

from evil. Also note that forces of good are what produce (neutral) capability.

And if the producing force of good is separated far away from evil, then the

neutral capability produced will also be away from evil.

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; 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. 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. ›But when it is produced/created; who says it

has to be a separate entity from the fogoHC? Isn't the fogoHC in contact with

it to create it? Yet this is not necessarily so, if only a f.o.g. (especially

if not together with the fogoHC), creates it.›)

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. After the neutral

capability has been contacted and is a part of the fogoHC; it is no longer

neutral capability but part of the fogoHC. Being a part of a force of good, it

thus begins to increase or help in the increase of capabilities. 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 f!

orce 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 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 c!

an 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.)

As forces of good are advanced, eventually they become alive. They develop

the ability to think and make choices and have a will. When the fogoHC contacts

us in gripping as a human being; that contact creates a force of good self. The

fogoHC wants to also contact the neutral capability our force of good self

produces. If the fogoHC were contacting a force of good that had no mind or

will; it would also contact the neutral capability it produced. But when a

minimum level in the force-of-good is reached, so that the capabilities there

represent the basic minimal human being, then the fogoHC must now take into

account and partnership, this basic will self, for gripping of the neutral

capabilities to occur. For the fogoHC to come in and grip the neutral

capability that this living thinking force of good produces, without permission,

would be a decrease in capability. When a force of good had no ability of

thought and no mind; there was no will for the fogoHC to get per!

mission from. So the fogoHC could come right in and grip the neutral capability

produced. But now that this force of good has advanced to possess the ability

to think and have a will; what then? Well, if the fogoHC jumped right in and

gripped the neutral capability produced by this living thinking force of good;

then there'd be no choice for evil. Everything would be all good. Goodness

would be insured and the only thing available. The reason we have evil, is

because some have chosen evil. To be able to advance and develop the ability of

choice; it must be possible to actually produce what we choose. The two valid

and possible choices are: good alone, vs, good and evil together (with evil

feeding off of good). To have choice in this area, it must be possible to

obtain either of these as a result of our choice.

Otherwise there's really no choice yet (in this area). The fogoHC wouldn't

yet have advanced these forces-of-good to the ability of choice; as they'd never

be able to demonstrate a single choice in this most important area of choice:

the choice between good and evil. The fogoHC himself, has and exercises the

choice between good and evil. For humans not to have this choice means that the

advancement of forces-of-good stops short of becoming forces ogoHC. And this is

just not so, as it would create a difficult bind for the fogoHC (as we've seen).

When the joint venture capability of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and

gripping upon itself; there's a circular feedback that produces tremendous

quantities of this specific growth and gripping capability. When the

capability-of-growth-and-gripping does growth and gripping on some other area,

(or on a whole that contains much in addition to itself); less or none of the

growth-and-gripping-capability is produced. There is no circular feedback that

provides for greater growth. In both cases (circular feedback, vs, other

things), growth and gripping does produce protected groth of what's being

gripped.

Growth/gripping done on itself, produces growth, or growth resources.

Contained within our growth resources, is our basic self and our ability to

choose. Choice and our will come from here.

Concerning 'growth resources': in our real world, we almost never can be

so general as to call something a 'growth resource' to start out. Usually it is

only a growth and increase of specific products, in a narrow and focused way.

For example, a process and equipment that cans tomatoes would be of little use

in trying to make nuts and bolts. Only as we advance, can we be involved in

producing more versatile and universal growth resources, that have the potential

to do increase over a wide range of areas. For example, robots (industrial),

can be programmed to do a number of different tasks. But before a society can

build robots, it must have an industrial and manufacturing system already in

place.

Our ability to choose, our will, and our basic self; is centered here in

these potential-growth-resources and the activation of them. For example, if

there's something you want to do but don't have the resources to do it, then you

can't do that thing. -And you really don't have choice in this area. What you

spend your (potential) growth resources on is what your choice is.

The conversion of potential-growth-resources to active-growth-resources; is

what choice is. So, the more versatile-potential-growth-resources (and the

ability to activate them); the more choice we have.

To have choice we must have not only the potential to go one way, but also

the potential to go other ways. --(If we have the potential to go just one way,

there's little choice in that.) So the versatile-potential-growth-resources are

the center of choice, and are choice.

 

A SUPPLY OF (POTENTIAL) GROWTH RESOURCES (WHICH IS CHOICE), COMES

FROM A CHOICE TO ACTIVATE GROWTH-RESOURCES TO PRODUCE MORE

GROWTH RESOURCES: (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'GROWTH, OF GROWTH

RESOURCES')

When you spend your growth resources in different areas that you want to do

(and choose to do), these areas grow. But these areas of project or pleasure

that you want (and that are growing), aren't in themselves your basic self.

Remember, your basic self and choice and your will, is your supply of

versatile-potential-growth-resources; not the projects you choose to activate.

Without these growth resources you'd not be able to make choices. And your

projects and pleasures do not necessarily produce growth resources. They just

produce the growth of the project or pleasure. Because your

versatile-potential-growth-resources are versatile, they themselves are best

suited to produce more of themselves. The production of your project or

pleasure is more narrow and is not so versatile.

Note that growth of growth resources (which is choice of choice), is also

referred to as the growth/gripping done on itself in a circular feedback.

 

THE CONCEPT OF OVEREXTENSION.

We would think that if a person achieved all their goals and had everything

they wanted, they'd be happy. But this isn't the case. Humans go berserk when

they actually achieve and receive the good things that life has to offer. For

those who are able to obtain what they desire; they find that these things

become their torment. It's like Star Trek's garden of Eden where all the fruits

were poison.

Because of this, deliberate barriers are put in our way so we cannot obtain

much of these things. Our jobs, our government and our system are deliberately

designed to frustrate our attempts to achieve any goals or pleasures we might

have. This is done not against us, but in compassion to us and for our benefit.

Now, you say, how can the achievement of good, wholesome, kind, gentle and

loving things be detrimental to me? Well, good things have to do with growth.

Good things are growing things. -forever getting better. So the good and

pleasurable things in life, are growing things. Well, something has to grow and

increase then. It is our growth resources that grows and increases them.

Growth itself causes no problem. It is our ability to focus the growth on

selected areas that causes our pleasure problem. In many cases, that focus is

forced upon us; as the narrow range of our beginning 'growth processes', (as

mentioned previously).

When we apply our growth-resources to the areas of a project or pleasure,

obviously these areas grow. Since there can be much more than just our basic

will self, we're often apt to get into projects and activities we enjoy. These

areas grow and keep growing. But since we're not focusing on our basic will

self / growth resources; these don't grow. The greater size of our projects and

enjoyable activities pulls us to do more gripping on them, as they keep growing,

needing more attention, resources and concentration to manage them. We thus

become more absorbed in our projects / enjoyable activities. These continue to

grow but our basic-will-self ›(and our even increase of all non evil things

including the uninteresting low levels and that which doesn't benefit us)› stays

the same, as we don't increase gripping on our

basic-self/production-of-growth-resources. Pretty soon we're so frantic, busy

and absorbed in our projects and pleasures, that we don't have a spare mome!

nt to grip our basic will self / growth resources. Our projects/pleasures keep

growing while our basic self and consciousness stay the same. We find ourselves

swamped by the size of it. We've overextended ourselves, and from now on I'll

term this state 'overextension'. The torture of it is that we see all the

wonderful things that are out there, but we're too small to enjoy hardly any of

it. This is a great emptiness that is just hard to take. It's motivation

enough to do destruction.

Once growth resources are spent growing the project or pleasure area,

there's little left to grow the growth resources, to provide more growth

resources. There's no circular feedback that provides a supply of growth

resources. With a neglect of the production of growth resources, the growth

resources soon run out, leaving the person hanging at a standstill (and at

reduced capability).

Perhaps the Growth Resources aren't consumed in their use. Then the

application of a growth resource causes a continuing, endless production of what

it was applied to. These project and pleasure areas then grow increasingly

faster, while the growth resources and the person's basic self grow at a

constant and much slower rate, since the focus is toward the pleasure or

project; and not the production of growth resources and the person's basic self.

It is then the out of balance growth, and our absorbing focus solely on the

project or pleasure, (over our basic self / production of growth resources),

that causes our problem.

When a person finds themselves busier and busier just to keep up with the

expanding project area, they could do some gripping on their basic self / growth

resources so that these grew also; but after a certain point of no return, the

project areas absorb the person so much taking all their energies) that they

can't find a spare moment to do this. One might ask, why don't they put down

what they're doing when it starts to overgrow them? Well, once one starts

something non evil; to put it down would be a decrease in the growth of that

capability. It would be a decrease of a growth capability. This overextension

happens in our force of good self. Most of us like to think of ourselves as

good people, successful people (growing all the time); so we are reluctant to

stop or put down our project area. ›(Doing so would generate Godly parts

needing to be halved.)› Also: Because this action is a decrease and all, we

might fear that the fogoHC, who casts away decrease and evi!

l, will cast us away. The fact that stopping and putting down the project area

interrupts/halts the overextension; is often misinterpreted to mean, evil and

the force of decrease is a needed and valuable part of life. This occurs when

people find through living life, that doing this decrease and evil helps here,

in spite of their desire and idealism to be all good with no evil.

Destruction in the mild form, can be to stop growing the project or

pleasure. (This is a decrease of a growth capability). Destruction because it

is so unlike pleasure and growth, can be used to take our minds and focus off

our pleasure long enough to restore our basic self, (when in transit between

pain to pleasure, or, pleasure to pain). Destruction can also be used to cut

down the size of the project or pleasurable area so as to be more manageable

›(and at red cap for separation of the forces)›. Destruction can be used to cut

down that non evil part within us that keeps stimulating us to do the pleasure

or project. This is otherwise known as self discipline self denial or

repression.

The presence of destruction causes a world where the forces of good and

evil are together. There is a balance between pleasure, joy -vs- pain. Even

the person in overextension has the togetherness of good and evil. As their

project or pleasure gets out of hand and becomes too large to be manageable, the

person is no longer able to protect it from the force of evil. The person grows

to some large size, and at that point their growth is stopped, as evil easily

picks off any further capability increase (that is of course, when refusing to

accept help from the fogoHC). Growth is halted, stagnation sets in, and its a

classic example of the forces of good and evil together.

If you have grown up in a structured world where your life is regulated and

you have been prevented from achieving much enjoyment or pleasure; you don't

know that there's a danger in achieving your desires (whatever they may be

-because you've never been allowed to achieve your desires). You would think

these people are just exploiting you for your share of pleasure for themselves;

or that they are somehow diabolically evil, and why are they doing this to you?

But actually they are preventing you from the sad fact that too much pleasure

can kill. You see, with too much pleasure, the active working of the

force-of-increase is stifled because there are no more improvements-to-be-made

in the immediate vicinity. We need to seek out those areas that need help, with

our high capability, so that the force of increase may continue.

They balance pleasure with pain so that you may survive, to carry on just about

the only existence possible: a very meager and ragged existence. History and

societal evolution has proved that other paths are out gunned.

Human minds have the marvelous ability to provide solutions to problems

much quicker and much more efficiently than evolution can. "Human life can

transform the single celled egg into a living human person in 9 months: where it

took evolution many millennia and a lot of waste to do the same." Being aware

that there is a pleasure problem; that there's a problem with pleasure; allows

us a better chance of solving the problem in ways that improve the quality of

life, as opposed to us being unaware of the problem and stumbling through life,

allowing evolution to solve this problem for us.

A problem with overextension is the problem of focus. The action of focus

contains inherently within it, both a decrease and an increase. When we focus

our growth; we take growth away from everything but the area of focus (this is a

decrease), and deliver it only to the area of focus (this is the increase).

Any overall growth of everything the human is, (including the growth of

their basic self and their growth resources); would eliminate the unbalanced

growth of overextension. In other words, if we refrained from focusing growth,

and did non focused growth, then we'd be OK. But often focus is forced upon us

because of poverty or our beginning. And there are also advantages to focusing.

If we did not neglect the growth of our growth resources and devoted an equal

focus to them, as well as our pleasures; this would solve our problem. Now that

we know about these things and these solutions, perhaps we can enjoy life

without being harmed by such enjoyment. These ways of providing for balanced

growth are much better than some of the solutions developed by societal

evolution. Some of the archaic solutions provide for our survival but leave an

undesirable quality of life as the only option. It almost seems that we need

pain and suffering and destruction in order to survive!

; and that we can't do without it. (Our projects are not alive. If we produce

too much project without also producing life, then there won't be enough life

around to enjoy the project; and so what's the use of producing so much

project?)

Before we get into the solution to the decrease of focus that allows us to

do focus without decrease, and neutralizes focus's intrinsic decrease; and also

why we need focus at all and what useful benefits it provides: I want to discuss

some of the coping mechanisms societies have used to combat this very same

problem of overextension. I wish to continue on with my discussion of these

coping mechanisms.

What good is pain and suffering in solving the problem of overextension?

We can choose to live a life in the absence of pain or pleasure; or we can

experience pain and pleasure. The more pleasure we do, the more pain we receive

to pay for it.

Because children are ignorant about the world, they will outgrow their toys many

times. What they like to do will change many times, as they grow and learn

about the world around them. Because of this constant change, they do not have

time to become overextended in their pleasures. Thus childhood is a time we can

naturally be happy. Anyone who spoils the happiness of a child is cruel indeed.

Anyone who sexualizes a child is also cruel, because that is one pleasure that

will not change, and leads to early overextension.

This is also why we have so much change in our society. The action of

change is a mechanism where we can deal with the problem of overextension in a

positive way and a way that doesn't involve much destruction. If our projects

and constructions become obsolete before we put them to much use, then we may

not accomplish much as we keep switching from project to project; but at least

we save ourselves; using this change as a tool to deal with the problem of

overextension. Even when change does not represent any change (advancement or

decline) in the technology, but just a different way of doing the same thing; it

still helps us over our problem of overextension.

There is much more pain in the world than pleasure because it's easier to

get overextended by pleasure than by pain. Pain has inherently in it something

we don't like. Since we don't like it, we won't do anything to overextend

ourselves in it; and when we're not forced to do anything about it, we drop it.

(It is self ending.)

This overextension problem is why we have so much senseless violence and

unfairness. The violence and unfairness takes our minds off our pleasures for

awhile.

Take a look at the societies around you today, and then look at history. The

societies in existence today are the result of many generations of societal

evolution. Only societies with a balance of strictness, pain suffering, and a

prevention of pleasure, have survived.

We duck in and out and between buildings so as to protect us from the

beauty of nature. We sleep indoors every hot summer night to protect us from

the beauty of the heavens at night. We pollute the environment to eliminate

some of the beauty to make room for us to have a place to live. We wear cloths

to protect us from the beauty of our bodies.

This paints a pretty bleak picture of human life on earth. We cannot enjoy

life only, and survive. If we are to survive, we must live a life without much

quality.

But good news. There's a solution free from destruction and suffering that also

allows us to survive and prosper. Now that we realize the problem of

overextension and have a better solution to it, we can live our lives with

better quality and we don't need the makeshift solutions anymore. So when we

encounter stress or a stimulus for growth, we get more into gripping on gripping

(as opposed to gripping on a project area). The tremendous growth produced in

the circular feedback of gripping on gripping, in our will self, will then

overflow into our project area, and provide the growth we desired. And we'll be

in a position to enjoy it, as our basic self will be big enough to enjoy what's

around it. Well, of course we must test this new and claimed-to-be-better

solution, to see if it works. Try it in your life. The alternatives aren't

really worth it to me.

Now I return to an analysis of focus; the act of focusing our resources:

In our focused and extremely specialized society; it's difficult for us to

get away from focus and do unfocused, universal growth. When gripping is

focused; the action of focus, takes gripping from all areas (except the area of

focus); and delivers it to the area of focus. The action of focus is thus both

an increase and a decrease of the gripping-growth capability (or potential for

growth).

When we focus gripping (and growth) on too limited/narrow an area; this leads to

our problem of unbalanced growth, or overextension. We've said that if we could

do a simultaneous gripping-on-the-growth-resources (which is gripping focused on

gripping itself); then we could balance the growth to a large degree. However,

a problem with the narrow and sharp focus, is that it doesn't include an

intelligence or common mind to coordinate between gripping-on-a-project vs

gripping-on-gripping; there's no balance.) Thus the area of focus must be

widened to include a common mind in each focus unit. (The focus on project

would actually be a focus on project-plus-common mind. And the focus on

gripping would actually be a focus on gripping-plus-the common mind.) The

common mind coordinates simultaneous equal gripping in these areas so there's

balanced growth.

There's a contradiction to sharp focus gripping. Since the intelligence

(which did the sharp-focus) isn't in the area of sharp focus; it is taken away

from (All the growth goes to the sharp focus). When this intelligence that

does the sharp focus is completely emptied by the sharp focus itself; then

there's nothing to do sharp focus, and sharp focus comes to an end./

We eliminate the decrease from focus, by putting it in an equilibrium, a

tug of war, with itself. If we focus on one area, this takes gripping and

(growth) from the surrounding areas and delivers it to this area of focus. But

if we simultaneously do focused gripping on all the other areas, then the

gripping lost by an area through focuses on the other areas, is returned by the

focus on this particular area. Thus no gripping or (growth) is actually lost

(or gained).

In a large focus gripping equilibrium, that encompasses all of ourselves,

all areas are represented. But the area of gripping-on-gripping is special,

because it determines whether there'll be growth or not. It's possible to have

an equilibrium that stagnates. But since this is like the result of the forces

of good and evil together, it's not a desirable option. Thus the gripping on

gripping is given a superior position in our equilibrium so there's as much

gripping-focused-on gripping as on all the other focus areas combined. This is

needed because all the other areas consume growth-resources, while only the

gripping-on-gripping area produces them.

In intermediate focus, we include our mind to direct the equilibrium (and

balance) between our individual intermediate-focus units. We may not be aware

of the details of other focus units from within our common mind, but these

detailed awarenesses still exist outside our common mind as part of the larger

equilibrium in the individual focus units. An inclusion into our common mind

that 'there's more', might not be a bad idea. But the beauty of

intermediate-focus-gripping is that we don't have to be aware of everything to

enjoy a few simple pleasures. The purpose of intermediate-focus-gripping is to

preserve and enhance the individuality of each individual

capability-and-focus-area; so the benefits of each doesn't get lost in the

combining together of all the capabilities and areas as a whole.

When we combine individual capabilities together to form a whole, each

individual capability often looses something to the group, and conformity to the

group norm. The intermediate-focus-gripping is a way to retain the individual

qualities, while still reaping the benefit of the group. What's the sense of

this focusing equilibrium if it causes no change in the gripping capability for

each area? The answer is that it provides separation. There's more separation

for each area; and the loss of mixing all these areas together into one unit, is

eliminated.

When we mix colors together, they become a drab brown. There is something lost

in the mixing.

Consider a chemical production sequence. If we do a sequence of reactions

separate from each other, we get the desired product. But if we mix all the

reactions and chemicals together all at once, many of the reagents will

neutralize and negate each other, and we end up with a mess. Take a look at

large and small political groups: In small groups, more extreme and detailed

positions can be found. But in large groups, the extreme positions neutralize

each other and compromise leaves a more moderate and general platform.

When we bring individual, separate capabilities together to form a whole,

opposing parts of the individual capabilities negate and neutralize each other,

and something is lost. It's this intensity and individuality of the individual

capabilities, that this focus equilibrium restores.

Each of the b.i.f. or (balanced intermediate focus) units, aren't bogged

down by the operation of the other b.i.f. units. The whole purpose of these

separate focuses (that all include the common mind), was to bring out the

individuality of each unit. An individual unit has a link (the common mind)

which only contains general instructions of the other units. It's not filled

with the intricate details of the other units as this'd hinder the individual

expression of this particular unit. The intricate details of the other units

are contained in their respective areas of b.i.f. focus. Because of focus; when

we're acting out of one unit, we may be unaware of the other units to a degree.

We're aware of an abbreviated presence of the other units through our common

mind; but not of the other units in detail. This we must 'take it by faith'

that these other units are working simultaneously and as intricately as the unit

we're in at the moment. (To be intricately aware of t!

he other units would spoil the very individuality we're trying to preserve.)

Our mind is divided up into different focus units; the detailed parts of which

don't come together.

We have both the abbreviated version of a thing, and the detailed version of the

thing simultaneously. There's no need to be confused over which one is correct

to have; they're both correct in their respective areas.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 5

Our Sequences

 

 

Chapter Introduction:

The first part of this chapter further develops the idea begun in the last

chapter, about preserving the intensity (and individuality) of things. These

are the segments on unresponded-to-happenings (or urt.happenings for short).

The rest of the chapter is divided into two parts.

Part A develops the concept of choice-from-versatile-potential-resources.

Part B reveals growth of growth resources (or gogr for short) as the source of

growth and versatile potential resources; and that the growth from gogr is

shared with project. These ideas take the form of the refraining action

(representing gogr), and the altering action (representing project). Also

introduced, is the idea of our repetitive generational sequences, for gogr and

project. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

 

THE GENERATION OF, AND ACCUMULATION OF, UNRESPONDED-TO-

HAPPENINGS, IN WORKING WITH OUR GOOD THINGS.

When we're working with our good things; our work has results and those

good things grow. These good things always remain with us as they're never

separated away, like evil things are.

The new good things (that have grown from the original good things); exist

as unresponded-to, because they didn't yet exist when the original good things

were being worked with. As we can see; when we respond to and work with our

good things, they grow and generate more good things that need to be responded

to.

There are a number of things we could do with the new happenings that are

generated. We could respond to them as soon as they're created. Or, we could,

not-respond to them right away. If we don't respond to them right away; we

experience an accumulation of unresponded-to happenings.

In working with these accumulated good happenings, we will vary our states:

cycling in an accumulation phase, and a response phase. We want to allow these

generated happenings to accumulate for a time as unresponded-to; and then we

want to respond completely to that accumulation. The reason we want this

cycling and variation instead of responding to these happenings as soon as

they're generated; is to allow them to come together out of atomization. But if

we let them accumulate too long, negation is the undesired result.

As mentioned: our good things never end, and it's up to us to pick a size

and duration to respond to.

If we pick too small of an interval and amount of good things, then we'd be

doing lots of switching, and would interrupt basic tasks. We would also atomize

the generated happenings.

If we pick too large an interval and wait too long to respond to the

accumulation; then negation would occur. Opposing motions would collide,

neutralize each other, and become spread out and dissipated; thus loosing their

intensity and individuality. We want to avoid negation.

 

AVOIDANCE OF ATOMIZATION AND NEGATION, GUIDES AS TO HOW LONG

WE ACCUMULATE UNRESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING (THAT IS GENERATED

FROM RESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING), (BEFORE WE RESPOND TO IT).

Note: I abbreviate 'unresponded-to-happening' as

urt.happening.

When I speak of the optimal accumulation of urt.happening that avoids

atomization and negation: I mean this only in a time context.

If we wait too long in a buildup state to respond to the happening; the

happening will have passed. Let's say we light a fire, but show up after it has

burned out. All the heat energy still exists in the air molecules that were

heated up. The energy still exists and hasn't been destroyed. In a sense, the

fire continues to exist. But the intensity of it is gone. This is the negation

I speak of. After too long a time, the surrounding elements dissipate the

intensity of the fire, and cause negation. So we need to respond to the

happening within its own time frame (internal limitations permitting).

Concerning atomization: If we respond to a happening in small bits and

pieces as soon as those small bits of the happening are created; then these

responses can only be directed at the happening that exists, and not the rest of

the happening that's yet to be created. This atomizes and interrupts the

happening. The small bits of responded-to-happening start to generate their own

small bit size of urt.happening, that are out of phase and not coordinated with

the other small bits of urt.happening; (which thus makes it impossible for those

small bits at different stages of development to come together out of

atomization and share their resources in a balanced and cooperative way).

Atomization describes the situation. Now, if instead, we do less response

project; each generation of urt.happening would have the time to grow together

into its full intensity before being responded to.

One may ask, how does responding to a happening change anything, and stop

negation? Well, one of the actions of our intelligent response is to keep

individual things separate so that their opposing motions do not neutralize one

another. Also; when we respond to groups of the optimal time (that avoids both

negation and atomization), then this group of happenings has had time to come

together out of atomization and develop its full intensity before being

responded to and generating a new group of unresponded to happening that is also

in phase.

 

PART A

 

IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING; WE ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE CHOICE.

I may choose to live in a castle. But if I do not have the

versatile-growth-resources to make this happen; then I cannot obtain this

choice. -I really don't have choice in this area. Thus choice is the presence

of versatile potential growth resources and the activation of them. Before we

do anything, we need versatile potential growth resources; before we can

activate those potential growth resources. Thus choice comes first. We have

choice before we have anything else. Thus we are always able to do choice

choosing choice, if we are able to do anything. (This assumes our growth

resources are versatile.)

 

THE CASE WHERE OUR GROWTH RESOURCES ARE NON VERSATILE,

DOESN'T ENTER INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF CHOICE; BECAUSE THE

FOGOHC COMPLETELY HANDLES AND ADVANCES NON VERSATILE AREAS:

SINCE NO PERMISSION IS NEEDED WHERE THERE'S NO WILL OR

CHOICE, (WHEN GROWTH RESOURCES AREN'T VERSATILE), THAT IS.

Without versatile growth resources we have little choice; although we can

act narrowly. But without a will or choice there's no intelligent life to get

permission from, so the fogoHC comes in and runs this completely. There's no

unbalanced growth here. But the fogoHC advances this state in versatility so it

develops a will; which could then choose unbalanced growth if it wanted: it now

has choice.

 

PART B

GOGR IS SPECIAL.

Gogr is the source of all growth. This means that everything else, as

projects, aren't the source of (versatile) growth. This means things you are

told to do may not be gogr or sources of growth. You have a mind and can think.

And already have some idea as to what gogr are within you. Only you know how

you feel and It's your feelings that effect your life. And only life causes

growth. When your environment requires growth, run to gogr, not these other

things that are claimed to be the solution to your lack of growth. If your

environment requires growth from you in an unfriendly way; since gogr delivers

growth; why not do a little more growth and cast out the unfriendliness and

overthrow it?

If we place gogr and the fogoHC in the position of supplying growth, then we

need not put Mao, our boss, or some technology, in that position, or depend on

them for our growth. Note that only gogr and the fogoHC delivers the growth

sought for. Mao, our boss, or some technology all fall short of being suppliers

of all sorts of growth (versatile gogr); and fail to deliver.

Realize the connection between gogr and choice-or-choice within you, (that

choice of choice within you is a large part of gogr).

Note: there's nothing wrong with runaway 100%gogr because it is self

supporting and needs no outside resources. But there is something wrong with

runaway project because it doesn't produce the resources it needs to supply its

ever increasing growth requirements and resource consumption.

 

OUR REPETITIVE GENERATIONAL CHOICE, (OUR SEQUENCES).

When versatile potential growth resources(1) are activatied to produce more

growth resources(2); growth resources are produced. And when some of those

growth resources(2) are activated in a choice to produce even more growth

resources(3); and when some of those growth resources(3) are activated to

produce more growth resources(4): we can see that we have a growth engine that

produces generation after generation of growth resources in an exponential

growth. And if we share some of the growth resources of each generation with

project, then we have a project 'sequence' that mirrors this gogr 'sequence'.

>From the exponential growth engine of gogr; we can see repetitive generations of

potential growth resources (and choice) being produced from this. I call them

'our sequences'.

 

A CHOICE TO GROW GROWTH-RESOURCES INSTEAD OF WORRYING OVER A

BLEAK SITUATION (SO AS NOT TO BECOME OVEREXTENDED).

If someone has actually absolutely no awareness; then a person cannot be

aware of their emptiness and bareness. But with the awareness of emptiness and

bareness; is an awareness of this. We had to have resources and choice to be

able to choose this. So we can instead, do choice choosing choice.

There are many things we can do. One of them, is to be aware of our

emptiness and bareness. Another thing is, we can worry about not living up to

expectations placed upon us. But these actions are not the growth of growth

resources. So these actions are projects. This project consumes our growth

resources, and we can become overextended in it. Since we are able to do these

actions, (since we are able to activate potential growth resources towards these

things): we are also able to NOT do these things. We are able instead, to

choose choice with these potential resources.

 

THE 'REFRAINING' ACTION IS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE ACHIEVE A

BALANCE BETWEEN GROWING GROWTH-RESOURCES, VS. GROWING

PROJECTS WHICH CONSUME GROWTH RESOURCES.

The simplest choice we could have (even with non versatile growth

resources), would be either to do, or not do something. But the choice not to

do something, isn't much of an option by itself. There is something they can be

activated to. These potential growth resources can be activated in a

choice-choosing-choice action (as choice is always present first), instead of

for project.

What is done then, is to have a balance between what produces growth

resources, and what consumes growth resources. We do not completely shut off

our project activities, but make room for more

growth-of-growth-resources-choice-of-choice, by only partially shutting off

(new growth in) these project areas. This I call the 'refraining action'.

Even though we transferred resources intended for project, to instead grow

growth-resources (via our 'refraining action'): in the long run, there is no

decrease in the project's new GROWTH; only a decrease in the PROPORTION of those

projects; (as well as the increased growth-of-growth-resources). The greater

growth-of-growth-resources proportion provides for greater actual GROWTH of the

projects even thought he project proportion is smaller.

This transfer action of refraining, is also a project action. Thus to be

consistent, we also (partially) refrain from refraining. -As this refraining

action can also get too large in proportion, and needs to be applied to itself

and also rolled back. We move ALL our projects back to make room for choice of

choice and growing the growth resources.

 

STATEMENT AGAINST CANNIBALIZING OUR OLD ACTIONS.

Let's not do new actions over top of our previously established actions.

When we cannibalize our old actions to do new actions, then our

old-established-actions have suffered decrease. The addition of new action

then, wouldn't represent growth, but just rearrangement. So it's best not to

cannibalize our established actions, so our efforts won't be lost in

rearrangement. We often need to depend on our established actions along with

our new actions; and if we cannibalize them, they won't be there for us. (Of

course sometimes we can't afford to do this and must cannibalize.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

"Important Concepts"

 

 

 

 

Chapter Introduction:

Here's where we enlighten the (early) important concepts of this book.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

 

 

A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT: OUR INDIRECT METHOD OF RESPONDING

TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT REFERRED TO

THROUGH THE BOOK.

When we want something, or when we want to respond to our environment, the

simplest most direct thing we can do is to just DO the project thing or

(response) that we want. But as we've seen; doing this direct method brings us

to overextension when we go overboard with it.

A second method, is to indirectly seek what we want by doing something

else, in order to obtain what we want. This is the category our balanced way

falls into. There are many things we can do instead of what we want, in hopes

it will indirectly get us what we want. Like we could work hard at a job,

saving every nickel, to be able to go back to the blue bijou vacation spot.

However only one indirect-action delivers on the hope of getting what we want;

and that is growth of growth resources. (This is because everything else is

project; and other projects have enough trouble finding resources for themselves

when on their own, let alone provide for some other project.) The only action

worthy of commandeering the new growths of other (project) actions for its own

purpose; is the refraining action for delivering new growth to gogr; because

gogr is the only action that delivers, (and produces versatile growth

resources). And we will be replacing a lot of project-new-growt!

h with 100%gogr, as a means of responding to increased intensity in the

environment. This is our indirect method of doing more gogr, to produce more

response project.

 

TWO DIFFERING METHODS OF GREATER GROWTH THROUGH INCREASED

PROPORTIONS OF GOGR: A FAST INCREASE IN GOGR, VS, A GRADUAL

INCREASE IN GOGR. GRADUAL IS BEST.

Now, there is another factor to consider. If we put all our action into

producing more growth through increased 100%gogr, then we wouldn't have any left

for project. If we all of a sudden made a large increase in the gogr proportion

(say from 50% to 99%), then it would take a long time for the greater-growth

(produced by greater gogr) to translate into greater project new growth, at the

1% delivery rate. This would leave a long period of time we'd be unresponsive

to our (project) environment. But if we increased the gogr proportion

GRADUALLY, so the greater-growth (from '100%'gogr) was able to produce

greater-actual-growth-in-project (in spite of the lower percentage delivered to

project); then we will be able to increase growth of both 100%gogr and project.

-Greater growth of project does occur even though a lower percentage is

delivered to project because of the much greater overall growth from increasing

the 100%gogr. The greater growth from gogr outweighs the lo!

wer percentage of that growth delivered to project, after a certain amount of

time. After that point in time, both 100%gogr and project experience greater

growth. SO if we gradually increase the proportion of 100%gogr, we cause both

greater growth of project and gogr. We are thus able to respond to increased

intensity in the environment. And we don't have to wait long.

Whereas if we suddenly increase the gogr proportion drastically at the expense

of project-new-growth, then, although a higher growth rate is obtained; that

growth is not shared much with project for a long time, and project growth and

output suffers markedly for a long time.

Thus it's best to do only a short pulse of greater 100%gogr and then bring it

back to normal. Once greater growth is produced from this pulse, it gives us

something to work with, to then gradually increase 100%gogr.

 

INCREASING GOGR TOO FAST, INSTEAD OF TOO SLOW, AS THE WAY TO

SLOW OUR PROJECT'S GROWTH.

This is extremely important: All through this paper, I have implied that

the way we slow our (project) growth rate and relax, is to do a greater

proportion of project (down to the minimum gogr proportion). However, a better

way to slow our project growth rate, is by doing TOO MUCH gogr.

The idea has been to gradually increase the gogr proportion in order to

speed up. There is an optimal rate of increasing-the-gogr-proportion that

causes growth of both project and gogr. If we deviate either above or below

this; the growth of project suffers. Now, if we deviate by increasing the

gogr-proportion too fast, we end up with a lot of gogr as the byproduct of

slowing the project growth. While if we deviate by doing greater project

proportion, we not only cut down the growth of project; we also cut down the

growth-of-growth-resources. (With the doing of too much gogr, we have an excess

supply of gogr to show for our efforts.) These extra gogr can grow unregulated

and bridge barriers within us. (There are two ways to relax and slow our

project growth).

 

WE INCLUDE EVERY EXISTING NON-EVIL THING IN OUR INCREASE SO

AS TO BE AT HIGH CAPABILITY (AT ALL ANGLES), AND THUS OUT OF

REDUCED CAPABILITY.

An important action secondary only to the balance of gogr-to-project, is

that we spread our growth-of-growth-resources, to ALL good things; when an

interest in one-good-thing motivates us. When an interest in one-good-thing

motivates us to do more of that thing; we then increase all good things as our

response. We spread the increase to all good things. Since gogr is the source

of growth-and-increase; if we 'spread' gogr evenly to all good things, we will

cause even growth of all things.

The reason we increase all good things when we want one good thing, is to

avoid the trap of evil. Including all good things (in our increase), keeps us

at high capability, (and we also enjoy what we wanted). But if we just increase

the one good thing we want and leave the other good things behind; we set

ourselves up for being at reduced capability at some angles/situations.* The

trap of evil, IS being at reduced capability. So we include all good things to

avoid the trap of evil, and stay at high capability. This is implemented by the

'spreading project' which will be discussed shortly.

* A good thing is a good thing because it helps us out. And we can

use all the help we

can get in staying at high capability.

IMPORTANT: A MAJOR REASON WHY UNEVEN GROWTH DELIVERS US

TO REDUCED CAPABILITY:

›The growth of one good thing way above the others, results in greater

production of that thing, but also great needs (by this large good thing), for

other INTERRELATED good things; which the other, lesser, good things are hard

pressed to supply due to their smaller size. This is the major cause of the

reduced capability I speak of from growing just one good thing above the others.

You see, there is a good degree of interdependence, where each depends on other

related and surrounding good things. And if the related items aren't similar in

size, then interrelated supplies and needs of these things don't match;

resulting in local shortages and oversupplies; the shortages bringing the whole

system to reduced capability. So, we're reluctant to tap into the tremendous

growth potential of gogr unless we know what to set the gogr at for uniform

growth of ALL non-evil things.›

 

ALL GOOD THINGS ARE INCREASED EQUALLY, IRREGARDLESS OF HOW

WELL WE KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THEM OR ARE INTERESTED IN THEM, SO

AS TO AVOID UNEVEN GROWTH.

With doing everything, we don't need to understand or know what something

is in order to do it: we do it without knowing (except to know it is non evil).

When there is a good thing that we do know what it is; then that's all the more

reason to do it. thus we don't hold up our growth be requiring ourselves to

understand, as we would if we only grew what benefited us.

There are two groups of non evil good things: -the type we know about and

understand; -and the type we don't know about other than that something is

there. If we are to increase every good thing, we include both groups (and thus

take advantage of their interrelatedness even before we understand it). But if

something doesn't exist; we aren't bound to increase something that's not there.

 

OUR MOST INTERESTING GOOD THING DETERMINES HOW FAST WE

INCREASE. STILL, WE INCREASE ALL GOOD THINGS EQUALLY.

When we're enjoying one good thing, and have and interest in it, we don't

think about increasing other good things outside our area of interest. But what

I want to say, is that it doesn't hurt to increase everything. Our specific

interest may have been the reason motivating our increase-of-everything (non

evil). And our increase-of-everything may be to satisfy a need in just one

area. But that's OK.

The reason we do equal growth of all good things; is because we choose not

to leave almost everything behind, just because we are interested in one good

thing. Why should we make it unnecessarily difficult for us in pursuing one of

our good things? We choose otherwise.

"They" keep asking us to cut back again and again. And the idea is to get by

with the bare minimum. But a good thing is a good thing because it helps us

along. Why should we give up something just because we can get by without it in

some situations? Why should we keep trying to prove the bare minimum? Going

with the bare minimum when we don't have to, is operating at reduced capability.

And being at reduced capability is the trap of evil.

There are times when our interest level is low; when we're not doing much

of anything; when even our fun things are low. Since we aren't doing much that

interests us, we also don't do much uninteresting work good things; in our equal

increase of all good things. Our low interest will mean that we won't fill

quotas of growth that may be expected of us. But the thing is that even when we

disobey those who would have us do all work and no play; or even when we don't

fill the quota: we won't feel guilt or worry or pain in going our way, because

our way is still balanced and even. With no pain to deter us, or to indicate

that our way is the wrong way; then we'll leave these other ways behind and go

with ourselves. Our way will diverge from the taskmaster's way and we shall not

meet each other again.

 

THE MERE EXISTENCE OF QUOTAS OF GROWTH THAT ARE REQUIRED TO

BE FILLED, INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF EVIL.

When the force of good and evil are together, the force of good is forced

to produce enough just to keep up with what the force of evil destroys. Because

the presence of evil requires that a certain amount of growth be produced in a

certain time, (to make up for what's destroyed): the existence of a

structure-and-system with growth requirements and a boss who is adamant that

these requirements be met; is an indicator that evil is present and is behind

this.

Now, there may be necessary evils that we're under because we're caught in the

trap of reduced capability; but we shouldn't mindlessly fill these growth

requirements and call the job done; but should act to escape or cast out these

evils. If we've chosen against evil; then filling the growth requirements isn't

so much what we should do: Casting out the evil is what we need to do.

So the mere presence of somebody standing over you bugging you to get done

faster, indicates there's evil out there wasting growth, and that growth from

you is needed to replace what evil has destroyed. So why put up with the

hassle? The result is the same to do nothing. It's better to pass the time as

dead (if the evil would kill you for not producing to feed it) where you'd not

feel the passage of time; instead of spending an eternity in drudgery.

Attempting growths before you're ready, causes you to do necessary evils to

obtain these growths on time; thus eventually putting you at reduced capability

and in the trap of evil.

Don't participate in growth that is forced, because it causes you to do

necessary evils.

 

 

MOST EVIL IS FROM WITHIN.

A large part of our problem with evil, is within us. Without food, our

bodies consume themselves and kill us. We have biological drives and instincts,

needs, reinforced by evolution, to reproduce the species. (If we didn't have

these drives, we wouldn't reproduce, and our species would die off.) We don't

feel complete unless we are fulfilling these drives. Thus our bodies may have

evolved to deny us piece of mind or other things our bodies need until we

fulfill these needs. (Once fulfilled, we get back what our bodies were capable

of without the interference.)

So; when we're motivated to cast out evil; there's a lot to be gained in casting

out all evil, especially that which is within us. Because if our attention is

activated to cast out an external evil, we may overlook casting out our large

internal evil; and it will then step in and smother us. This is why the men

working on the chain gang feel punished, because in their attempt to deal with

the large amount of external evil they put up with, they neglect their internal

evils, and their internal evils then consume them. We can avoid this pain and

overcome the tactics of correctional institutions of the movies (and perhaps

reality), by increasing our casting out of all evil when motivated to cast out

any particular evil. (Of course we also do temporarily, initially, cast out the

particular evil.)

A dangerous and insidious evil to cast out, is not including sleep in our

gogr; or leaving some other component out of gogr (since it is so repetitive and

small mistakes are amplified).

 

When casting out an evil, it's important we do so right away, as fast as we

can, so as to minimize the destruction evil could cause. If we wait around, the

evil might destroy us or our growth engine, and we could no longer cast out the

evil.

 

FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET LONG TERM INCREASES IN OUR PROJECT

OUTPUT RIGHT AWAY: WE USE THE BEST OF THE INDIRECT AND THE

DIRECT METHODS; AND WE DEPEND ON ACTIONS WE ESTABLISH EARLY

ON. (OUR 'COMBINED METHOD'.)

As we recall, our indirect method of increasing our gogr proportion works

quite well in the long run to deliver increased growth of both gogr and project.

But in the short run (initially); our indirect method has an initial shortage of

project output.

To remedy this, we could do increased project for an (initial and) immediate

increase in project output; but this would lower our growth rate and reduce both

gogr and project in the long run. Still, we'd have obtained immediate response

to our environment without delay, with this direct method. Now, we could try to

include the best of both methods. This is just what we do in our casting out of

the urgent evil.

We have devised our 'combined' method of responding against urgent evil:

In this, we first do more project (but not so much as to put us in

overextension). This gives an initial boost in project output, followed by a

decline. (This boost is just what we need to respond immediately against the

evil.) Next we gradually increase our gogr proportion until the evil is all

cast out. -(This further aggravates a shortage of new project (that follows the

initial boost).)

I state that during this period of shortage, we depend on what we established in

the initial boost. The thing is that our initial project against the evil, has

established a casting-out-evil action. And we depend on that to protect us

until we get our growth rate up, in the long run.

I wish to add that we should gear our initial response to be all inclusive, and

at the maximum output our environment will allow. We do this because we'll be

fairly unable to respond to new changes in the environment. By this technique

of just producing the maximum output we can, we bridge this time where we're

unresponsive to changes in the environment, with no losses.

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF CASTING OUT ALL POSSIBLE EVIL IN A BROAD

ACTION.

Another problem that ties right in with this, is in the

casting-out-evil-project itself. When we cast out evil, we can act to cast out

all conceivable evil; or just what evil is bothering us at present. Only the

evil bothering us at present is of immediate concern to us. But if we only

respond against the evil of our present moment; then evil can change its attack,

and each change will bring another urgent need for us to respond. But if we act

to cast out all evil, then we will be prepared, and will not be under such an

urgent need to respond.

If we include some casting out of all possible evil, then evil's changing

attacks won't be so urgent. This is the thing: Because it's not so urgent, we

need not lower our growth rate to respond immediately. We can then do our

indirect method (of a greater gogr proportion) with its higher growth rate.

This gives us time to cast-out-all-evils; (and allows us to use the indirect

method (of greater gogr) to produce it).

 

WE NEED A BALANCE BETWEEN CASTING OUT ALL EVIL, AND CASTING

OUT THE PARTICULAR EVIL.

When evil steps up its attack, I have said we respond by increasing our

casting out of all evil. But we could respond much faster if we just cast out

the particular evil, instead of spreading our resources this with casting out

all possible evils. If the threat of the new evil is urgent, it behooves us to

respond against it quickly so it won't destroy our growth. Here again we have a

balancing of the need for urgency, with the need for growth.

So we also cast out the particular evil in the beginning, because it offers

immediate protection of our growth (-deals with the urgency of the situation).

But we don't continue to focus on casting out the particular evil. Once the

urgency is dealt with; the best plan for maximum growth, is to move toward

casting out all evils. With subsequent attacks from evil, we do much less

casting out the particular evil, (because we're already responding against the

new evils with our growing casting out all evils). This allows us to keep

increasing our growth rate.

›-At the same time, we are gradually increasing the gogr-proportion, over the

proportion of every casting-out-evil-project so as to increase our growth rate.›

All these actions represent emphases on growth/increasing our growth rate.

 

CASTING OUT ALL EVILS RELIEVES US OF HAVING TO SECOND GUESS

EVIL'S NEXT MOVE.

If we prefer to cast out only the particular evil effecting us at our

present moment, then it helps to be very smart. We must be able to predict the

changes in evil before they happen, to give us time to change our response. If

we predict incorrectly, then we won't be prepared for the new evil, and a sense

of urgency will force us to lower our growth rate to respond immediately. So,

if we don't know everything, we can respond against evil with a blanket action

to cast out all evil.

 

INTRODUCING SOME INTRICACIES IN THE SPREADING PROJECT (THE

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SPREADING).

There are two concepts of importance in the practice of these writings. In

a condensed version of these writings, are these two concepts:

The first is:

It is important to have a balance between gogr vs. project. It's important

to have both project and gogr. Gogr provides the growth, and project provides

the specific action needed for the specific situation. Both the project and the

gogr are needed to make a functional unit. Without project, the growth from

gogr isn't able to get out into other areas, (other than gogr).

Without gogr, there's no growth to share with project to grow the project.

(Our-interests-in-good-things, and, our-casting-out-evil, determine what our

growth rate will be.) When we want to grow faster, we just gradually increase

the proportion of gogr.

 

The second concept of importance, is:

-To spread the decided gogr-vs-project proportion to all things (so all

things grow evenly). There's a special part of this spreading to all things,

that gets us started. 'Spreading', includes the spreading of gogr to this

spreading project itself (internal spreading).

We need both the spreading-project, and the regulation-of-gogr-to-project, to

have a functional unit.

 

THE SPREADING PROJECT IS THE COMMON MIND

There's a connection I want to make. Earlier, we explored the concept of

individuality, and proposed a balanced-intermediate-focus system to deal with

it. All the specifics of each thing, existed in separate compartments or focus

units. To coordinate them, a common mind was proposed, which contained an

abbreviated representation of all the focus units. Well, lo and behold; the

spreading project (plus its regulation), is the common mind. The spreading

project contacts and coordinates all the other things, just like the common

mind.

 

A CORRECTION OF MY IDEAS ON GOGR:

There is this idea we should apply our growth-resources to grow more

growth-resources, as opposed to growing project, when we want/need more. This

is our indirect method of obtaining more by indirectly investing in growth

resources instead of project. But this concept of gogr vs. project assumes

certain actions produce life/recouces better than other actions (with the

producers being gogr and the consumers being project). But with everything

being interrelated, it seems like you're going to have at least a little of

every non-evil-action (or that you can have them) in the production of life and

growth-resources. Just what are growth resources and the growth of growth

resources? That needs to be defined for this to make more sence and not be so

overly general it can mean just about anything. With everything being

interrelated, how do we decide what is project vs what is growth resources?

Even so, I feel the concept of a direct method vs an indirect method is still a

valid concept. An example would be: like, do you (use your resources to) give a

man a fish; or to give him a fishing pole? One method is a direct method for

using resources to satisfy a need. The other is an indirect, investing type, of

method.

But even though this concept still has validity, I wish to correct an error in

my presentation of it; and also to suggest that unbalanced growth or narrowly

focused growth unto overextension is not the only problem or even the worst

problem; but that keeping our force-of-growth active/alive, is.

When we're growing as a force of good will do, we increase capabilities and

life. In time, those capabilities do increase capability of their own. And

then even those capabilities eventually also become forces of good and then

increase capabililties of their own. etc. But before something can be a force

of good, it usually has to go through an intermediate stage where it is just

neutral capability, until the time it is increased enough to be capable of

increasing capability on its own.

If we apply the concept of growth resources vs. project to this situation, we

see that the intermediate stage where neutral capability is increased, produces

no growth resources at this time. It is thus a PROJECT. Even so, this is an

indirect method of investment because in time, the neutral capability will

produce resources, even though it now produces none. The correction is that

to enact our indirect investment method of gogr, that we do 'project' to enact

it. Project itself is the indirect method of gogr. Who is to say that the

"project actions" and narrowly focused growth we do today will not someday

become part of a force of growth that produces resources at some later date?

I guess, the idea for growth of growth resources vs project, comes from the

concept of work vs. consumption. The actions we do in our work, produce

resources, while when we spend our hard earned money, we consume resources.

Additonally, a parallel can be drawn to actions which generate the resources of

life vs actions which consume the resources of life. But with all non evil

actions being interrelated, this concept is invalidated to a degree, as each non

evil action has need of all the others and also supplies itself to all the

others' need for it. Of course, some actions are needed in greater proportion

than others.

 

What we're talking about, is the force of growth. As we grow and

experience growth; and as we become of higher capability, we begin to run out of

improvements to make. Thus the active existance of our force of growth is

threatened after we've become of higher capability. But remember, the advantage

to the force of growth is that with its high capability, it can cross barriers

and find more areas in need of improvement (or low levels), so that it can

continue improving and continue to actively exist forever. However: if a person

just sat on their high capability and didn't use it to seek out low levels, then

their force of growth would cease to actively exist. It would die and they

would become a high level neutral capability.

What if the active-force-of-growth was our life blood and is what gives us

life; represents our relationship with God or our soul; and that God is

interested in protecting this in us; and is the action that represents growth of

growth resources where every other action is project that consumes resources?

But wait. Overextension alert: There is yet another action we need and that

can be called part of the actions of life. The problem is: If our high

capability is always seeking out the lowest levels and delivering resources to

them and otherwise increasing them, then there will begin to accumulate a lot of

this slightly above low capability material; which will begin to overgrow the

high capability. If the high capability is always busy growing the low

capability, then how is more high capability produced? Only the high capability

is best suited to produce more of itself. But if it's always busy making more

and more of this slightly above low capability material, it!

won't have time to turn some of that material to high capability. You see, the

greatest force of growth is found with increasing these low levels; and not as

much with increasing further to high capability. And if growth is the only

factor and the high capability sticks to producing more and more of this

slightly above low capability material (for the maximum growth); then that ever

growing material will begin to overgrow and overwhelm the high capability and

become unmanageable. After the high capability is bogged down, the force of

evil will pick off further increases of this material and a stagnation will set

in. What's needed in addition to an active force of growth in the low levels,

is to take some of this slightly above low capability material and increase it

even more, unto high capability, so there'll also be enough high capability

material to manage/protect all the slightly above low capability material. Of

course there's not as much active force of growth from!

doing this. So there's a tradeoff between these two directives. How do we do

them? Remember our analysis of gogr and project, and that we discovered

'gradual is best'? Let's revisit the analogy of the fish and the fishing poles.

The giving of fish represents helping the low levels, which is a staple: and the

fishing pole represents the creation of high capability. The man depends on the

fish to survive; so that if we abruptly stopped giving any fish and used all the

resoures instead to make fishing poles; the man would starve to death before we

got the fishing pole working to catch fish at a later date. But if we gradually

used some of the resources intended for fish, instead to support a small

production of fishing pole, the man would survive the time lag and would now

have a fishing pole. Granted, it would be smaller than in the abrupt example,

but the man would still be alive to use it. So the key here is 'be gradual'

when balancing the needs of two competing dir!

ectives. Being gradual means splitting the resources and only devoting a small

proportion of the resources at first, in the direction of change. In our case

of increasing the low levels vs increasing high capability, we mainly use our

high capability to actively seek out the low levels and increase them. This

increasing the low levels is our life blood and keeps our force of growth

actively alive. A small part however, we devote to enjoying to high capability

and producing more high capability. When the newly produced high caapbility is

able to act, it too then joins the current proportion where much is used to seek

and help low levels, while a small proportion increases the high capability.

(and so on and so on).

Now, the small part of the high capability that increases high capability and is

full of pleasure; does not have to be the same material over time. In order

that all the high capability gets a taste of this, we can rotate this 'duty'

(gradually) over the whole body of high capability. At any one time, only a

small proportion of the high capability is doing this, and it is not the same

material over time due to the rotation. Now, this rotation can take different

forms. If the high capability goal is easily obtainable with no time limits,

then the whole high capability area can participate in the rotation. But if

obtaining the high capability is difficult or time limited, then 2 small

segments (of the original high capability area) can be selected for alternating

between them, as if they were taking 'steps'. Even in the 'steps' rotation,

both directives are represented. Yet, a more revolving rotation, while limiting

the material in that rotation, is better.

Yes, we can have multiple rotations, each with varying degrees, types of

limitings of the material involved. ( Also include the overall rotation

-includes all the high capability.)

Note that every person has an area of them that we cannot see, feel, or be

benefitted from helping it, (that they have yet to grow into). It is this

void-space that our high capability seeks out to increase it without receiving

benefit or pleasure in return, so as to keep actively alive, our force of good.

-(our active force of good being threatened by our being at high capability due

to less room for improvement in us). We always have this helping all people's

low level (including our own), and this is our link and oneness to all people.

Note: when part of you is experiencing (much) pleasure, that the low level (non

beneficial, non pleasurable) part of yourself will be more difficult to find and

more difficult to see than the low levels of everyone else. But with the high

capability your pleasure brings, you will be able to find it. Just remember to

use your pleasure and high capability to do that and to seek it out, (of all

people -including yourself).

(In the project vs. gogr concept; we can say that the staple of helping the

low levels, is gogr; while increasing-to-high-capability, is project. This

'project' is our indirect, investment action which although can only be done in

limited amount; and must alter from its path to make good; still IS our indirect

method.)

 

There is a potential problem with concentrating pleasure on any one thing.

-Actually, there are several problems (such as the unbalanced growth and

unmatched supplies and needs of interrelated things). When pleasure and life

are concentrated into a small place, things become more capable and of higher

capability. There is a potential problem with high capability. When things get

to be so capable in an area, no more improvements can be made. And if no more

improvements are made, then active existence of the force of growth ceases.

Remember that the fogoHC IS growth. It is important that the force of growth

not die. And we are in peril of that anywhere improvements to be made, become

in short supply (that is where things become of high capability). We have

already discussed that this is the advantage of the force of growth. -That the

high capability and life of the situation, allows the force of good to cross

barriers and find lower levels and areas where improvem!

ents can be made. Thus the force of growth need never cease. However, if the

high capability, life, and pleasure of a pumped up area fails to reach out and

find lower capability areas, increase their capability and deliver resources to

them; then the force of growth WILL cease. This is the potential pitfall of

high capability and feeling good in general; and of human sexuality. But only

if that high capability failed to get busy and seek out the lower levels, would

the active force of good die here.

The people we see each day in a loving family structure, seem to be more real

than all the people we don't see or know. But EACH person has an area of them

where they cannot see well or feel, where they have yet to grow into, where they

do not benefit or derive pleasure from. These are a person's low levels, that

have plenty of room for improvement. But the concentration of pleasure, life,

or just stimulation of ones senses; into a small area (where we see and

interrelate with them every day), can blind us to be unaware of their own (or

other's) low level's existance. And if one doesn't seek out low levels (their

own and others), due to being unaware of them, due to interests and being

absorbed on the area of focus; then their active force of growth will cease here

when it didn't have to.

Note: we need to be open to increasing everyone's low levels in even proportion,

if we're able. This definitely includes ourself and our mate and family, but

isn't exclusive to that but also includes all others. Since we derive no

passion or benefit from increasing low levels; we have no resistance to

(re)distributing that increase to all people's low levels.

This stuff is also the problem with people becomming wealthy if they don't use

that wealth to reach out and help others who are lower. It's not that we must

find others who are lower; its just that that's where most of the improvements

needing to be made are found; and which would keep our active force of good

alive best. Otherwise their active force of good dies when it didn't have to.

And God, who is a force of growth Himself, is not pleased by the result.

Sexuality and riches can be a danger and a threat to our force of growth which

is our very soul (or relatonship with God). But now that we have seen a way

around the dangers, we can allow them. Note that I wish to re emphasize the

equally important balance with enjoying our high capability and pleasures (in a

smaller proportion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 7

"3rd Party Rewards, Expectations, Jobs, Private Ownership, our Economic System:

as related

to the concept of reduced capability"

 

 

THE DENIAL OF ACCESS: A BAD CYCLE.

When we're denied access to things and even parts of ourselves, we think we

must earn ownership to get these things back. But ownership and property (which

we seek to join the system thereof, to get our goods back); is to deny (others)

access to things (just as we were initially denied access to things). We all

try to deny each other access to the available resources, hoping we'll be the

one left standing to receive them: and we waste much effort in this; resulting

in reduced capability. (Denying others access to good things isn't very

constructive.)

To gain lost access we need to cast out ownership. Ownership and property is

the denial of access; so if we cast this out we'll no longer be denied access to

the things we need.

 

THIRD PARTY REWARDS LINK MANY ACTIONS TOGETHER, THUS OFTEN

INTERFERING WITH THE SEPARATION OF FORCES (OF GOOD FROM

EVIL).

Competition with (against) one another may provide for greater individual

achievement; but prevents us from accomplishing what we could as a group:

(cooperating with and caring for one another).

(›Large groups, however, are easily infected by (someone) evil.›)

But a problem with competition is in the artificial motivation vs the

natural motivation. It's the 3rd party rewards vs the inherent effects of

performing the action. Every action can have both a natural and an artificial

meaning: The natural meaning, is: the effects and results of that action,

standing on its own.

The artificial meaning, is: the relationship that action has to living, capable

3rd parties (who will reward or punish for doing that action; and what are the

rewards or punishments).

It is the 3rd party rewards for doing an action vs the inherent effects

(rewards) of doing an action. Like working for the money instead of for what

the work itself produces.

The problem with 3rd party rewards, is that they lump the effects or rewards of

a number of actions together, so evil has a force of good to feed on. With 3rd

party rewards, it takes longer for an evil act to die out. This is because

rewards are mainly good and cause growth; whereas the action done to get the

reward may be destructive. If destructive, it has a good (the reward) to feed

on, thus the evil doesn't burn itself out! The 3rd party reward system; -the

money system: has inherently in it, the sloshing together of both good and evil;

thus allowing evil to feed on the good indefinitely. Good and evil don't tell

themselves apart here; so we need a 3rd party to tell us what's good or evil.

Now, with the natural meaning, -the inherent effects (rewards) of an action;

there is immediate feedback: The action is separate from the rewards of all

other actions, (and cannot feed on them). The action is separate, and if evil;

quickly burns itself out. -Following the inherent-motivations for doing

actions, is thus a good way to enact separation: so the good can grow, and the

evil disappear. (When the forces are separate; good grows, while evil consumes

itself. So good and evil tell THEMSELVES apart here: needing no 3rd party to do

so for them here.)

Now just because a 3rd party(,) rewards for doing an action, doesn't eliminate

the natural/inherent effects of doing that action. However 3rd party rewards

are constantly changing; and beyond the scope of the 3rd party, aren't there at

all.

When separation is enacted, all things are separate, both good and evil.

The good things grow; bridge the separation; and come together to form a good

group. But that which is evil does not grow. It doesn't bridge the separation,

and doesn't infect the group. This is a recipe for creating an all-good-group,

seeing how large groups are vulnerable to infiltration by evil. Thus we can

attain the difficult goal of creating a large group devoted to goodness, and

enjoy the benefits of such.

 

THE CONDITIONAL, 3RD PARTY, REWARD SYSTEMS FALL SHORT OF

INCREASING ALL (NON EVIL) THINGS. THEY THUS SENTENCE US TO

REDUCED CAPABILITY.

We do not leave good things behind in our growth. We thus keep ourselves

at high capability above reduced capability, and avoid

having-to-do-necessary-evils-to-survive. We grow ALL good things and ALL non

evil things. We increase things that don't interest us. We increase good

things and good people even though we don't receive payment in return. Even if

it isn't soon profitable, we still increase all good things. (We do this

because all good things are interrelated and interdependent. We do it to be at

high capability, out of reduced capability / the trap of evil.)

Haven't we heard this message before? Isn't this the unconditional love given

even when we don't deserve it? Isn't this the message of church and religious

broadcasts; of the Bible and Jesus? -To be good to those who can't pay us back

and give to the poor; to love not only those who'll love us back, but to love

our neighbors, the poor, our enemies? (Note that the act of loving people

doesn't harm us, even when those people are enemies. -We have a way to cast out

evil, and we can do that.)

This is the idea: to spread our love-and-increase to ALL non evil things. (The

things that interest us, do set our pace (at which we increase everything).

Interest is generated by our doing a thing: -and what a marvelous way of

obtaining new interests this is.)

›This isn't written against we at reduced capability, struggling. These cannot

afford to do extra work projects so they'll be doing everything. Oops, this

doesn't apply. The increase of all things is only upon what exists (evil free

in us), not on what we've yet to grow into.›

The question of evil must be dealt with. We don't increase destructive

things. And we must first get out of reduced capability for 'the doing all

things' to keep us at high capability. Doing-all-things in reduced capability

may help us get out of reduced capability; but not necessarily so.

 

(REWARD SYSTEM:)

The lukewarm money system links the growth of many good things together;

but stops short of linking all good things. It's not enough. (The many actions

required to earn the money, are linked together: with themselves, and with the

action to spend the money / receive services of others (thus allowing evil a

reward to feed on).) Yet this doesn't allow us to increase all good things just

because they exist. If something exists, but lacks money or some way to pay us

back; we deny it our growth and increase. The money system thus falls short of

the increase of ALL good things. Just because something is a good thing; and

just because it exists: these are reasons enough for us to do and increase them

(because we and they are all interrelated). If we deny someone a service that

we freely provide to those who pay; then we've chosen to limit our

increase-of-things, to less than all good things. This results in our whole

society being at reduced capability and being caught !

in the trap of evil. We are all interrelated; and the destruction from reduced

capability will eventually find us if we don't deal with all the reduced

capability out there. If we refuse our good thing to those at reduced

capability, we will perpetuate reduced capability (when we could have done

something about it), so we will have less 'life', and we will be at reduced

capability, unable to buy and increase everything good.

 

GROWTH FREE FROM EVIL IS MUCH PREFERRED OVER GROWTH WITH

EVIL.

The idea of increase-in-capability and growth, is pretty important. It's

what forces of good are; and what the fogoHC is. So, anything that has growth

is better than other things, right? No. Just because growth-and-increase is

there, doesn't mean it is to be accepted. Many growths are accompanied by

decreases (in other areas). Here the force of destruction is not alone. -It

has the growth to feed it. This is the worst possible situation because the

evil persists indefinitely. We have to be more specific: Only increases free

from evil are worthwhile.

 

PROGRAM OF EXPECTATIONS SHOWN TO BE GROWTH-ACCOMPANIED-BY-

EVIL, BECAUSE IT FORCES US TO OPERATE AT REDUCED CAPABILITY:

WITH REDUCED-CAPABILITY'S ACCOMPANYING NECESSARY EVILS. IT

IS THUS TO BE AVOIDED, AND REPLACED WITH EVIL FREE GROWTH.

Let's look at growth-and-increase more closely. The idea of increase means

there's always something needing improvement. To increase and grow, means

you're better now than before. If better now than before: then before, you were

lacking in some area(s); and now you're not lacking. Well, if you're always

going to be growing; then there's always going to be areas (parts of you), that

can be seen as lacking. (Is the glass half full or half empty?) So in your

eternal growth; don't let it be a pain in the butt (that is, growth at reduced

capability / the trap of evil), but an enjoyable experience (evil free growth at

high capability); because you'll never be finished growing. The concept of

being able to satisfy expectations is a myth; because with growth, you're always

one step away from not living up to expectations. So, don't let expectations

from others pull you through growth. Reduced capability, the trap of evil is

what growth pulled by expectations is.)

When certain growths are required of you, and your superiors are constantly

pointing out areas that you're lacking in: this refers to your growth. I want

to make this point, that what is being dealt with here, is your growth (and

increase). Being your growth, it is something sacred. (The fogoHC is made of

growth). It must be done free from evil. Otherwise it is a force of good

together with evil. And the fogoHC won't have this (without your continued

choice for it).

Maybe what is sought, is the commodity of evil. And the only way it can be had

in the presence of a fogoHC, is through as many people who can be coerced's

choice.

Yes, growth in all (non evil) areas is to be accepted. But the type of growth

must be determined free from evil. And since the ability to grow in certain

areas (free from accompanying decreases), depends on your own level of

capability; then some growths must be put off until YOU are ready. The growths

must wait for you; not the other way around. Being at reduced capability means

not being able to do some growths. ((like before you have received the nurture

of the reward.))

So, just because others point out areas where you're lacking; is no reason to

try to fill these areas!

So, when you don't achieve what's expected of you, and don't right away

fill what has been pointed out to you as lacking; then (you put yourself in for

punishment and discipline and) you're not a force of good in this aspect. But

you've eliminated the doing of good and evil together. It's important to not

choose good and evil together ›(unless it is already: unavoidably together

either way/ at reduced capability / in an essential). (Separation of the forces

is the desired end result in any case.)›

If you have growth outside the program of expectations, then the enactment of

punishment is the forces of good and destruction together; just as the growth

laden with evil is. But the forces are more easily separated under punishment:

as they're represented by two separate people -the punished and the punisher.

While the growth laden with evil has inherently in it; both good and evil in the

same action, where the forces are more closely knit together and are more

difficult to separate. So, the path to go is to risk the punishment because you

have a better chance of separating the forces, even at your low capability.

-Makes it easier on the fogoHC too. Realize that you do nothing destructive in

failing at their expectations.

 

You have a decision to make: -the program of expectations and 3rd party

rewards; vs the natural-meaning-of-things; as to what you'll have nurture you.

What I want to concentrate on here, is what is alive. It takes well nurtured,

high capability life to achieve evil-free growth, and the growth required of

you. And if you choose 3rd party rewards; what nurtures your life, is the stamp

of approval by 3rd parties. But that approval is always lacking before the

growth is done. (Since you're always growing, there are always areas of you

which at present are lacking.)

At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from you; and you don't have

the nurturing 3rd party reward for/from this as of yet. You now find yourself

expected to grow at reduced capability -without the very nurture you need (have

acquired a need for) to nurture you(r life). With less life, and at reduced

capability, you produce less than adequate growth; (or you do necessary evils to

obtain it. Those necessary evils collectively accumulate and cause ultimate

failure to grow overall.) You thus do not receive reward or approval. Your

counselor or boss bitch at you for not producing. If at this point you still

depend on 3rd party rewards / acceptance to nurture you life; then you're going

through a terrific withdrawal symptom. (My advice, is to 'just say no' (to the

drug of 3rd party rewards).) And if you continue placing such value on

receiving 3rd party rewards/approval then there's only a downward spiral of

REDUCED CAPABILITY to follow. ›At reduced capability!

, the good in you separates from this evil system.›

 

Let's look at an alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of

(good) things to nurture your life; what's important isn't the inanimate

objects/skills you can possess, doing things on your own, outside a program of

expectations. No, it's the high life you can join with (that is the fogoHC).

And from this abundant life comes abundant growth.

Just because there's abundant life and growth, doesn't mean a thing if it's

infected by decrease/destruction. But fogoHC life, IS free and separate from

evil/destruction.

Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so

you can do evil-free growth. The unconditional love/ acceptance/ nurture of the

fogoHC, eliminates the need for the necessary evils of reduced capability. It

allows you to do evil-free growth, (instead of forced growth at reduced

capability, where you'd allow harm in your ways to achieve the same growth);

thus freeing you from the trap of evil.

The downward spiral of decrease described in the first example, is separated

away, because it is a decrease of life: And is why we cannot join with the

fogoHC and also participate in the cycle of 3rd party rewards. They aren't on

the same side of the separation done by the fogoHC. "You cannot serve both God

and mammon." "Money is the root of all evil." There's nothing wrong with being

accepted / rewarded by 3rd parties. But the choice to depend on it for your

strength, nurture and self esteem; is a mistake, as it will desert you when you

need it most. Money is cast out, not the good things money often buys.

P.S. When you're worried about amounting to something outside a program of

expectations, consider this: Once you are joined with the fogoHC, you're

already there. Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality. The

more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make. The only

thing keeping you from success, is the absence of joining with the fogoHC. It

may not look like you've succeeded, but the fogoHC will have changed the

realities here; so that in reality, you truly will have succeeded. -The fogoHC

can make wondrous things with whatever meager things you bring Him, (as soon as

your will is moved out of most of the area). But the diplomas, plaques, status

and position aren't enough to stake out your success. There will always be

areas you're inadequate in, that you'll need to grow into to maintain your

success. You'll never be successful at achieving the goal of success, putting

it behind you. -since you're always growing. (So why was!

te your life trying?). Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because the

growth is evil-free at high capability (and we can enjoy the results of that).

The unconditional love and acceptance of the fogoHC, nurtures your life and puts

you at high capability; so you can do evil-free growth: eliminating the need for

necessary evils: freeing you from the trap of evil. (Why spend your life

wallowing around in something you don't have to be trapped in? -especially if

you choose against the system of good and evil together, and the trap of evil.)

Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You've already

succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is

a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now

love!

 

Just what is life and the energy that is life? -Complex miracle of

electrical discharges (plus even more).

Someone who makes us feel bad, destroys part of this elusive thing we call life.

If we do not succeed in our quest to enjoy life: -Without being truly

alive, there's no way to enjoy what we produce. It's like dressing up a pet

rock and treating it to the finest food, entertainment and accommodations. The

rock draws no enjoyment from these activities. And bosses don't spend time

threatening rocks they'll loose their job if they don't do better. The pinch

point is ourselves and how alive we are. So let's work on improving the things

that matter: improving life, and finding better alternatives to the pain

balance, and the system of stagnation of good and evil.

When someone makes you feel inadequate in an area; they dispute the fogoHC

has transformed you. -The capability that is you, is present without the

fogoHC. Thus your existence here without a fogoHC makes you a freak event.

You're out of place. I'm sure you'd love to fill all of these requirements you

lack; do what you're told; and appease your mentor. But this would require you

to stay and be part of this system. In this situation without a fogoHC, you

need foremost to create the fogoHC. The situation is much worse than reported.

Not only do you need to fill all what you lack; you need to create a fogoHC.

But since this is such a long shot, a slow and difficult process, it doesn't

mater if you take it easy or hard. You don't depend on yourself being

successful (because that probably won't happen -due to the difficulty of the

assignment); but you depend on the probability that someone will succeed out of

all who try; mainly due to luck and randomness. Thus, if y!

ou have a good opportunity; seize it: otherwise don't let requirements interrupt

your lifestyle. (Realize that outside of the trap of evil, with the fogoHC's

HC/(evil-free) growth; that all these requirements are at your command, easily.)

Focus on getting out of their trap of evil and creating a fogoHC, not on staying

in their system and trying to fill their requirements; which will be

life-resource consuming and difficult for you in your l.c. situation.

Attempts to fill what you lack (create a fogoHC) within the system won't work

because of the stagnation from the togetherness of good and evil there. Only

random, variable, do it yourself actions outside the system of good and evil, in

these same areas have any chance. So don't bother with requirements (which are

part of the system), in trying to create a fogoHC.

If a problem is so hard that nobody knows the answer, then a controlling

approach, where everybody marches in line and tries the same or similar

attempted solution, is a poor use of resources. Much better would be a random

approach, where individuals in freedom tried many different attempted

solutions. Here, the chances that one would succeed are much better; and all we

need is for one to succeed to save the whole bunch, when it comes to creating a

FogoHC. Well; the power of the group is stronger than that of the

individual, so only as a group we might hope to succeed, right? Well, a group

that empowers its individuals, is much stronger than a group that feeds off them

in a stagnant operation: and the first step in creating such a good group, is

for individuals to escape from stagnant grouping systems.

Now, if there is a fogoHC already, then the claims that you lack, are all

lies. Because the fogoHC in his/her benevolence will have provided; especially

since you have accepted what the fogoHC has to offer. Where man's will acts,

the fogoHC does not interfere, and it appears there exists no fogoHC. Outside

of man's will, is the fogoHC.

Because it is you that the world must come through to effect you; it is a

matter of life contacting life. If your life is not contacted in a positive

way, then what good are these programs? Life contacted in a positive way has

priority. (These programs have no place as the central piece of your life.)

Even if you succeed here, it won't get you life contacting life in a positive

way. You won't be one inch closer to achieving that. Since you're a life, this

involves you in a personal way. You'd be left unsatisfied. The work of

accomplishing life-contacting-life-in-a-positive-way would be left undone. You

might as well sit around and do nothing!

The question isn't whether we accept just any group (the only group

available to us) -for the advantages of being in a group, vs, go it on our own:

but what group should we join? -One that practices growth free from evil as

much as possible, hopefully.

If we're all pretty much basically kind and generous; what's so terrible

about letting us do what we want? Why must we most all be told what to do?

(And the gentler we get, the more we are bossed around?) Just because everybody

is bossed around doesn't make it good.

We have minds to think and things we want to do. We don't need a boss to tell

us what to do to make us capable of doing something. We do need to get together

to inform each other, communicate, and cooperate; but this isn't often possible

when communication is reduced to order giving and order following and bitch

bitch bitch. The only reason we'd need to do what we're told, is if doing what

we wanted and understood; tormented and frustrated us, imbalanced us, destroyed

us. If this is the case (if we're incapable of enjoying life), what's the sense

of working hard, doing what you're told, obeying rules, or making a fortune?

You'll never get to enjoy any of it. Why work on producing meaningless things

while neglecting the work of improving life and our enjoyment of life, which

would make these things meaningful?

In a quest to become self sufficient, there's one area I've been successful at.

In the area of rules, I've been able to extract my own (from the existing

natural, inherent laws made by no man), and haven't needed to depend on the

rules of others.

 

LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INANIMATE.

We've been emphasizing that life's what's important. We know

actions-of-production which do as much harm as good to LIFE; provide no net

gain.

A question comes to mind: what does it matter? What difference does our

life make? Whether we're treated like dogs and slaves, or live like kings with

lots of influence; what difference does it make (in this stagnant system)? It

may be uncomfortable, or pleasant for us (as life), but what difference does it

make in the overall scheme of things? What difference does our life make in a

stagnant system? Pain and being treated like a slave, is the destruction of our

life. (We are alive.) What difference does life make over the inanimate?

(In a stagnant system of good and evil together, evil destroys the life good

produces; and life stagnates, and remains at the same level.) Well, life has

the ability to be aware: -to have purpose and meaning. But inanimate things

can't; thus there's no purpose without life. -Where there is life, are many

purposes and meanings (from that life); but with no-life, is purposelessness.

In a stagnant system, the life exists as a constant amount that doesn't grow.

This system will always have to bear the same degree of purposelessness, due to

the constant presence of the inanimate (where there should be life); -due to

lack of overall growth. The life (which stays at a (constant) level above the

inanimate and doesn't grow); never accomplishes much, and never has much meaning

beyond that it exists. (It destroys what growth it produces.) (That which is

destroyed, is inanimate, and has no intelligence or purpose.) We may have

advanced in technology, but we have also advanced in!

the technology to destroy ourselves. Even with all this technology, we haven't

learned to cooperate well or be kind to each other. Until we learn to be kind

to each other, our future will always be in doubt between annihilation and

paradise; and the path we take in learning to cooperate, will determine our

fate. Only a system which seeks to advance its least and lowest members will

hold together and advance together as a group. Any system which scorns its

underachievers, is a waste of your time and mine. (All the concerns are for

lifeless inanimate objects, in this system that does both good and evil to

life.)

But in a system free from evil (where there is sustained/overall growth);

life can advance and grow, and replace the inanimate, with life, and thus

develop meaning much beyond its existence. So if you're looking for meaning and

purpose to life, it is found outside these stagnant systems of cruelty and

kindness together and reduced capability.

So if we're in a stagnant system of togetherness of good and evil; it doesn't

matter if we get the job, pass the test, or succeed or fail in the system. All

that matters is our attempts to create a system of good only.

 

THE JOB SYSTEM IS OVEREXTENDED.

What do our actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the

tools? Are we trying to impress them or something? They aren't alive to notice

or care one way or the other. Only we are alive. What does it matter to the

automobiles or TV sets we produce whether we have made our quota of them or not?

Because the inanimate is all that's left after our life is gone.

Let's get it through our minds that only life produces growth. Thus instead of

demanding more from existing life as the means of producing increased growth;

that we do an indirect method: and first build up life, as a means of producing

increased growth. If we are first good to each other as life; then life will be

increased; and increased growth will naturally follow (because life IS the

ability to produce a certain amount of growth (comfortably)). being good to

each other is the growth of growth; and is preferred to the overextension of the

job world which neglects the building up of its living components (in favor of

inanimate (project) components), and thus neglects growth of growth, to its

overextension of too much growth of project.

 

THE JOB SYSTEM IS IN THE TRAP OF EVIL, REDUCED CAPABILITY.

With the growing intolerance in this country; it's amazing we can actually

get together in our jobs, and work to produce things. Unfortunately, we still

don't cooperate well even in our jobs. We instead get by with shabby fare: the

minimum needed to function.

A pattern I've noticed, is that we don't share the hardships evenly, but

instead, shove them off onto a few scapegoats. We need 'slaves' to stick with

the dirty jobs. Get a job! The thing is, 'a job' can mean very different

things. A job can be a cushy management position, or one of those scapegoat

peon positions; (or in between). When people yell at the welfare folks to get

off their lazy behinds and get a job; the response I like best is "I'm holding

out for a management position". Peons and scapegoats are hard to find, and they

have to be actively recruited (from the welfare roles and unemployment line).

Now, in a system where the hardships were evenly born; people would be more

willing to join that type of system. But if all other alternatives are

eliminated with only this scapegoat way available; then there will be kicking

and screaming.

However, an individual can do very little. If we try to survive and make a

living as an individual, we do poorly because we're at reduced capability

(compared to the group). So we need to join some kind of a group and put aside

thoughts for ourself, and instead mainly think of the betterment of the group.

And we do this because the group's power is above reduced capability, and can

get us all ahead due to its being out of reduced capability, the trap of evil.

So it is the individual's place to put away most thought for themselves and

instead be devoted mostly to the group. But once an individual has done this,

then What is the place of the group? Let's say the group then thinks of the

individuals which comprise it. Then it can use its power of being out of

reduced capability to advance and improve life for them all; much better than if

they were all acting on their own. ("The whole is greater than the sum of its

parts".) (There are many things a group of workers can do that an individual

worker can't; even if the individual worker is given that much more time.)

But if the group thinks only of itself, then it also thinks of its individuals,

because the only thing the group is made of, IS individuals - that's all there

is. It will still be thinking of individuals. So it's the place of the group

to help and advance individuals once the individual has devoted themself to the

group. But if a group doesn't think of individuals with its power but instead

scapegoats some and leaves them hardly better than if they scavenged on their

own (so others in the group can have even more); then this defeats the purpose

of joining a group in the first place (for those scapegoats). The advantage of

joining a group was that it can get us all out of reduced capability. But these

people are still in reduced capability. And a group that scapegoats and leaves

people at reduced capability will be brought down to reduced capability itself;

because reduced capability makes a home for destruction, and destruction by its

infectiousness, will bring this grou!

p down also to be at reduced capability.

A group that seeks to increase its power (and grow) by taking more and more from

its (scapegoat) individuals; finds that it runs out of stuff to take. The

individual position is the most vulnerable position as it is nearest to reduced

capability. And a group that keeps taking from its individuals puts the

individual more and more into reduced capability. And in reduced capability,

growth does not occur, but instead, stagnation. And with the individual, -the

source of the group's power, not growing; this group runs out of stuff to take

and so ceases growing.

But if a group, instead of taking more and more; gives more and more, to

its individuals, those individuals are removed further from reduced capability,

thus they experience growth. If they then give some of that growth (out of

their abundance) to the group, then the group can continue this cycle and be a

growing group indefinitely. It won't run out of stuff to receive from its

individuals.

So if you're going to compel welfare recipients to get off their lazies and

devote their efforts for the good of the group (to get a job), then you better

be sure you as rulers of the group, use the group power to give them a decent

life, a decent house, a decent car, and decent cloths like you have! If you're

just going to rip us off and make us slaves, peons, and scapegoats (the working

poor); then screw you. Making welfare folks work in hard labor still won't

solve your stagnation. Even if you put half the country in prison in forced

labor camps. And that situation isn't stable. Kaboom! I hope it blows up in

your face. You won't take me willingly. I'll be trying to nix your system of

stagnation and create a group of good only; of nurture; where people care for

each other and build each other up! instead of scapegoating and forcing people

into reduced capability to live miserable lives so as to supply your growth!

Note that there is a connection against eastern (Communist) philosophy

here, as well as against Hitler's philosophy of individual sacrifice to the all

important living State (or national entity). ("How can you love God who you

can't see, if you don't love your neighbor who you can see".)

In simplified terms, I've heard eastern philosophy condensed to: the smaller

entity can be sacrificed for the good of the larger group. From this we can

deduce that the individual must sacrifice for the good of the group. But the

fallacy in this is that the larger and more powerful group doesn't need

protecting and being sacrificed for, since it is larger and powerful and more

out of reduced capability. Instead, it is the individual position that needs

improving. And so, it is not for the individual to sacrifice to the group; but

to give to the group out of their abundance (tax the rich). -This is the

difference between a growing group vs a stagnant group.

 

Are you satisfied by how we treat the less fortunate? Some say the poor

are lazy and should get a job or work harder: that they're doing more than

enough to help these people and want no more increases in their taxes.

(But these rich folk aren't inherently more powerful than the lowest of the

poor.) The rich man DEPENDS on others to produce his gourmet food; build,

heat/cool, and clean his mansion; make his fancy cloths; and build his snazzy

car and yacht: (-just as the rest of us depend upon others.) If the rich man

were self sufficient and produced his things himself, then it would NOT seem

right to tax him more than the rest of us. But the rich man depends on the

group (other people's labors) for all his things. It is fitting that he pays

more in taxes, which represents helping the group, since he receives more from

the group than the rest of us. Don't tell me that the rich man does 10 to 100

times more work and thus earns 10 to 100 times more money than the working poor.

That's physically, mentally impossible. And do you really think the welfare

folks' not working is the cause of our nations' problems? (Don't we easily

(over) produce enough food to feed us all: and what doe!

s it cost in tangible resources to let them live in a run down trailer?)

Trailers get old. Someone's got to live in them.

The person on TV can tell you what he/she is satisfied with, but not what you're

satisfied with. You must choose what system you're satisfied with. You must

live with yourself all the time: no one else has to. We should be more helpful

to one another. That way we all can enjoy the advances we make in our

standards-of-living with a free heart enjoying the good things we produce, since

we all share in the goodness. Our nerve impulses will be much more alive.

Let's make a system worth preserving/keeping for everyone.

If you're thinking you can do what you're told, work hard, and someday God

will change the world into a better place: well this is true: but it may be in

spite of you, instead of because of your diligence and hard work. The system of

good-and-evil can continue on forever if the people involved are all satisfied

with it. If everybody did what they were told and supported the system of

cruelty and kindness together, then good would produce life (even nerve impulse

life), to be consumed and destroyed by evil, and we could continue in

stagnation, without purpose or meaning forever; and no one, not even God would

change it against our will. Stagnation is a precarious balance. It will

require your diligence, concentration, and yes, even hard work to keep this

balance. (It's quite a burden.) (The system of stagnation even has its supply

of goods and services to reward its 'fatefull'.) But if you don't choose the

system of good and evil together, why bother with this heavy!

burden? (Instead, we disrupt the balance of stagnation.) "Take my yolk upon

you; for I am easy, and my burden is light" says J.C.

It doesn't matter if you're in the minority: if you're dissatisfied, the way to

meaningful life is escape and resistance.

When you don't do what you're told (what authorities tell you), and don't

work hard, then they make you feel like you've committed some offense and did

some destructive act. But the thing is you've done nothing harmful by not doing

what you're told and failing at your assignment. You've just not grown as fast

as they'd like, (which isn't destructive). To them it's a crime. But it's

victimless because you've hurt no one. Let's commit this victimless crime of

being lazy and not doing our assignments when we aren't satisfied! Take a hard

look: You've done no destruction in not obeying them; in not laboring for them

or helping them. They won't help the poor. Why should they be helped? They're

not poor.

Of course, authorities will do destruction to you as punishment for not

producing. And it's this destruction that should be dealt with first before

improvements on (our) growth are sought. But this external evil can be a minor

consideration. -If there's an evil inside us we keep insisting on, we will

constantly cast it out and it will constantly trouble us. (This is what they'd

have us believe; that we're bad and evil for disobeying and not producing for

them.) Well, our failure to grow is not a destructive act. So we needn't be

constantly casting out an evil within us. This gives us peace of mind. We're

more alive.

My pet rock; he sets round all day and does nothing, and no boss comes to

holler at him. All this work is going to put you in an early grave so the end

result of work will be that you're no more alive than my pet rock. So if the

boss can't make my pet rock get off his lazies and work; (and you, being much

smarter and more alive than my pet rock;) I don't see how the boss could make

you work hard or to death either. So how bout a little moderation in this thing

we know as 'work'? I mean, if my pet rock doesn't have to work at all, why

should we have to work hard? -unless that is you prefer the inanimate over

living human beings.

 

MORE ABOUT JOBS.

We need to grow and edify life, for us to be a growing force of good. But

without a job, we aren't allowed to use other people's stuff or bother other

people at work, because these are owned by someone else. The concept of

property ownership shuts us out, if we don't have a job. So, in today's

situation, we need to get a job, because only here have we access to things and

people to build up life. Right?

A job does include greater access so we have more opportunity to help

others and ourselves grow life. But a job also includes a boss, a 3rd party,

who regulates us; rewards, praises and punishes us according to 3rd party rules;

who threatens to fire us if we don't do well. (Also present with growth, is the

force of destruction, -the forces of good and evil are together. We've already

shown this isn't the answer.)

Isolation is a big problem. The point I make is that getting a job and

joining the system isn't a solution. (It sure is an expensive way to get

together in a group.)

Now, we don't work all alone when we're in a job, but work as a team. When

we're trying to succeed outside the system, we should also try to work with

others and not alone.

Our system of production should be concerned with improving all our lives.

But as long as we're mean to each other, (this is destructive of life), we'll

continue to be caught in the stagnation of the trap of evil.

There's no sense in acting collectively to become capable of overcoming the

ravages of nature; only to replace them with our own man made system's brand of

necessary evils, destitution and stagnation (the trap of evil). It accomplishes

nothing and wastes our life efforts.

When away from systems of good and evil and 3rd parties; we still have

natural meanings to satisfy our needs (unlike artificial (3rd party supported)

meanings which disappear outside the scope of 3rd parties). So success,

satisfaction, pleasure and fulfilling life, are possible outside our present job

system. Let's get together and form a society of cooperation free from forced

cooperation, based on equality and democratic representation in our jobs, not

dictatorship.

 

What do our actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the

tools? It doesn't matter to the automobiles or radio sets we produce whether

we've made our quota of them or not. Are we trying to impress them or

something? They aren't alive to notice.

No, we don't slave away for the inanimate: we slave for a few who think they're

better than we; who use us like tools and equipment to make life better for

them. Our life is sacrificed: our head is cut off and discarded, so the

remainder of ourself can function as a piece of equipment to help make life

better for a chosen few. Forget about building robots and equipment. -The

human being is a marvelous piece of equipment; and there are so many of them.

All that's needed is to cut away and discard their mind, and their own ideas on

how to do things. It is humans consuming other humans for their own benefit.

Shouldn't we as life be more concerned with getting our life out of a system

caught in the trap of destruction of life (before our life and ideas are

destroyed to make us into a robot for someone)? Once we overcome the

destruction of life, we will be alive to appreciate the good things that exist.

There will be LIFE to make it all worth while.

Unfortunately, the just-described-system is as destructive to LIFE as it is

good. It is therefore a stagnant system trapped in reduced capability, the trap

of evil: where even those who benefit from human-robots will be swept down to

reduced capability due to the infectious nature of evil. In such a system we

all become little more than the inanimate products we produce. We (our LIFE)

should therefore seek to escape from such a stagnant system and create a better

system of good only; because our LIFE is much more valuable than the inanimate

objects/robot remainders we become.

Only life PLUS materials, gives a winning combination. It makes no sense

to accumulate inanimate materials in one place and prevent all but a few living

individuals from having access to it.

 

Without life, the rearrangement of matter we do in production, is

meaningless. What difference does it make if a quota of widgets is produced or

if the raw materials remain in the ground, if there's no life to enjoy it)?

Only those things associated with the increase/improvement of life, have value

and pleasure. And the peon worker is just as much alive as the rich man who

uses him for his own pleasure. Unpleasant memory records and the unkindness

that caused them, are both destructive of life; and are thus evils to be cast

out. ›Since we cast out unpleasant experiences; if learning is made to be an

unpleasant experience, we will soon forget it (so why waste the time?)› Only

that which supplies us with life (inside ourselves), remains with us. And you

as a living being, should be gaining and growing in life from the production

actions you do; otherwise it's a waste of time. YOU are the product that is

ultimately being produced, not some inanimate product. And!

if that production system ruins the life that is you, then IT is faulty, and

ought to be replaced.

Remember, filling your head with ways you don't understand from without;

will choke out ways you do understand within you, from expressing themselves.

You have a choice to make. Either to join a present system, or to try and

create an alternative system on your own. Since you can do more as part of a

group, it's advantageous to join a group over doing things on your own. But if

available group(s) are stagnant due to destructive forces, then it may be better

to try to escape such systems and on your own create a better alternative

system. The decider, is, how well does the system under consideration, treat

its lower members. (ie does it help its needy?) As an entry level person, you

may be in need of an opportunity to have a position in that system. You are

thus a needy person in this aspect. How does the system treat you in this need?

Does it welcome you in? Or does it threaten destruction upon you unless you

perform for it? Well, if it uses destruction (punishment) to function (to

motivate and direct), then right there is the proof that it is a stagnant

system. In such a case, be assured that whatever littl!

e you can accomplish outside that system, is more than you could as part of a

stagnant system.

When a system uses rewards and punishments to direct its people and

operate, then it must at some time, deny reward or administer punishment to the

number of people who don't measure up to its standard of what it wants done.

This forces these people to live at reduced capability, . . . . . .

and in stagnation. If the number who are denied or punished is large or even in

the majority, then this system becomes a stagnant system as the price for having

a way to direct and motivate its subjects to do what it wants. Can we find a

better way? Lets try.

 

AN ALTERNATIVE TO 'MIGHT MAKES RIGHT'

The means to gain/obtain power, are just the beginning. They are just the

means to get your way. What is just as important if not more so, is the way

itself and what it consists of (the defectiveness or soundness of ones way). It

has been said that 'might makes (one's way) right'. But might and power are

just the means of getting ones way over others. Once one gets their way, they

have to live with their way. If their way is defective and causes pain and

suffering, then they and everyone else will have to live with it, because there

is no one mightier to overthrow it. And if the way contains a defect, we just

have to live with the pain. But if some ruler's way causes too much pain and

suffering, then the people may rebel and change the power balance and overcome

the might that put the way in power in the first place, with their own might.

Irregardless of whether a military-dictator-minority, or an overwhelming

popular majority, puts a way in power, the merits and flaws of the actual way

are still felt. So not only is it important to get your way into power; it is

also important that your way be sound and non destructive ›and helpful›.

Otherwise your way itself will be a constant reminder and motivator that

something needs changing.

A person with less power won't get their way as often as those with more

power. But even if a good way gets into power just once after a long wait; that

once will be enough. Defective ways may get into power many times backed by

powerful people; but because of the way's flaws, these will be a constant

irritant and motivation for change. When a good way does infrequently get into

place (power); it will be no irritant; there will be satisfaction; and the

motivation will be to keep this way in power. (Of course, democratic principles

provide the means for smooth change so as to try out many more ways than under a

military dictatorship. But the soundness of the way is still the focal

criterion.) Might is the means of getting a way into power; but the soundness

of a way is the means of keeping the way in power over time, and providing

satisfaction.

A good sound way is a growing, productive thing that produces enough

growth, to have enough might to get into power at least infrequently. All the

might in the world cannot keep an unsound, defective and destructive way in

power forever (due to the inferiority of destructiveness and the force of evil

itself, as previously expounded upon). But a good sound way once in power, can

remain in power forever due to its inherent goodness, soundness, satisfaction,

and production. It only takes one to escape the system of good-and-evil to grow

more powerful to come back to rescue the rest of us.

If we don't wish to continue with a 'bad' way, there'll be some of us who will

escape this 'bad' way: who if they find a better way, will be able to grow more

powerful and set us all free (who want to be set free); who dislike the current

way because of its inherent defects, (irregardless of what might holds it in

power).

 

A SECOND GO ROUND WITH THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP; THE DENIAL OF

ACCESS.

At this point I want to get back into the concept of property and

ownership. The concept of property is an artificial concept, and isn't part of

natural law. Without 3rd party recognition/support of property ownership, the

restrictions of property ownership don't apply. I can say "that is my chair,

and you can't use it", but there is nothing physically incompatible between you

and the chair that would prevent you from using it outside the scope of my

power. Property restrictions require living, intelligent, capable 3rd parties

to enforce them; and outside of their scope, they don't exist. I could say that

this is my world and nobody but I can use it; but outside the scope of my power,

everyone can use this world. The concept of property ownership puts restriction

on a thing so less people can use it, than would otherwise be able to.

Things and resources help people and increase their capability. If there

exists a resource that could help people, but I deny them this resource because

I own it, then I have caused these people to live at reduced capability. This

is especially true if their use of the resources wouldn't have consumed or

damaged it; such as borrowing a book from a library (›or swapping spouses.

ayhow›). The concepts of property and ownership creates areas of reduced

capability and lost opportunity, even when there's enough to go around. People

who cannot communicate with each other to ask for and receive use of someone

else's resource in a non destructive way; remain in reduced capability. But if

we were allowed to share and borrow resources in a non destructive way, we'd

have a process to learn communication and cooperation; and not only would we be

out of reduced capability, we'd no longer be lonely.

We might not want to change our system of property ownership, but we should

get together and create sharing centers where people can get together and share

resources at minimal cost, unlike rental agencies (which make a huge profit). A

system of passing around a piece of equipment where people could identify

themselves positively over the phone through a set of one use transaction

numbers, coordinated with their ID number, could be used.

This is because we Americans are so uncooperative, uncommunicative and lonely,

that it behooves us to do this. Hey, if you like the loneliness and the

snootiness, then let things continue status quo. But I have to say I'm not

satisfied.

 

In today's society; having enough money to participate in all sorts of

activities, is a big thing. Some might then think the most important thing is

to pay the money; and then they can take it easy, expend no effort and enjoy the

show. But the payment of money is only the beginning. Life is much more than

the payment of money. Just think: after I pay the money; I as a living thing

then have to actually do, experience, and participate in the activity. How can

I enjoy the intensities of a thing if I've shut down my life activities and am

taking it easy in an easy chair? (Going to the movies isn't the same as doing

it for real.)

With the money system; one is the servant and the other is the master, in

any given transaction. Wouldn't it be better to strike a chord of more

cooperation, so that in a transaction, there's less of a master/servant

relationship; with both partners on more equal footing? It is better for us as

life, if we do. We need a better system based more on cooperation and love,

than on servant/master dictatorship!

 

BOSS

Each of us has a mind. And each of us has a body. Our mind is where our

consciousness and life-essence reside. Our body has no consciousness apart from

our mind. As a human person, our mind and body are together (with our mind

directing our body). As individual human beings, our mind-body is physically

separate from every other mind-body.

When someone starts trying to run our lives and tell us what to do;

their-mind not only seeks to have say over their own body; they want say over

our body too. When it's not enough for a mind to have say over its own body,

but it also wants say over other's bodies; then I think its time to cooperate

and work and do together so that all minds are satisfied, as all benefit from

the group of bodies working together. Otherwise, I think a line has been

crossed. A boss's mind not only has say over their own body, but also has some

say over the servant's body. The servant's mind (which is together with his/her

body) also wants to have say over this body; and will always and continually

want this, due to the physical togetherness of the servant's mind with his/her

body.

But when there are times when the boss wants the servant's body to do one

thing while the servant's mind wants his/her body to do something else which is

incompatible; then there's a conflict; and only one mind (either the boss's or

the servant's) can have control over the servant's body in this decision. When

the boss has say over the servant's body, then this bond of togetherness has

been formed: the boss's mind is linked with the boss's body and also the

worker's body. Unfortunately in this conflict, the servant's mind is cut off

and left alone unjoined. When the servant's mind is alone and without the

servant's body; it finds itself at reduced capability in this position. It's in

this position (of the boss getting their way in a conflict), where the most

intense situations of reduced capability are created (-that being in the

servant's mind). No other position creates such reduced capability. -When no

one is cooperating, each person's mind has at least their o!

wn body. -And when there's voluntary cooperation, that's the best as all minds

have the power of the group of all bodies working together as a group.

This bossing thing is just an example of a group that scapegoats-and-takes from

some to supply their growth. But those in reduced capability don't grow, so

this group has to keep finding other scapegoats in order to keep growing.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I believe that reduced

capability isn't a good thing to put anybody in. If the forces don't need

separating, then there's no reason for this reduced capability. These reduced

capability situations need to be dealt with, otherwise there'll be trouble.

Fortunately, God delivers these people and us from this reduced capability.

›The boss's mind is separated from the worker's body. They aren't well

connected together. Thus the bossing system is like a chicken running round

with its head cut off, as the head (which tells what to do) is pretty separate

from the body that does the work. This fragmentation of things unto reduced

capability may have application, as we'll see later. But if the bossing system

causes us to be fragmented; as our worker minds are fragmented from our body,

since our bodies can't do what our minds want, but instead must do what the

boss's mind wants: then shouldn't this bossing job system also fragment itself?

This bossing system fragments us: it should also fragment itself, as what goes

round comes round. What the system sees fit to do to us, it should also see fit

to do unto itself. What a system sows it should also reap. And if that be

fragmentation, then so be it. The bossing system itself should fragment and not

get its way all the time.›

A person came to me and asked: am I evil because I discipline my child and

tell him what to do? And I would respond by saying that destruction and all

destructiveness is evil, but that people are not evil. People may contain evil

in them -we all do. We can't help it. The question I would ask, is not 'are

you evil?', but 'are you perfect?' Nobody's perfect, and we're all forced to

have some evil in us just because we're human and alive on this earth.

We're all doing the best we can with what we've got. At reduced capability, we

may be forced to take some shortcuts and include some evil. Single mothers

especially are forced to make do with less; so that if we want to make things

better, we should help them out and give them more resources so they won't be

trying to accomplish monumental feats at reduced capability, but instead, at

higher capability.

Each person has a body and a mind. When one person tells another what to do,

they are trying to coordinate the actions of a group (a grouping involving more

than one person). But the person(s) being told what to do has much more of a

mind than is required to receive and carry out orders. Thus a large chunk of

the person's mind is left out of this group making process. The boss's mind and

the worker's bodies are coordinated and brought together for group action. Why

stop half way? Why not also try to also incorporate the rest of the worker's

minds, with this grouping action? When people come together for group action,

they can accomplish more than as individuals; and this is a positive thing. Why

try to misrepresent the reality that coming together in a group is a positive

thing, by using a grouping process that makes coming together in a group, costly

and sacrificial, where the worker looses and strands a large chunk of their

mind; -if we don't have to? And if we mus!

t; then lets use the power of the group to alleviate such a thing. Let us raise

our children to view coming together in a group for group action and group

cooperation, as a positive thing: by allowing the positives of joining together

in a group, to shine through.

 

I've shown before that inanimate material wealth without life to enjoy it

or make it worthwhile; makes a very poor showing. Only materials PLUS life give

a winning combination. As we remove the materials from the majority of people;

this detracts from their life. As we give those materials to a few rich folks;

there isn't enough life there (not enough people either) to make good use of all

the lifeless wealth.

If we allow a system that keeps giving the material wealth of this world to

fewer and fewer, richer and richer people; then this makes quite a poor showing,

as those few rich people have too much material to enjoy it all or make much

good use of it. And all the rest of life is left barren and poor to accomplish

this accumulation of almost lifeless wealth left to carry on almost by itself

without much life there to make it worthwhile.

The servant/master system of transaction also contains this foolish arrangement

of the resources and life in each transaction.

If you had a choice as to how to distribute the wealth, how would you do it? A)

By placing most of the lifeless wealth in one pile, and most of the living human

beings in another pile, and keep them separate? or B) By placing the wealth and

living humans together?

Let me tell you that neither lifeless wealth and equipment, nor humans without

equipment, produce well. But when you put them together, production jumps

markedly. So why do we want to be in reduced capability and stagnation, with

our present system of wealth distribution?

Everything is interrelated. To make a complete whole and keep us out of

reduced capability; we need both living components, and equipment and wealth.

Also; we need to be doing work good things; but not to the exclusion of other

good things.

 

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 mediocre capability. Thus our economic system works to keep

us and our world at reduced capability, in the trap of evil. This sucks!

Another negative motivator that our supply and demand system creates, is it

encourages unnecessary complexity over simplicity.

In the engineering of the products we use; these products are made overly

complex. The purpose of this complexity is to prevent all but the big company

from easily manufacturing them. If a product were too simply made, then small

companies producing the product could spring up all over the place. This would

mean a lot of unwanted competition, and also an over supply of the product. An

oversupply of the product (due to its simplicity and ease of production) would

drive the price down so that little money could be made from the product. There

is no motivation for industry to make simple products that do the job just as

well as the complex products. An example of the preference of complexity over

simplicity is: The water-sugar-salt oral rehydration therapy that is a remedy

discovered against infant diarrhea. This remedy is simple, inexpensive, and

effective; and has saved many lives in developing countries where infant

diarrhea is often life threatening. This remedy was o!

verlooked by the medical community and was only recently discovered. There just

isn't any money in such a simple remedy.

An automobile that is deliberately designed to be difficult to repair (so

that the average owner (or even mechanic) cannot repair it); means that they

must take it to a repair shop with specialized tools and expertise. This costs

a lot of money. Thus the expensive option of buying a new car is made more

favorable, because the alternative of repair is also made prohibitively

expensive.

There's no motivation for industry to make products more simply. In fact

there's a motivation for them to make products unnecessarily complex. Such a

system that encourages this manufacture of complex devices whose manufacture is

out of the grasp of the individual or small group; creates a technological

advantage whereby a small number of government leaders can rule over the masses

with a technological iron hand. This favors dictatorship over democracy. If

industry isn't going to make uncomplicated products, then who will? The average

citizen spends their time producing in industry. Do not expect the individual,

after a long days work, to develop a simple technology. But let us be aware

that there is a simpler technology to be developed that has so far been

untapped. This is what one person can do.

If we were able to place the manufacture of our essentials into the hands

of the individual, by designing small machines instead of the large centralized

production we have today, this would result in greater economic freedom. Many

smaller machines vs one big one may not be as efficient, but the freedom it

would create so that the individual wouldn't be so much at the mercy of the boss

and the system, would be worth it. This would give the greater bargaining power

to the individual, as the individual could then afford to turn down those menial

low paying service sector jobs, because they produced their living needs from

their small machines.

 

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 ere 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.

Let's say businesses raise their prices way above wages. Money will flow in

because of the high prices, but won't flow back out (into the spendable

economy), because only low wages are paid. With a large money inflow but no

corresponding outflow; money accumulates in these businesses and makes a few

quite rich. But once most of the money is taken from the spendable economy (by

this process), high prices no longer take in more money because there's no more

money left to take in; and people are just forced to buy less.

If people buy less, that will neutralize the effect of higher prices; and no

more money will be made selling that product. If there's no more money to be

made, then there's no room for additional people to come in and start producing

that product. With no additional people making the product, the shortage, or

economic slowdown, remains.

It's when businesses pay low wages to their workers but charge high prices for

what worker's produce so that the workers overall can't buy much of what they

produce. This practice in itself sets up the situation where people don't have

enough money in their pockets for the prices of the available products. (if

businesses pay low wages then they should charge low prices so people can buy

what they produce.) But when businesses overall charge much more for their

product than they pay their workers, then overall there will be a lot left

unsold after the workers buy what they can. The rich don't buy that much -they

invest instead. So there's a lot left unsold. With all this 'oversupply',

businesses cut production instead of lowering prices (in attempt to make more

profit). Now, workers overall receive less money due to layoffs and plant

closings. They buy even less product. Still more product is thus left unsold.

Production is cut again, meaning more layoffs and plant cl!

osings. This keeps on until the company shrinks to almost nothing. This is not

a viable system.

Note: in the situation where there are always left-over-products and cutting

back-on-production and plant closings; there are never quite enough jobs to go

around; which perpetuates the condition of low wages and frantic competition for

limited jobs.

(These businesses have 'made it' for a few men, making them very rich, but the

businesses no longer supply the economic activity needed for the rest of us to

survive.)

The previous is the reasoning Carl Marx used to criticize and reject capitalism

and predict its self destruction and imminent collapse. Marx's alternative

system -(violent overthrow of the govt, and dictatorship of the proletariat),

didn't work so well either. But Marx's prediction of the imminent collapse of

capitalism has not come true (except for the 30's), and will not come true, due

to the factor of competition.

What is a viable system, but not a desirable system out of this, is the

spirit of competition. Since labor costs are low, a business could afford to

sell their product at low price. Thus some businesses do this, and undercut the

high priced businesses trying to get rich. Since the products are sold at low

prices, people can afford them with their low wages; and economic activity thus

increases (enough to provide survival for the masses). And these low prices

make our products competitive against foreign imports. So with competition,

capitalism can go on indefinitely; and it is a viable system (just as good

together with evil is viable).

But if monopoly is allowed to come in (from a period of high interest rates

which eliminated the variability-of-the business cycle), the system becomes non

viable as prices go way above wages. The process of removing money from the

spendable economy (from the average man), via high prices and low wages; creates

a few rich men and concentrates the wealth. Once there is little money left in

the spendable economy, workers no longer have enough money and they just buy

less and do without; and continued high prices will no longer make producers of

products rich. And there's no more money left to be made producing products,

and shortages/slowdowns become the norm.

The reason I say competition under pure capitalism is undesirable, is

because competition is severely hampered and doesn't function well in this

system. It is under the control of the rich and is only used to prevent total

collapse. When competition comes in with low prices, in response to shrinking

economic activity under high prices; there's a lot of money out there in the

hands of the rich. The rich (who want to keep their position of dominance), use

their money to easily thwart low-price-competition, so that it's no real threat

to them. -In the means-of-production of producing an item, there are many

things that must come together to produce the item. And labor costs aren't the

only costs. All the rich have to do is pick one thing (except labor) that is at

a focal point of a production; and buy it out and shut down its supply. Doing

so, they can sabotage low price production of the item. The rich can manipulate

things to be in short supply or plentiful; and al!

l they need do is buy out a few central means-of-production to put a monkey

wrench in low price competition, by charging outrageously high prices for these

key focal, central items. (They would never buy out labor and put labor in

short supply because that would mean higher wages.) With competition under

control, the rich can maintain their position of power, with controlled

competition providing the vehicle keeping the system running indefinitely.

Total economic collapse is avoided, and the majority of us exist with our knees

bowed to the rich to be their servants ad infinitum. This system is a bad

system because nearly everybody lives meager reduced capability lives (in the

trap of evil) with low wages and fierce competition, brown nosing, etc, for

limited jobs. Freedom is gone. People are only allowed enough products to

barely get by, even when a product is easily produced and is abundant.

(Note that many service sector jobs don't have many key-focal-items in their

production, and mainly depend on manpower or labor alone. Low price competition

will win out here, and all involved in these businesses1 will be subservient to

the businesses2 having key-focal-items, to the extent they1 depend on what the

businesses with key focal items produce.)

A better alternative, (if people don't have enough money in their pockets,

because of the high prices/low wages of business); is to give money to the

average person. Government can print up money and distribute it to them; or tax

the rich and give it to them. This will put money in people's pockets even if

businesses charge high prices and pay low wages. Inflation will surely result

(that is with the print up money action). This will devalue the rich's money so

they won't so easily control competition. (This won't help our trade deficit as

foreign goods look cheap though, but this can be handled with a creative trade

policy. What is more important? -Your freedom and everyone enjoying a higher

standard of living; or some numbers game about economic measurements?)

Government is one of the few ways money can be returned from the rich back to

the common man, so that the rich do not suck all the money out of the spendable

economy and leave it completely dry; or so that competition is more of a force

in our system. (The idea of the rich returning money back into the spendable

economy through investment: is invalid.) Instead, our government collects

taxes from the common man with tax breaks for the rich, and gives this money to

the rich through interest on the national debt; which just speeds the process of

sucking the spendable economy dry. (High interest rates also remove money to

the rich.)

Instead of receiving govt. money, welfare 'bums' must now work for their

living. Now they produce products, which contributes even more to the

oversupply of unsold products, speeding layoffs and plant closings. Worst of

all, we loose their govt. income which they would have surely spent into the

spendable economy. Without this source of income, the spendable economy is

drained faster. (Now their income must come out of the spendable economy

instead of from the govt. which can tax the rich.) And when the spendable

economy is dry, people have no money and can't buy; and economic activity grinds

to a halt in recession and depression. And the rich's money is so powerful,

that low price competition does not become much of a factor to restart the

economy or produce enough economic activity to get us out of reduced capability

living. You people have cut off those on welfare so the rich can have their

position of power.

I want to step out for a second and note that our economy is (was) doing real

well. That's because Clinton taxed the rich. But when he cut the welfare,

that's going to reverse the process, as it essentially is a tax on the poor.

But it won't take effect until after he's out of office.

I want to step out again, and say that all of this economics discussion is

superseded by the retirement of the baby boomers and the aging of America. As

Americans get older and retire, there will be a shortage of workers to do the

work needed to supply the economic demands of these non working retirees. Every

able bodied person will be needed to work. And there'll be no problem finding a

job. (Thus doing away with welfare was needed since America can no longer

afford to let people sit idle.) But after the baby-boomers die, these recession

factors I speak of will return, and with no safety net in place. But for now,

the presence of all these retirees consuming goods and services, but not

working; makes the workers who do work, a valuable commodity, and able to make

demands and not be pushed around by employers. Those in power, in business, may

be unwilling to put up with that. They may want our govt. to provoke the Arabs

into bringing biological weapons to the US to wee!

d out the older folk. Starting a war and sending people to be killed won't work

for the population reduction desired here, as that kills off only the young, as

the old aren't drafted into war.

Back to the discussion: Welfare is needed to put money into the common man's

pockets so as to cause some economic activity. But since our wicked leaders

insist on borrowing from the rich (and paying respect to the rich) to finance

this welfare/medical care/nursing home care; the situation continues to worsen

as interest payments balloon and drain the economy at an ever faster rate. No,

we either have to tax the rich, or print money and spend it (thus eroding the

buying power of the rich), to finance our govt. That big Reagan defense buildup

and tax cuts to the rich that gave us a huge national debt weren't caused by

welfare bums sapping our economy. And the money paid for that defense buildup

(that has to have interest paid to the rich); went to the rich defense

contractors. (And the money for expensive medical care goes mainly to rich

hospital and nursing home and insurance company owners.) But the recession it

may create and the following increased dependence on wel!

fare, will continue the downward cycle if the leaders continue to borrow from

the rich. So don't blame it on those on welfare. I won't hear it. (Do you

really think our country is so weak it is unable to feed, cloth, house the poor;

and that these folks are putting a real burden on our economy? Remember that

most of us don't work on a farm or building houses or in clothing factories or

power plants (to produce our essentials that is); and that our farmers grow such

a surplus the govt. has to pay them to stop growing. Even though we work at a

job, only a small percentage have to work to supply the essentials for all the

rest of us. The work the rest of us do is above and beyond; it's cream. We

already deny the welfare folks the cream. Must we also deny them essentials?

Do you really think making the welfare folks work will solve this country's

problems? Do you really think we'll depend on what they'll produce to save us

from starvation or economic collapse? (Well we !

need someone to do the dirty work.) Won't they compete for already scarce jobs?

Do you think it's OK to force welfare people to work (at low paying hard menial

tasks)? If so, what's the difference between you and a stick up man who

threatens your life if you don't do what he says? A young boy may entertain

himself by torturing a frog or cat; but does this really do him any good?) No,

vote out those rich country club politicians. Otherwise you can fight with me

over the last scrap of meat in the bowl, where neither one cares anymore what

the other thinks: -just what happens to that last piece of meat.

 

High interest rates (paid on the money the rich invest) are a means by

which the rich do 'tax' the rest of us, and take away what we produce, for

themselves.

When high interest rates are in place, obviously, the rich get more (than at low

interest rates), as the businessmen pay the rich INTEREST for borrowing their

money. (If you have a credit card, then you also as a small businessman or

laborer, are supporting the rich.) But there's more than just this initial

payment to the rich; that effects even those who have no debt at all.

Note that when you borrow money, you have to pay more back than you borrowed in

the end (that's the interest).

When they borrowed the money, they spent it into the buy/sell economy. But now

they not only must return the money they borrowed, but also the additional money

(the interest). This money has nowhere else to come from but the buy/sell

economy. (What other way does the honest businessman have to acquire money but

to sell their wares?) More money must come out of the buy/sell economy than was

put in by the borrower (to pay the interest). But where will this extra money

come from? The rich do not spend but save and invest most of their money.

There's not enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to pay back what

they borrowed with interest, when all the money in the buy/sell economy was put

there by people borrowing from the rich and spending it into the economy. (The

rich don't spend much of their money but instead save and invest it so others

can spend it for a price.)

Investment by the rich, at first, puts money into the buy/sell economy: But in

the long run, this investment not only recalls (to the rich) all the money it

put in, but also much additional money (the interest). So that over the long

run, investment actually sucks money out of the economy to the rich, who don't

spend it but just keep investing it (both of which that is 'don't spend', and

also 'investing' both of which, keep the rich's money from the buy/sell

economy). Now then. Now, if one were to kill a rich family, then their money

would revert to the government, who love to spend money. But this is a sad and

evil way to run an economy. (Just ask A. Hitler.) -There's got to be a better

way to make an economy run. May I suggest that taxing the rich instead of

killing them, is so much more humane.

These high interest rates remove money from the buy/sell economy. With

less money available (in the buy/sell economy), the businessmen are forced to

sell their goods for less, because there's less money available. (This puts a

stop to inflation where businessmen and labor keep raising their prices.)

So when people and businesses have a lot of debt, and interest rates are high;

there won't be enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to pay back

their debt plus interest. This results in businesses cutting back and going

bankrupt; in other words, recession and even depression. In this atmosphere (of

not enough money available in the economy); it is the rich who get the profits

from the businessman's hard work. The rich own the material wealth of this

world via the situation where they have nearly all the money and a lot of money,

and the price of everything is low. -When they spend a small fraction of their

money, they just get it back from the high interest on the larger fraction that

they invest. The rich can come to own everything through spending a small

fraction of their income, while investing the larger fraction of their money in

investments. -The interest paid to them more than replaces what they spend,

and removes money from the buy/sell economy thus!

keeping prices low. By owning everything, as in a depression, they deny others

access to things, even things they need to live, thus making the lives of others

miserable. In a depression, people are forced to accept the high interest

rates, because they're in desperate need and must borrow to live. High interest

rates are thus in place for good.

(Just as the smaller businessman (the laborer) has their production taken from

them by their bosses; the larger businessmen have that production taken from

them by the rich. And ownership trickles up to the rich.) In a world where

only a few can make it rich (because there isn't enough money in the buy/sell

economy for everyone to even get by); the process of the rest of us competing

for that limited reward, makes life hell for the rest of us. Large businessmen

exploit workers to get ahead of other businesses. Workers backstab each other

to get ahead: all seeking to be the few ones who are rich. Wouldn't it be

better if we all shared in the wealth? Then tiny Tim could get that operation

he needs. Which system would you choose if you had a choice?

The 'present' system is run by the rich who use high interest rates (well,

high interest rates were in the past), to take most everything away from the

rest of us. The government sets the interest rates through its monetary policy

and its central banks. We don't even elect those federal reserve board officers

who have so much power over our economy. (I understand now that the president

appoints them; I'm not sure whether the senate gets an approval vote.)

In today's politics, you have to be very rich to get elected to government high

office. So, the government is run by the rich. Do you really expect them to do

right by the poor or the common man?

If I were a Democrat running for political office: I wouldn't have much to do

with raising taxes (except on the rich. I would raise taxes there.). Instead,

I would concentrate on monetary policy with low interest rates, combined with a

less open foreign trade policy and COLA's for those on fixed income. As for

those large deficits and the national debt: the government can just print money

and borrow from itself. -No need to pay out interest on the national debt to

the rich. Inflation would surely result. But it wouldn't be harmful except to

the rich), and it wouldn't take away jobs. An even better way than just

printing money, would be a two money system. Here every individual would be

allowed to convert annually say, 50 thousand green dollars into 'red' dollars.

Government would collect taxes in both red and green dollars, but would only be

allowed to spend in green dollars. Government spending would devalue the green

dollar, but would leave the red dollar (the cur!

rency of the common individual) unaffected. Thus congress wouldn't have to

borrow from the rich to limit its spending, and would have unlimited budget, but

would have to put up with its own inflation/devaluation from overspending,

without it bothering the common individual. We'd all become more 'rich' instead

of just a few. We'd all have a higher standard of living. And I really don't

think you can feel right about enjoying a higher standard of living unless

everyone else is sharing in it too. So vote these rich guys out.

Oh, don't feel sorry for the rich loosing out to inflation. All they have to do

is invest in the stock market or own their own business to hedge against

inflation, when interest rates are low.

 

For the sake of argument: try out a system that doesn't allow private

sector jobs. This system would allow private property and free enterprise

buying and selling. But if laborers could not be owned (9 to 5), then it would

be almost impossible for any rich-tycoon-wanna-be to own hundreds of times

greater wealth than their neighbor, -(without being able to usurp for

themselves, what the power of the group working together, produces). People

would be forced to cooperate more with one another, instead of overpowering one

another. Be realistic: It's believable that one person may work harder than

another; but not 10 times harder. Why then are some paid (or receive from

investments) 10 times the wage of others: and the people who work hardest get

paid the least (making it bad in all ways).

This plan however, would cause resentment from government meddling. The power

of the group would be threatened because businesses would refuse to exist under

such a deal where they don't have the upper hand. (Business itself would go on

strike.)

A better way to do this, would be by the already proposed free enterprise

system. The free enterprise system is proposed to work via the spirit of

competition. If you don't like the deal one company gives you, then you can go

to their competitor. But the competition in our present system doesn't seem to

be working in the job world. Employers don't compete for limited workers.

Workers compete for limited jobs. (Well, this was in the past before the

boomers begin to retire.)

Only a small fraction of our total work force is needed to provide everyone's

essentials. We (as a society) have succeeded so well at producing our

essentials that we workers are no longer needed so much. But even though we

produce our essentials so easily and food sits abundantly in warehouses; most of

us as workers are denied our essentials by our system unless we work our butts

off, under these artificial conditions. Because our essentials are threatened,

because of the unequal bargaining position our system sets most of us up at.

Then some are just used as examples to scare the rest of us into submission so

we'll do the bidding of the boss without question.

If government encourages the creation of many businesses, then there will

be enough competition. Running a business takes the skills of many people.

What a better place to find such talent than at our colleges. Instead of all

those graduates trying to find those nonexistent high paying jobs in industry

(that are being eliminated by down sizing and replaced with low paying service

jobs); they could form groups together and become their own business right in

college, and with government sponsorship to get them started, many new

businesses could be created with the help of government; if government were to

provide this option and alternative to getting a job in established business.

This would provide enough competition to keep prices low, thus returning control

to the common man and away from the few rich.

If you think of starting your own business; why do it alone? At a job in

somebody else's business, you don't work alone. So in your own business, also

get together in groups and share the ownership and the work. Note: in your own

business, you only have to make enough to pay you and your fellow workers:

compared to working for a company, where a worker must make enough to pay

themself, the supervisor, management, and the owner or stockholders. This makes

one's own business very competitive.//

You may have heard that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Well, I

agree. When we're forced to obtain a certain quota of food on a regular basis

else we die; we're certainly not free; but are enslaved to that essential. Our

condition is that of bondage, not freedom!

With our Nonessentials, we can go without them and grow into them at our leisure

without dying from not having them. But we're forced to produce a certain quota

(a baseline) of food, shelter, heat/cooling; otherwise we die. Unscrupulous

people can then use this fact to create a system whereby we are denied access to

these essentials unless we become their slave and do what they say. They thus

have control over us.

Gravity forces us to stick to this earth. So that we have to have a place to

stay on the earth. We have a system that denies people to be on the earth in

places that don't belong to them (such as other people's property). Because of

this, we must be a slave and work to make enough money to pay for the privilege

of having a place to stick on this earth (housing costs).

Now, If we live in a society that hasn't solved the problem of making

essentials; then here, everyone should work if they want to eat. (And if we

pollute most of the water, we can charge to drink what's left.) But if we live

in a society that can easily produce their essentials, then to deny people

essentials when the society has plenty, is just a means of control to control

them and be their master. In our society, we have the technology to produce our

essentials well. The amount of work for a person to produce their essentials in

our technologically advanced society would only be a few hours a day. So the

requirement to work in exchange for welfare (a person's essentials) should only

be a few hours a day. More than this, is exploitation.

This is why I make a distinction between essentials vs non essentials. It

would be nice for individuals to have the choice to be able to work to produce

only their essentials, or if they wanted more, to work a little harder for some

non essential recreational things. But although a person may work two jobs just

to have their essentials with no frills; their work is used to produce not only

essentials, but a lot of non-essential/recreational things -not for them, but

for a bunch of other, rich folks. It would be nice if a person didn't have to

do all the extra work to supply the rich folk's recreation, but instead, had a

choice to do the extra work in exchange for a cut of the extra stuff (above a

person's essentials).

How can a society seriously condemn thugs and robbers which use coercion and

threats to life to get their way, while the societal system, practices it

wholesale? -(If you deny someone their essentials unless they do what you say

(the dirty work); you are threatening their life you know: because without their

essentials, people die. Duh!) A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. (Oh sure,

a government may impose its laws upon its people, but if they have no basis in

truth, and the population sees this, then the laws will not have the support of

the people -an important foundation for maintaining the laws over time.)

On an unrelated note, let me point out that communism is a sham. Lenin

promised that the land and wealth would be taken from the wealthy landowners and

be given to the common worker. Well, Lenin took the land and wealth away from

the few wealthy landowners all right, but he never gave that land and wealth to

the common worker; but instead kept it for his few crony communist leaders. All

he did was replace one set of royalty with another. I mean, what difference did

it make to have a wealthy landowner hire workers at a pittance to work on the

land where the workers did according to what the landowner wanted; or to have

communist leadership dictate how the land was to be worked? In neither case did

the common worker 'own' or have any say over the land and how things were done

with it. Lenin didn't make good on his promise to distribute the wealth to the

common worker, but instead just replaced one boss with another. Communism

hasn't made good on its appeal to redistr!

ibute wealth.

›On another unrelated note, let me explore some concepts. Slavery of old,

is the ownership of people. Then there is the concept of owning part of people

(as from 9-5), or certain aspects of people. In communism, property can be

owned, but one is not allowed to buy and sell in it, at least not in a free

market. Our concept of marriage is a combination of partial slavery and

communism. The spouses 'own' each other in this aspect (He's my man and nobody

but I can have him. She's my woman, and you better not look at her.) And the

ownership of this aspect is not allowed to be bought or sold.›

 

So much of what goes on seems like a gimmick -detached from the reality of

what needs to be done. From the pyramid schemes to get rich quick, and Amway,

and chain letters (including this one), to all the fluffy management positions

and benefits of ownership and lending money and the stock and commodities

markets; and then there's all the religious cults absorbing member's life

savings; and payments for religious activities. While on the other hand there

is the reality of life whereby a few of us (who are left out of the easy

positions) have to do the actual hard work of producing and providing all the

goods and services we consume. Now if we all bore the burden evenly, it

wouldn't be so bad. So you're one of the people that does the hard work who

thinks they are one of the few connected to reality, that without you, all the

rest would collapse. Actually, the hard work that you're forced to do, is not

reality. it's a result of everybody else shirking. The demand the!

y make that you work so hard, is unrealistic. It's not the way it should be, or

needs to be to get us by. No one should be coerced to work so hard. What I

say, is, let it collapse. And then we'll all have to share the burden evenly

(plus the savings from eliminating the busywork needed to maintain each person's

gimmick, will be enormous). Of course with nobody doing the work, the system

will collapse. But that's what we want. -Then all will be forced to do a

little real work -SO THAT NOBODY WILL BE FORCED TO WORK HARD.

Note that: who decides how hard you are to work? It is what the system, and

businessmen (or the government), decide. And that's not necessarily based on

reality or what needs to be done to live sensibly. Economic systems,

businessmen, and communist governments, often 'get it wrong' and screw up.

These economic systems should be "collapsed" more often. The Federal reserve

chairman; the leaders of the international monetary fund; and all the big CEO's

and major stockholders are not directly or with some, even remotely elected by

the people. Their systems should be collapsed more often.

So, please help colapse this unrealistic economic system based on shoving the

hard work onto a few; in favor or one where the hard work is shared evenly: -in

a more peaceful, less violent way. You may see less service but: The

alternative is violence. -As the hard work gets shoved onto fewer and fewer;

the conditions become worse, thus motivating the few left, to get away: and if

not allowed to get away -to fight back. With the welfare gimmick gone, we now

continue where we left off with the riots of the 60s.

It would be nice if jobs were opened up so one had a 'share/trade' option

-of working a short time producing a product they wanted, where they received a

fraction of the product they produced: and could then quit when they had enough.

This way, the poor wouldn't be cut out of our economic system, as to deciding

what is produced.

 

HOW WOMEN HAVE GOTTEN THE SHORT END OF THE STICK FROM

HISTORY.

Life poses a whole new dimension compared to the inanimate. But life on

earth isn't the best. Along with life on earth, is death. Without anything to

compensate for the transient nature of life; life would soon vanish from earth.

But not to worry; we have birth: Life on earth reproduces itself and creates new

life. (This replaces what death takes away.)

In more developed animals, the initiation of this reproduction, takes the form

of sex. (It is important then for higher animals on earth to have sex, so as to

carry on their species and DNA. Animals on earth that don't have a need for

sex, eventually all die off with no replacements; thus leaving only animals who

do have sex.

›No Religion, can totally eliminate sex; as a religion that successfully

eliminated sex, would die off with its people, on earth -where animals do not

live forever (oops: cloning now makes this possible). So when religion allows

you sex in marriage in the bonds of holy matrimony; they aren't necessarily

being generous: they're forced to allow this for their own continuation and

survival.›

If someone told me that sex had little effect on them (that they disliked

sex); I'd be skeptical. It is our genetic makeup that determines a lot of what

we are. It is our DNA that makes a mother's next baby a human, and not a space

blob or apple tree. In a human's development in the womb, there's even DNA

coding for a person's reproductive system. And even DNA that codes for the

enervation of the reproductive system with the pleasure centers of the brain.

›It's hard to say what form our pleasure would take if life weren't forced

by the need to reproduce; but this is irrelevant, because life on earth is

forced to reproduce (or vanish): and our pleasure is tied to the task of

reproduction.›

If there are any genetic or environmental (ex, family environment) factors

passed from generation to generation; concerning the like or dislike of sex,

then those factors coding for liking sex will be passed on, because sex leads to

babies and a new generation. But those factors for disliking sex won't be

passed on because a person who dislikes sex avoids having sex, and doesn't pass

those genes or lifestyle on. Thus from generation to generation over history,

there is a genetic bias for the liking of sex to be amplified. With each

passing generation, this bias continues.

 

The temporary disabling nature of human childbirth has had its effect on

women over history. Some of us are ambitious and competitive and some of us

aren't. Those men and women who were ambitious, fought to make themselves

master, throughout history. Each time an ambitious woman became pregnant, she

was disabled for at least 3 months. The loss of 3 months may not seem like

much, but over time/history, and over a whole population, it adds up. And then

every month there is the period. In the old days before pads, this would take

attention away from ones effort to better oneself. These factors over time,

enabled ambitious men to get ahead of ambitious women, thus creating a male

dominated society. And to the victor goes the spoils. The male, being master,

set the work of raising the children solely upon the female. The fact that it

is the mother who delivers the milk, and baby, also helped bring this about.

With the woman busy taking care of the kids, this enabled!

men to further advance in leaderhood mastership and control over the resources

needed to live and survive. (Even today, the 'mommy track' is a slower track.)

In the area of reproduction; male control over all resources, translated

into men having a choice but women not having a choice. In the past, a woman

had no choice about whether to marry and raise a family. It was her only way to

survival. The man had the money and the job, and the choice whether to marry or

not. If a man didn't like sex or was indifferent about sex, he was not forced

to marry, and wasn't denied access to the resources of survival. Thus the

dislike or indifference toward sex was weeded out (not passed on) in men. But

whether a woman was indifferent toward sex, or not, it made no difference; as

she was expected to marry and have a family to survive. Her survival was tied

to this. Thus a woman did not have a choice, and the indifference to sex,

instead of dropping out, was passed on, as indifferent women were forced to

marry, have sex, and bear children; to survive.

Men and women have a slightly different genetic makeup. Men have that different

Y chromosome that makes them men while women have another copy of the X. And

obviously, some different genes are turned on to create a male, than a female.

Because of the difference in the genetics, it's possible for men to have genes

coding for a like of sex, while this not being as well expressed in women. -It

is possible to have somewhat different responses to sex, reflecting many

generations of men having choice and women not. Thus it can be said men

constantly have sex on the brain while women can be passive to it. Being slaves

to sex, is the price men pay for having been boss and running things for

generations.

As an aside note learned from class: 'Concerning the mating position:

Female animals don't have much choice when they get it from behind. Humans are

the only ones who mate face to face; and thus the greater ability for choice in

the human female compared to animals'.

Now that we've come a long way with women's lib, and women are no longer

forced to marry to have a decent life, so much. Women now have more choice. If

this keeps up over a number of generations, women will like sex just as much as

the men do. Just ask some of the younger women.

Birth control is another way women can have choice over their destinies.

Women who are indifferent about sex and/or don't want the bother of raising

kids; can use birth control to obtain these goals; thus not passing these traits

on, (genetically or in a family structure). If we experience women's liberation

and equality of men and women over generations; women will come to like sex just

as much as the men do. So here's a real good reason for human males to support

equal rights for women.

 

MORE ON THE SOURCES OF SEXUAL DESIRE: AND RELATED ISSUES.

Because we all die eventually, and our women can no longer have offspring

after menopause; those who lack reproductive desire will not pass these (their)

genes on, including the genes influencing sexual desire. Yes, to have offspring

and pass genes on, it's beneficial for two people to get together, get along,

cooperate and help each other (raise a family). If people were all nice and

friendly (everyone loved each other); then any pair could get together and raise

a family. But when things aren't so rosy; where the trap of evil causes us to

do necessary cruelties to each other; we could still carry on. With the help of

sexual desire, people who don't cooperate well or get along well, can get

together for a moment; continue the species; and this system of reduced

capability. When survival time is short in a harsh environment, sexual desire

can cause a species to reproduce enough offspring to make up for those killed

off. Rabbits (bunnies) and mice, which have a lot o!

f predatory pressure, are highly fecund to make up for these losses.

So sexual desire is a crutch that systems of low capability and togetherness of

good and evil depend on to survive. (It's not that heightened sexual desires

wouldn't exist in systems of freedom from evil; it's just there'd also be

equally heightened desires, and doing, of every other good thing. The

reproduction of life, (which is part of growth and the force of good), wouldn't

be forced by a need to keep up with what death took away.

Earthworms are hermaphroditic; which means an individual has both male and

female reproductive organs. However, evolution has found it advantageous for

organisms to specialize. In most higher animals, an individual is either male

or female. One group of the 'society' (the females) works on reproduction;

while the other group (the males) works on the other tasks of survival.

Specialization is another crutch used to survive the trap of evil of reduced

capability.

Note that traditional evolution / survival of the fittest mentality, operates at

low, reduced capabilities, in the trap of evil. There is an alternative of high

capability free from evil, where the "laws" of evolution don't apply. -Failure

to help all things, even those not as fit, results in incompatible interrelated

needs-and-supplies unto reduced capability. If we helped all things we might

escape reduced capability to where these evolutionary laws don't apply.

-The advancement that survival-of-the-fittest makes against one hardship, (in

breeding better animals to cope with the hardship); is lost when the selection

factor changes with time. When a new hardship comes along, and when the

hardships keep changing over much time; the solutions for the previous hardships

found by evolution are lost, because they're no longer selected for, while some

other factor is. So when a hardship comes back a second time, after a few

thousand years, no genes are left from the first time, and the problems have to

be solved all over again. Thus time, in focusing on hardships and constantly

changing its focus on hardships, wipes out the gains made by evolution, which is

thus a reduced-capability phenomenon. (Survival of the fittest indicates that

there is destruction and death, (and thus togetherness with the force of

destruction/evil), as the weak (and young) are weeded out and killed off. This

assumes togetherness with evil to kill off the weak.) !

Thus the phenomenon of evolution never leads us out of reduced capability.

(Togetherness with death and destruction IS reduced capability.) To solve all

the problems, we need all the solutions simultaneously in our genes. And the

evolution phenomenon doesn't help to get us there (out of reduced capability)

very well.

When at high capability, specialization gives way to versatility; where we

still do what we once specialized in: just that we do so along with everything

else.

The visual attraction to a man(1), and to a woman(2), both in our genes, is

part of this sexual reproduction. If you are a man, #2 got turned on; if a

woman, #1 got turned on, in your fetal development. But nature isn't always

perfect. Sometimes #1 or #2 gets turned on when it should be the other. The

Bible condemns homosexuality, but then it condemns all sexual desire (bit by

bit). Nevertheless, we are all of the human generation, beset with sexual

desire in one form or another: and although homosexuality is an imperfection in

nature's design, all sexual desire is an imperfection in God's design that we

all must deal with before we join God. Thus homosexuality is an imperfection of

an imperfection. Not quite so bad after all. In my 'coming out', Alas, I would

have to "come out" as a heterosexual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 8

Our essentials; sex; and religion.

 

 

 

 

 

The question comes to mind "Is there a God or not?" But whether there

exists a fogoHC or not, the choice is clear to believe in and worship the

fogoHC, in either case. If there isn't a fogoHC, we still worship and seek

togetherness with the fogoHC because: 1) It releases resources within us

through our own faith and allows us to do what we can in this bleak situation.

2) Because when a fogoHC is created at a later date, They will be interested in

resurrecting those who were interested in joining with Them.

On the other hand: if there is a God and He has provided a way for us to escape

suffering and reduced capability; it makes no sense to wallow around in it and

try to get out in our own strength. If we know the way to get in touch with

God, we should do so so we don't suffer this reduced capability.

There are some things the fogoHC doesn't do. And there are many areas the

fogoHC does get into.

If you avoid retaliating with evil, against evil attacks upon you; and

instead get into surrounding God supported areas: If you do what 'God' wants,

but it doesn't work out (›if no Godly parts are generated when destruction

destroys a part of you›) -(if you're not sure of the existence of God); then you

must cover the possibility that there is no God, and do all you can, including

necessary evils to escape the stagnation and disrupt the balance of their

stagnant system. But still note that doing necessary evils and standing and

fighting is only part of our solution to evil attacks, even in a world without

God. There is also the action of escaping and getting away from the evil

attack. Since this does no destruction, it (might have been) suitable in both a

world without God and in a world with God. Whereas the action of fighting works

in a world without God; but must be dropped in a world with a God who believes

in loving your enemies.

First try to get in touch with God to rescue you; and if that fails, then go

ahead and include fighting and counter attacks. But don't relish it, and don't

spend a lot of time with it. Even in a world without God: God will likely be

created in the future; and this can still be accomplished by people who only use

escape; although it may take a bit longer than from people who use both escape

and fighting. But it will still happen. And when a God of love resurrects us

all, he won't be wanting to get together with those of us who do a lot of

fighting and destruction; until that destruction is cast away. So don't invest

a lot of your life in plotting and planning in this destructive area, as you

will loose it, and will have to loose it in your life with God.

 

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires.

1 John 3, 9-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed

remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God*.

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:

whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his

brother (loving the brethren almost a secondary consideration: thus

righteousness may involve more than loving your brother; or John may just be

mirroring righteousness alongside love to define it better, and/or apply it to

the sexual area).

*(But note the connection between 'BORN of God', and, 'His seed remaineth in

him', for a different and better interpretation. Yet perhaps both

interpretations are valid and were intended. Or perhaps not.)/ (And when you're

married to someone, you become one flesh, so the man's seed still remains in

him so to speak. ›You are not forced to grow to join a new partner (done

sexually), but once you do, you must love them in all ways, not just sexually›.)

My word processor thesaurus defines righteousness as morality, probity,

rectitude, and virtuousness. And virtuousness it defines as the condition of

being chaste, or chastity. For chaste it defines as morally beyond reproach,

especially in sexual conduct. Note the similarity in spelling between the word

rectitude and rectum. Also note the similarity in spelling between probity and

probe; as in a stiffened, erect probe. And what is more clear than "his seed

remaineth in him", in reference to not sinning. Of course, the verse can be

interpreted to mean God's seed remains in the person born of god, and this is

what I prefer, but it also can be interpreted the other way (or both ways). Its

just all the other references against sex, that have a cumulative effect leading

me to believe the religious significance placed on 'keeping your seed in you',

and 'keeping yourself'.

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires.

Why? What's wrong with sex? What does it hurt?

Well, just think of it. It is a method of communication, to communicate a

lifestyle that God wants. Everyone is touched by sexual desires. Thus it is a

common element that we can use to easily communicate a certain lifestyle to

everyone.

And what lifestyle? Well, sexual desire can be quite intense and quite

compelling and overwhelming. The drive to reproduce the species is one not

easily set aside; seeing that those who are successful, and who die off, don't

pass those "successful" genes on.

A more easily explained situation, is that of the drug addict. The pleasure is

so intense and overwhelming, that they're desperate and would do anything to get

their next fix: -lie, steal, rob, mug, etc. When the urge to get something is

so strong and overwhelming (as it is with sex or drugs), that a person would do

anything to obtain these growths: they would do "necessary" destructions (evils)

to obtain these things. If we include and allow harm in our ways, we can obtain

things quicker and easier. The lifestyle being communicated, is to abstain from

using harm in our ways, even if it means doing without the growth (until we are

ready for the growth -are able to obtain the growth without harm in our ways).

-Of course, if harm occurs whichever way we go, then this doesn't matter, and

can be disregarded.

(The word SIN itself can be seen as an abbreviation for "its in", as in the pole

"is in" the hole.)

1 John 2, 16-17: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and

the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the

world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of

God abideth for ever."

The statement that the lust of the flesh and eye, is of the world, is true.

Sexual desire it is logical, comes from many generations dying and only those

genes coding for greater sexual desire being passed on. (And death isn't God's

idea.) It's a result of death and the reduced capability stagnation of our

world, where most everyone eventually dies. But doing God's will is the tricky

part.

If you vacate your will out of most of an area, so God can do what He wills

with it, then God's will has been done in this large area from you that was

vacated; (and if it wasn't, you are not to blame for this large vacated area, as

it now belongs to God). Of course, when you get to the point where you know

exactly what God's will is, and are up to doing it, and YOU do it; that too is

acceptable.

Over many generations of humans being subjected to death and the necessity

to reproduce to replace what death took away; has had its effect on us; in that

our genes code for the liking of sex, or sexual desire.

How does our body draw us toward sex? Well, presumably, our body could deny us

its normal function, and irritate us until sexual release is achieved. In other

words, without sexual release, our body puts itself into reduced capability (in

failing to deliver needed brain chemicals). I hear that female ferrets die if

they are not able to mate. This sucks. Reduced capability is what we're trying

to avoid and escape from in the first place. The reduced capability of us/our

bodies doing necessary evils in sexual release; and the reduced capability our

bodies put us in when we abstain from sexual release; are both what I suggest we

try to avoid. Abstinence is no answer in my book. Religion (our religious

tradition) could be fatal, if you happen to be a female ferret.

We, by ourselves, are in reduced capability, the trap of evil. To holler at us

and expect us to get out of reduced capability is frustrating, because we're

mostly unable to do it in our own strength. (Only 1 in 7 billion will escape,

to eventually create the fogoHC.) (Why do you think I call it the TRAP of

evil?) No, we need HELP to get out on a regular basis. Help from God. Help

from Jesus Christ.

 

When I live in reduced capability / the trap of evil, all I can do, is

stagnation. In stagnation, there's no growth and life isn't much different from

the inanimate and the dead. To me, this reduced capability and stagnation is

eternal death. So, if a religion gives me a choice between eternal death and

eternal death, I will choose the path that has the best chance of getting out of

this reduced capability trap of evil and almost certain eternal death.

 

We are who we are. We didn't ask to be part of a world where death is a

fact of life. But that's our situation. Because we are human; our affection

and love are warped by sexual desire. Reproduction itself represents growth (of

life), and is a valid and good activity in itself. Things would be different

and we'd be different if our pleasure wasn't tied to the task of reproduction to

make up for what death took away. But this is who we are. This isn't our

fogoHC representation, but is 'our' representation. The fogoHC will have to

free us from the evils of our essentials otherwise our obtaining freedom will be

quite a long shot. And until we outgrow sexual desire and replace it with

something better; we'll be at the sexual desire stage.

Everybody is effected by sex. Sex is a quasi essential. If you don't have

food, your body consumes (destroys) itself, and you die. If you don't have sex,

you may not die (unless you're a female ferret), but your life sure is

irritated. When a quota of growth is required, as it is for essentials; it

indicates some force of destruction is at work and is present. Since a quota of

sexual release is needed to return our normal functions, destruction is at work

in our body when it denies us our normal functions when we don't get enough

sexual release. In this case, it's all a matter of brain chemicals. (Sex is a

drug) But even before generations of life and death wrapped pleasure upon

pleasure around the act of reproduction; the act of reproduction was a bona fide

act, which represented growth. Growth of life is an important thing, and growth

needs to be done free from evil to be our alternative of good only. Even God

found it convenient to reproduce, as he had a Son !

(Jesus Christ). In a world without death, the act of reproduction wouldn't be

so compelling with so much grunt pleasure as it is here; but it still would be a

good thing.

As I have explained before: everything is interrelated with everything else.

That's why I insisted upon equal increase of all good things. You see, each

thing has needs for all the other things (in varying degrees); and it also

supplies itself to all the other things to fill their need for it. Now if all

things are of the right size in relation to each other; their needs are

satisfied. BUT if things get out of balance and one thing becomes much larger

than the others; then this large thing has great needs for everything else that

can't be supplied; plus it produces too much of itself that the other things

just don't need that much of. (There's little or nothing else out there that

needs this large production of this thing.)

(So, if there's little else out there to need all the sex being produced, then

there's no need to do more sex. No, its time to get out and do all the other

things out there with the empowering brain chemicals that sex produced. There's

many other things in addition to sex.)

The most strict religion picks out this one thing (sex), and says you loose

your salvation if you have it (If you spill your seed). (1st John can be

interpreted that way). This religion thus focuses all attention to sex. There

are a whole bunch of other things besides sex. Sex is just one of the many

things we can do. It tricks you into thinking it's either sex or nothing. Now,

if you decide to disobey this command and have sex; then you do sex. But you

don't do all the other thing there are. -Religion isn't prohibiting all the

other parts of life: the focus isn't on all these other things (just sex).

Since only sex (a good, valuable and gentle thing that you need almost like

food/shelter) is in need of support against this religious prohibition; all we

do in response, is sex. Sex is interrelated with all the other things of life.

But all the other things aren't being done; only sex. There's nothing else

there needing all this sex; and all this sex has needs for a!

ll the other things, but has none of them there to satisfy its great needs for

them (because we didn't produce them). (Everything is interrelated.)

The reduced capability that our bodies would put us in without sexual release is

avoided; but the reduced capability of uneven growth with its unfilled needs; is

found.

So you might say all we need do, is to do the other parts of life, along with

sex, and this would solve our problem. But remember, sex is a quasi essential,

and has the force of destruction associated with it. So doing it along with all

our other things of life, would allow the evil to feed off all these other good

things, with the forces of good and evil together. And we don't want that.

Religion has good reason for singling sex out. Well, we could do what the Bible

says, and abstain from sex. This is not as bad as it sounds, because not

spilling our seed includes everything else but sex. If we do everything but

sex; these other things would still be interrelated with each other and would

supply each other's needs to a good degree. So, we can go on like this for

awhile. But we would not escape reduced capability, so don't expect to. We

increase EVERY non evil thing. EVERY non evil thing is INTERRELATED with EVERY

other non evil thing. (Sex has good in it; and we d!

on't want the evil anyway). If we leave out sex because we're unable to do the

good of it without the evil; then the reduced capability of unbalanced growth

WILL catch up to us. Since sex is only one (lonely) thing and we have

everything else; we may escape reduced capability for a time and in some

situations; but eventually we will fall into reduced capability. Once in

reduced capability, it doesn't matter if we abstain from sex or do sex; it is

all reduced capability. What shall we do?

What I suggest, is a yin/yan sort of thing. We cycle between doing everything

but sex; and then, sex alone. First we abstain from sex / (and other

essentials), and do everything else. Eventually these thing's interrelated need

for sex (or some other essential) begins to build, and pull us to it. Then we

switch to doing nothing but sex (or one of the other essentials). This way, the

destruction in sex (or some other essential) cannot spread to other things, but

is quarantined. When an evil (a destructive force) is present, that indicates

an essential. Where there is no destructive force, then that item doesn't need

to be quarantined or done alone. We thus practice separation of the forces.

We have the produce of all the other things from the previous cycle to supply

sex's needs; and the sex produced in the present cycle will supply needs in all

the other things in the next cycle. What we need to watch is that we don't

produce them (do them) together.

Doing the things of our non-evil-Non-essential group all together is so

much better, because interrelated needs are satisfied instantly. It's when

we're forced into our essentials that we need to remember we can't do this, and

must quarantine each one of them.

I wish to expand this section and discuss it in more depth:

We want to separate things in our essentials as much as possible so the force of

evil is separate from the force of growth. But we can go too far with this.

When we divide a functional unit up too small, the narrowly defined part of our

essential is without anything else, and is thus at reduced capability; unable to

supply the growth we need in the time frame. Since our needs for that essential

aren't met, we stay in that essential a long time; and aren't able to get back

into our non-evil-group. What can we do? We could widen our functional unit to

include more related parts of the essential. And we could move that width

around by dropping older parts as we add new parts. Or we could even move that

width around in both our essentials and non essentials. But if we did this, we

wouldn't be able to do our nonessential-group as a whole. Yes, if we widen each

essential too much to include their nearest related areas, then overall, there

wouldn't be much left of the non-ev!

il-group. (Talk about the good seed being choked out by weeds.) If we insist

on quarantining all essentials, and give them all a wide enough functional unit

to be bearable, then we'll spend all our time in our essentials, because there

never will develop enough need for the non-evil-group (for what it supplies), to

pull us out of our essentials. And this is because the non-essential-group is

unfortunately mostly done piecemeal as the-related areas-part of each of the

essentials. And the few things left not-done of the non-essential-group don't

make much of a fire, in supplying their few interrelated needs instantly. What

shall we do? We need to quarantine essentials; but we also need to allow our

non-evil parts to come together in a group, to take advantage of the power of

the group vs the reduced capability of our parts being separated-and-alone,

-or-only-in-small-groups. We need to balance these two opposing directives.

For one thing, we need to realize we can't quar!

antine all our essentials at the same time. We only pick one that is drawing on

us the most at present. (That will change over time, as we satisfy one

essential and move into another.)

OOPS! WE CAN DO THEM TOGETHER (CAREFULLY).

We don't do our non-evil-group with our essentials, because the evil in our

essentials would have the growth of the non-evil-group to feed on. But the

thing about evil, is, that it tends to burn itself out if it doesn't have

something good to feed on. Another thing about evil, is that its subject to the

same laws of being at reduced capability, as anything else. You've heard the

saying "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Well, in the case of evil,

that's not the case. Depending on evil's capability, and the richness of its

environment, evil may spread throughout its area; or it may consume only what's

in its grasp and not be able to reach further into its area. Remember that evil

has trouble bridging barriers because it destroys the key to crossing barriers.

/(Evil is weak (and inferior -(excuse my prejudice: -its just that it happens to

be true)). Sometimes it overstates its powers, and we give it credit for being

stronger than it actually is. We needn't !

do so.)/

In our non-evil-group, we find a rich environment more or less, depending on how

we're advancing. The new idea, is to actually combine our essentials with our

non-evil-group. But the trick is to do it piecemeal. If we take a small piece

of an essential and do it with our non evil group; the evil introduced into our

non-evil-group will be small. A small evil is at reduced capability. Note: all

of the non-evil-group is good; and part of the essential is good, while only a

small evil part is evil. The non-evil-group provides a rich environment, but if

the evil we introduce is small enough, things won't be rich enough for this evil

to bridge barriers. On the other hand, the equally small good part (of the

essential) is better at bridging barriers because it is good and doesn't destroy

the key to crossing barriers but creates that key. Thus the good does cross

barriers and escapes into our-non-evil group while the evil remains in our

essential. Even though the environment !

of the non-evil-group is rich (or very rich); the piece-of-essential is made

small enough so its evil is unable to cross barriers, while its good is still

able (due to: the small size/reduced capability, (and the difference between

evil and good)). This takes advantage of the difference between good and evil.

Once the good of the essential has escaped into our non-evil-group, we discard

that small piece of essential, and move onto the next small piece of the

essential. Thus little by little (piecemeal), we wash our essentials clean. So

this is the new idea: We do our essentials a little piece at a time together

with our non-evil-group. (The same goes for evil attacks on us. When an evil

person attacks us, there's too much evil there to handle the whole person, we

just handle them a little piece at a time.) This plan emphasizes ceasing doing

older actions while starting and doing the newer ones; and not letting any

individual piece spend too much time. Yes we do only a !

small piece at any one time, and move through our whole essential a little piece

at a time. If we do this fast enough (but not too fast), it delivers and cleans

our whole essential. This is the important 'piecemeal method'. Note that when

our non-evil-group isn't as advanced, it doesn't have to worry about this, as it

isn't that much of a rich environment. But as our non evil group advances, it

becomes a richer and richer environment, so that it can take less and less of a

load of evil without the evil burning it down in a firestorm.

I want to go over our piecemeal method in more detail:

First we do a small beginning part of our essential along with our

non-evil-group. In the rich environment, this small pat begins to grow. (Since

we make the piece of essential small enough, the evil in it doesn't grow, but

the good does.) In the stopping old parts of our essential, and starting new

parts - action; let the new parts be started by the growth from the essential

itself. Then once the essential has grown into a new area; then we shut off the

old part. This way the good in the essential isn't forced to grow too fast

using necessary evils. Now, concerning the stopping action we do. That action

has a destructive force in it (and thus joins the essentials). So we must also

have an action that diverts some of that stopping action back on itself. This

second action I call the stopping stopping action. This action keeps the

stopping action from growing too wide in the rich environment of our non evil

group. This stopping-stopping action itself, remains with th!

e non evil group even after the complete essential is finished. This is because

it has no destruction (after its finished, and it finishes automatically), and

can thus remain part of the non evil group. (Thus we don't have a stopping

stopping stopping action etc.)

At this point, I leave this discussion, and begin a discussion on religion

(the early part of which, lays background for this piecemeal method).

 

RELIGION

What is the difference between right and wrong?, good and evil? That which

is good must be inherently different from that which is evil, so you don't need

a 3rd party to tell the difference.

(The rules that require living and capable 3rd parties to uphold them, place a

burden (a tax if you will) on us living/capable 3rd parties. The rules that are

inherent, require no living capable 3rd parties to uphold them (thus are tax

free), /and are also inescapable/. . . . I . am . . the . true . .

Republican. Fancy that.)

 

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).

(Not only do we have a bible to tell us what is right and wrong, we have the

experiences-of-life that can show us right from wrong, when a thing is 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.

There are many or several types of love. (What do we mean when we say

'love'?) The only way that a certain type of 'love' would be rejected, would be

if there were something inherently in it; something in the definition of it,

that insisted evil or decrease in capability be done. Like my definition for

evil, is something that decreases and destroys capability and life. If we call

this evil, as love instead, then it would still not be a part of the other

things we know as love, because when alone and separate, it shrinks and doesn't

grow. Because of inherent differences, the evil would behave differently and

would show itself incompatible with the other things we know as love. The other

things we know as love, do grow when separate, and grow together, out of

separation.

When there is no consequence when you don't 'get caught': When a 3rd party

is needed to uphold the difference between right and wrong: What then is a 3rd

party? Over the vast expanse of space, the amount of capability, intelligence,

and life held within, is small (that we can see). Outside of earth, not much is

visibly alive. We can see much lack and absence of capability and life. 3rd

parties are alive. They have capability intelligence and life. This version of

right and wrong (and there are many versions), occurs only in the vicinity and

reach of the 3rd party. Outside their grasp, this version is no longer

supported, and no longer applies. This is the difference between a version of

right and wrong that needs a 3rd party to supply/support it; and a version that

is inherent within the actions under consideration. The difference is that

under the 3rd-party-supported-version, there's always the chance for escape:

But under the inherent version, there is no es!

cape. Under the inherent version, the laws apply even at the low levels (of

capability). And if a version of right and wrong stagnates its life forms

and 3rd parties (because it contains togetherness with cruelty/destruction), it

is easily escaped from. There is no policeman looking over your shoulder to

make sure you don't do what is wrong. There is no 3rd party that punishes you.

Even so, there are some things that produce results on their own. If you are

cruel, it comes back on you by itself. If you like it, then it's your choice.

Yes, there are policemen and 3rd parties. But with them, there is always the

chance of escape, no matter how remote (it can't be as remote as the no escape

of the inherent version). No matter how remote the chance of escape; escape

will eventually prevail. (See the beginning of this book where it is explained

how the force of good overcomes the force of evil.)

 

The force of good(growth) produces capability and LIFE; while the force of

evil(destruction), destroys it (leaving nothingness). Evil destroys what can

support it. Evil destroys capability and LIFE; the keys to crossing barriers

and getting around. On the other hand, good can get around (bridge barriers)

because it produces the key to that: -capability and life. This basic

difference between good and evil can be used to separate these forces of good

from evil.

When good and evil are together, evil feeds off and destroys what good produces,

and good doesn't grow. But when the forces are separate, evil consumes itself

and dies while good grows and becomes very rich in all manner of life and very

powerful. We want to accomplish separation of the forces so our life can be all

life can be. (This occurs when life isn't constantly being destroyed by evil:

-when life is free of destruction.) Now, if we put a piece of life (containing

both good and evil) in a very nurturing environment; the good will be able to

get around well, but so will the evil also have plenty of material to get around

with as well as destroy. Here the forces won't separate. Or, the force of evil

will grow strong with all this nurture, and do lots of destruction, bringing the

whole system down to reduced capability. But if we put that piece of life in an

environment that's not so nurturing and at reduced capability; then we can find

a point where the good can sti!

ll get around, cross barriers and grow out into the surrounding environment,

while the evil is unable (due to it destroying what can get it around). In this

environment, the differences between these forces makes a real difference: -the

forces separate. Once the good grows completely out into the surrounding

environment; the original piece (now containing all the evil, and non good) can

be discharged, and the forces will thus be separated. So we can enact

separation of the forces if we place the material to be separated in the right

environment -that of reduced capability. ›And this separation of the forces

involves an action of 'escape' where the more mobile good moves out of the area

where evil remains.› When our child is bad and contains evil within them, we do

not destroy our child, but instead, spank them -or otherwise punish them, (and

thus place them in reduced capability). This allows for the good to grow out

away from the evil and the evil to die: thus saving the!

good and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One way to place a thing in reduced capability while doing minimal harm, is

to fragment it. When evil attacks part of us, we can fragment that part (and

all other parts within evil's grasp), putting it at reduced capability. When

the evil has died out, we can then allow what's left to grow back together.

When something contains evil within it, we need to place it in reduced

capability for separation of the forces. But when something contains no evil,

we don't put it in reduced capability. Just the opposite, we nurture it. Even

of itself, when something is free of evil, it grows well and creates an ever

more nurturing environment. (To place something that doesn't contain evil, in

reduced capability, forces it to do necessary evils to survive and returns it to

the evil it escaped from.)

The question comes to mind: why does God allow us to suffer, and put us in

reduced capability? And being in reduced capability is bad enough but when

we're irritated as well by our predicament, that indicates a fore of evil is

together with us and is eating us. Yet we cannot even try to get away and

escape. We must stick around to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile.

If there is a God, why would He subject us to such abject reduced capability?

First of all, God puts us in reduced capability to separate the forces. There's

evil in us, in our world and in our essentials. The good's growing out into

god, while the evil's not growing, and is thus separated away and discarded. We

must be at this level of reduced capability so the evil won't get out, while the

good will. Otherwise, a more capable evil would make destruction out of God's

rich nurturing environment. We're put in reduced capability, yes; but we loose

any irritation. Being irritated indicates a force of destruction is eating us,

as in the forces of good and evil together. That's the point of this reduced

capability: to eliminate togetherness of these forces, and separate the forces.

(If you think having the forces together is irritating at reduced capability,

just think how irritating it would be at high capability.) So, being irritated

isn't what God's trying to do here. Just the opposite: it's what He's

eliminating. Once good has separated from !

evil, it no longer needs to be in reduced capability, and can be advanced to

high capability.

When destruction DESTROYS part of us we would expect to loose that part and

no longer have it, right? But what if a force-of-good-of-High-Capability caught

the good of that part before destruction destroyed it? Well, the good of that

part would still be alive; yet would be a separate entity -part of God. It'd be

free from the destruction it passed through. It's a very special part because

it is escaped from all evil, and can now advance and grow well. It has a very

valuable status -that of being free from all evil.

If there was no God, then when destruction destroyed part of us, that

part'd be gone and we'd loose it. But if it appears recreated as a separate

entity, still alive, and able to make choices; then it seems to me there is a

God, and this part is with God at the doors of heaven. Search inside yourself.

Are some of your parts Godly parts? -Parts that shouldn't even exist that

should be dead and destroyed, but are yet alive and exist as a separate entity

from the rest of you? We have an evil free, non-coerced choice here. The

wise choice is to keep what has escaped evil, to remain escaped from evil. So

that when destruction destroys us in the evil, earthly arena; that

us-translated-into God, doesn't replace what was destroyed. The earthly arena

goes without until its own growth replaces that again.

John 3, 5-8: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man

be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst

not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of

the Spirit.

When the force of destruction comes and destroys part of you, you'd expect

to loose what was destroyed. But what if a behind-the-scenes -fogoHC caught the

good of this part? Then it would still be alive; and not only alive, but fast

growing and rich because of it being evil free. So you notice that somehow you

still have this part and that it has somehow escaped the destruction. And you

unsuspectingly then use this Godly part like normal, and use it in your life

here together with evil. This is where the mistake is made. The wise choice is

to not turn these free parts back into the arena of evil, but allow them to

remain as they are -evil free in God. But oftentimes we don't realize the value

of what we have; and this Godly part chooses to come back down into the evil

arena it escaped from to supply our remnant rest of us in our need (which is

trapped of evil). In doing so, our Godly part looses its precious position of

being free from evil and becomes trapped of!

evil again. Bringing these Godly parts down into evil's arena to supply us, is

like antimatter trying to contact matter. You may want to bring your in-God

parts down to help you deal with the problems you are having with evil; but that

just destroys their evil free status (in a painful way). The solution to evil

is already within you: to choose from you in-God parts to never come down

together with your earthly parts. Because 'where your treasure is; there your

heart is also'. By not returning these Godly parts to the arena of evil, you

make a place for yourself in heaven and store up treasure in heaven; so that you

may be in heaven, and not suffering with evil, on earth.

Matthew 6, 19-21: Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth

and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth

corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

The process by which we are born (again) into God's Spirit: (Matthew 16,

24-25): Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,

let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will

save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall

find it.

John 12, 24-25: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall

into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much

fruit.

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world

shall keep it unto life eternal.

Here we see that separation of the forces has occurred through death. The

corn of wheat had died; and in so doing, the good parts of it have been

translated into God's Spirit, where they are separate from evil and can thus

grow well (bringing forth much fruit). But the corn of wheat before it dies,

represents us here on this earth together with evil, where we thus stagnate and

don't grow (due to our being together with evil).

Since the good parts (which were once part of you before destruction

destroyed their connection with you) are now separate from the destruction and

are now a part of God: we can now call them (part of) God. These Godly parts

then do not deliver themselves (or earthly parts) to evil, nor do they help in

the growth of our earthly parts within evil's grasp.

These Godly parts then are not subject to your obedience of the commandments in

your earthly situation; but are subject to their own obedience to the

commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate entity from you.

Note that if these parts of God cannot be compelled or smitten, or be made

subject to the authority of men; (and they can't since they have already escaped

and been made separate from these things (God is Holy)); then they are not

required to go the extra mile or bring themselves to be destroyed by the

commandments. 'Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.'

Our earthly parts are under the coercion of evil, and are in no position to

change or obey anything. It is from our Godly parts that we have a free choice.

If these Godly parts choose not to come down nor supply our earthly parts (this

is the dying to ourselves Christ wants us to do); then our earthly parts will be

at reduced capability. At reduced capability, separation of the forces is

achieved in our earthly parts; which causes the evil to die and the good to

grow. And without evil to bother us, we can do good even in our earthly parts.

(At reduced capability, the good in our earthly parts is able to grow away from

the evil. Remember, the evil is also at reduced capability, and can't get

around. Thus separation of the forces is achieved.)

But if we choose instead with our Godly parts, to bring them down and supply our

earthly parts, then our earthly parts will be well nurtured and not at reduced

capability. In this nurture, the good will be able to get around, but so will

the evil, due to the rich environment. As long as this continues, stagnation

will be the result, as the evil continues to survive and feed off what our Godly

parts bring down. So, the way to disrupt stagnation within us, is to deny our

earthly self our Godly parts: -to not bring down our Godly parts to supply our

earthly parts. This is a wonderful and powerful thing. Now our earthly parts

can be evil free and can be accepted of God. This placing our earthly parts in

reduced capability is just the opposite of what I had argued for earlier. Then,

I argued we should be well nurtured, so as to avoid evil. Well, that's still

true but only when there's no evil within us. If evil is present in our earthly

parts, then instead of the nurturing!

environment, they need just the opposite -a reduced capability environment (for

separation of the forces).

If an evil finds you after you've grown to be nurturing; a way to bring

things to reduced capability, is through fragmentation. If we fragment or

atomize (disbanding the central government), our parts will be at less

capability, and the evil can be denied the growth our union would have produced.

The evil can then be on its way to self destruction, and what good parts can

grow away and escape the new evil, can regrow a nurturing environment and union,

utilizing the fragments present, which it is able to put back together.

In a Biblical context; we recall that Jesus said that if a part of our body

offended us, we should cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. In the light

of turning the other cheek, it has application: The entity required by Jesus'

command to turn the other cheek, is only what is attached to the cheeks. (If a

neighbor is struck on the cheek, are all Christians required by the command, to

come and offer their cheeks? Recall the condition at the beginning of the

command 'if you are compelled or smitten' -and that all these others have not

been compelled nor smitten (still, if we're all together as one . . .). -and

the 'command' to give to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's.)

Only entities attached to, and part of, the cheeks would be required to do the

turning. Otherwise we'd not be able to obey his other command about casting

what parts of us that offend us, away. (If you are turning you cheek, it's not

cast away.)

Note: what is a cheek? Is it the mental connection and image; or the

physical matter? A mountain is big, but without a living human mind to conceive

of its largeness, a mountain is unable to be big. In reality, a puny human is

much bigger than a mountain, in terms of life. All our possessions have no

life, but the effect they have on our nerve impulses and in our mind.

ie: there is more than one way to cast a part of us away. And the mental way

is preferred as it does less destruction. Although we still amputate when

something gets gangrene. Now, if the action to cast away, offends us, we can

cast away casting away.

A real point here, is: do you want to preserve your entity/identity and

suffer destruction; or do you choose to escape destruction but loose your

(previous) entity/identity? If a destructor is unable to smite one of your

cheeks, then you are not required to deliver cheeks to the destructor. But if a

destructor IS able to smite one of your cheeks, then the command requires you to

deliver your other cheeks to the destructor. However, if you fragment yourself

so that the entity known as 'you', is no longer composed of 2 cheeks, but that

there now exists 2 separate entities of one cheek apiece; then the entity

required to turn the unsmitten cheek, no longer exists. With the original

entity unavailable for the command requirement to lock onto, the requirement is

unable to apply. (Perhaps the new entity containing the smitten cheek could

still be required to turn the unsmitten cheek. But if it cannot deliver the

unsmitten cheek (if the unsmitten entity acts to get away), !

then only the entity with the smitten cheek has broken the command and will

suffer hell for it. But then, it is already in torment from being smitten. And

now will live eternally (with eternal chances for material to escape it),

instead of dying and coming to an end from being smitten.

Of course, there are times when the smiting of our cheek, is just a minor

necessary evil we must endure to obtain some good. In this case, we wish to

preserve our entity and not fragment. So the command here, instructs that all

cheeks should bear the burden of being smitten. You rich guys should not have

your cheeks spared while we working poor must be smitten day in day out by this

work for wages stuff; -as long as you want to remain part of the society and

enjoy the benefits of it (which you so richly do).

When evil attacks us, we go to an environment of reduced capability for the

separation of the forces. We accomplish this, first, by not bringing down the

Godly parts (created as a result of evil destroying parts of us); and secondly

with our earthly parts by decentralizing, dissociating and fragmenting our

earthly selves -where evil has a grasp. (We never bring down any Godly part to

do fragmentation, though. That's done only by what earthly parts we have.

When evil dies, it no longer destroys, and Godly parts are thus no longer

generated. (the existing Godly parts of themselves do plenty of growth anyway).

 

There is a force of destruction in our essentials in that they require a

quota of growth. In the essential of eating, our bodies are continually burning

the food to make energy. Our periodic eating is just the uptake of additional

food material to await destruction. The act of eating in itself, doesn't have

to be destructive. That's not the main destructive force. That just represents

the taking in of more food. It is the continual burning of that food within us,

that is destructive (of the food), and is the main destructive force. Although

this main destructive force probably resides near its 'food' source.

There's a destructive force in our bodies we're born with. Our bodies

continually burn food to supply us with energy to live. We must periodically

take in new food to replace what our bodies used up (destroyed). But whether or

not we eat; our bodies still always burn (destroy) food for energy. If we don't

eat, our bodies consume us and we starve to death. If we eat, our bodies

consume the food instead, and we're able to live awhile longer. In both cases

(eat or fast), destruction to (food) material is done, as the body burns it for

energy. So, Godly parts are continually being created from this.

At this point I want to review the possibilities that are available to the

force of good (growth) vs the force of evil (destruction): When the force of

evil is alone, it consumes itself and disappears; so this isn't a viable option.

Evil needs a force of good to supply it with material to destroy.

So when evil is together with good, this is one viable possibility. But this is

the possibility of torment because the evil never dies and goes on forever.

The other viable possibility is that of the force of good alone. When good is

alone, it builds itself up to high capability and is very nurturing. Life here

experiences its best and full potential.

When our body burns (food) material for energy, that is a force of

destruction (in that we'll always need to take in more food to replace what our

bodies destroy). We were born with this force of destruction in our bodies; but

we have a mind to think and choose with. When our minds choose to eat; that is

a choice to feed this destructive force. It's a choice for the forces of good

and evil together with that choice's corresponding torment. But what other

choice do we have? If we choose to not eat, we starve to death. And that's no

choice at all. If we examine what we're choosing if we choose to starve, we'd

find we've chosen to not-choose (between good vs destruction). When the

destruction in our bodies consumes us, our minds could choose to eat, and this'd

be a choice to feed the evil. It'd be a choice for evil and good together (one

of the viable options). But when our minds choose not to feed the evil, and

when the evil in our bodies consumes us and we starve!

to death, then we've NOT chosen the option of evil and good together. But we

haven't chosen the viable option of good only, either, since we denied ourselves

any good (any food in this case). We're stuck with the evil in our bodies

(which we did not choose), and the evil is alone (since we didn't take in any

good). The option we've chosen (the option of destruction alone), is a NON

viable option where both forces are eliminated (so we end up with neither force)

after we've starved to death and gone to nothing where once we were alive.

What I want to choose, is the viable option of good only. And the option

of good only can be achieved by the separation of the forces from a system (or

entity) containing good and evil together. And this separation of the forces

can be achieved by bringing this system to reduced capability.

Now in the starvation example, our system goes to reduced capability naturally

when we choose not to eat. The destruction in our bodies brings our system to

reduced capability as it destroys, and what it destroys isn't replaced. And so

here, separation of the forces can be achieved.

Unfortunately we haven't included a force of good to separate out. Since we

aren't feeding the evil, we have thus included no force of good and our system

contains only the force of destruction (that we were born with in our bodies).

Thus although the reduced capability environment, generated (as the destruction

destroys us down) would allow for any good to become separated from evil; this

doesn't occur, since we included no force of good. This is the flaw with the

self denial, discipline and pious (religious) ways and republicanism in our

world today.

The destructive forces in our bodies aren't things chosen by our minds, but

are things we're born with. When we choose (to do) good things with our mind,

these good things become part of our system. Also part of our system are the

destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. So when we choose good

things (any good thing), this thus then throws us into a situation of torment of

the forces of good and evil together (where the worm never dies and the fire is

not quenched -where the destructive force remains alive and doesn't burn itself

out). But this good and evil together is only one of the viable options. What

about the viable option of good alone? We haven't tried that yet (we aren't

capable of that yet, especially when we choose starvation). (The starvation

choice was the non viable option of the force of evil alone.) But can we even

accomplish good alone? Often it seems we really don't have a choice. We're

forced into either destruction alone vs good p!

lus destruction, and we're unable to achieve good alone (as we have trouble

shaking the destruction in our bodies we were born with). Not being able to

have, obtain, achieve what we want; describes a situation of reduced capability.

If we choose to bring a force of good into this reduced capability environment,

then separation of these forces will occur because separation of the forces

occurs at reduced capability. When the forces become separate, the evil alone

will consume itself and disappear; and the good alone will provide us with what

we were seeking. So don't tell me we're incapable of the viable option of good

only. It's one of the possibilities. If the environment is too nurturing with

evil also present; we can always fragment and thus bring it to reduced

capability. ('Those who abase themselves with be exalted; those who exalt

themselves will be abased.') The way we'd miss achieving good only is if we

choose not to choose, by choosing the non viable option o!

f evil only (which is what we do when we self deny, choose not to eat, choose to

be celibate). In this situation of evil only; evil consumes all within its

grasp, consumes itself and dies. But there's no good left after the evil has

died. Thus we achieve nothing with this choice. We do no evil, but neither do

we achieve any good. The inanimate does just as well as this (this stagnant

system). Life can do better than this. Life by definition hopefully, is above

the nothing and the inanimate.

We do need a moderate amount of good things. But don't overdo it. Having too

many good things puts us above reduced capability: And, in the presence of evil

(especially if we did much necessary evil to obtain the many good things), this

results in the forces of good and evil together where the forces do not separate

due to being above reduced capability. We don't want the viable option of good

and evil together, as that is the option of torment. (Recall the parable of the

bigger barns.)

We can still achieve the viable option of good-only in choosing

lots-of-good; but in addition to choosing much good, we must deal with the

destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. And we do so by creating an

environment of reduced capability around (only around) those destructive forces.

We can do this by fragmenting everything near these destructive forces (within

us). But the parts of us not near (or separate from) the destructive forces;

don't need fragmentation, and can enjoy the good life. /They will also be the

doers of fragmentation unto our parts near and belonging to our destructive

forces. Oops. Recently I've found this isn't a good idea to have the

evil-free areas do fragmentation. (Fragmentation invariably includes some

destruction). It's better to have only the things near evil do fragmentation

unto themselves. This includes fragmenting the fragmentation action itself

(which is done simultaneous with fragmenting everything else near evil)!

.. Now, if we fragment the fragmentation action, it ceases to function after a

certain point, and the fragmentation stops. (We won't have done a complete job

(a complete fragmentation) here.) But that's just what we want. Our purpose is

to bring everything here (in the vicinity of evil) to reduced capability so

things no longer function; but not much below this point. We want to create an

environment of reduced capability for separation of the forces where the good is

still able to grow, but the evil isn't. And if we brought things to too low

capability with a complete fragmentation, then the good wouldn't be able to get

around either; and separation of the forces wouldn't be achieved. We want an

environment of reduced capability, not desolation. The fragmentation produces a

reduced capability environment where separation of the forces occurs. Thus we

achieve the wonderful viable option of good only. Only where evil is, should be

at reduced capability: the other loc!

ations should be nurtured. And if Godly parts aren't being generated, then

fragmentation doesn't need to be done.

Our living in a world with death, where generation after generation dies

and is replaced by the newest generation; has had its effect on us. Species and

individuals lacking a drive to reproduce, die off, and don't pass those genes

on. Thus there's a bias for increasing the drive to reproduce. How is this

drive enhanced? Well, I theorize a defect in our body has been selected for,

that slowly destroys brain chemicals (hormones),-and that sexual release is

needed to restore those brain chemicals and brain function. This then makes

sexual release a quasi essential, in that we feel compelled to produce a quota

of it. And we need to deal with the continual destruction here within our body,

through ›'choosing away'› / fragmentation. (But even in a world without a bias

or drive, the action to reproduce is an important one, representing growth;

although it wouldn't be so driven.)

The destruction is continually destroying (brain chemicals), but we don't

necessarily continually replace them. Whether or not we are replacing brain

chemicals, or in between replacement, or not replacing; the destruction

continues, and is somewhat independent of our sexual arousal/release. And Godly

parts are continually being created. What can we do? Well, we could choose to

stop feeding the destruction and no longer replace the brain chemicals. But

this would throw us into reduced capability in other areas that depend on these

brain chemicals, that were otherwise good and contained no evil; which should

remain nurtured and not be thrown into reduced capability. What can we do?

There is another way. Our mind can choose fragmentation (simultaneous with

Godly parts choosing away) as a means of putting the evil into reduced

capability to enact separation of the forces.

But even when not acting to PRODUCE brain chemicals, we must continually

fragment in the area where our body destroys brain chemicals (where Godly parts

are being generated), so when we do produce brain chemicals, it doesn't become a

choice by us for evil (and good together) with its corresponding torment. Of

course, our Godly parts aren't involved in this fragmentation in any form, but

choose away from all this. -(Which helps further in creating a reduced

capability environment here). (Our earthly parts do the fragmentation.) And

everything is incompletely fragmented in the area of evil (our consciousness,

any brain chemicals, the production of brain chemicals, etc). /Note that

these methods can also be used on the occasional evil that comes from the

outside. But just remember to continue dealing with the evil within our body

that is occurring continually, simultaneous with external evil./

In more detail: Other non-evil areas may be elevated out of reduced

capability by the brain chemicals; but if our production of brain chemicals

contains an evil, then we should do without, even though our other good areas

shouldn't be put in reduced capability, right? Well, no. If doing without puts

us in reduced capability: (but since it contains evil, going with it will also

put us in reduced capability -(therefore our previous directive to abstain in

order to avoid reduced capability, doesn't apply)): then we should go WITH it,

so that the good of it will be separated by the reduced capability environment;

as opposed to not including it, which would loose the good of it altogether.

The reduced capability environment is ripe for processing this thing with good

and evil together, so we can take advantage of that. -Even (especially) if all

we're able to do, is this thing with good and evil together(, or, nothing).///

If we're unable to fragment, then we're already at reduced capability and

needn't do the fragmentation. When we fragment, we also fragment our

fragmentation action itself. And when that is fragmented until it no longer

functions, this fragmentation stops. So concerning an evil attack: we fragment

once where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas

where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas where

evil's changing attack may catch small new parts of us). When we've fragmented

in an area once, the reduced capability environment has been created and no more

fragmentation over and over is needed. We may not always do fragmentation

continually (over and over), but one thing we do continually, is choosing away

with Godly parts; since Godly parts are continually being created in our

essentials.

But what if we're incapable of doing both fragmentation and 'choosing away', or

can only do fragmentation? Well, the purpose of fragmentation was to put us at

reduced capability for separation of the forces. But since we're unable to do

things, we're already at reduced capability and thus don't need to do this

fragmentation much at all.

One of the benefits of choosing away with Godly parts was that it put our

earthly parts at reduced capability (for separation of the forces). But since

we're already at reduced capability, this benefit is of no consequence. Yet

that's not the only reason we choose away with our Godly parts. Choosing away

with our Godly parts saves them from earth's evil and its stagnation, and allows

their life to grow and develop well into its full potential. It's for this

purpose we continue to choose away with Godly parts first, as a priority over

other things (such as fragmentation to deal with evil).

Now it's true that Godly parts start out at the same low capability as the

earthly parts, but once they choose away from earth (and to stay in God), they

grow well and much beyond their beginnings. It is these beginning Godly parts

in their low capability beginnings which we can't distinguish from earthly parts

when we ourselves are at reduced capability. So to ensure that our beginning

Godly parts choose away, we just choose away from earth/stay safe in God with

all that we are, both earthly and Godly parts.

Now, there are certain things that our bodies do on their own (naturally).

Our heart beats, we breath, we burn food for energy, we utilize/replenish brain

chemicals. These things have been programmed into our bodies since birth, and

are not of our mind's doing or initiative. So, to stop these things, would

actually be an act by our mind to do something and that our mind was the cause

of; whereas if our mind did nothing, our bodies would continue doing their

thing. Before our mind does anything, including interfering with the natural

programming of our bodies; our mind should first accomplish 'choosing away'.

Once 'choosing away' is being done, we can additionally then do other things.

This not-interfering-with-our-body's-actions includes not detracting from its

action, neither adding to it. All our mental resources are in first priority

devoted to 'choosing away'; and not towards changing our body's course as a

first priority.

 

Many are called but few are chosen? What about that Bible passage? Well,

we believers are all supposed to be one in the lord. We make up the bride of

Christ. Who else but the bride will be chosen by Jesus? When we were called,

we were many; but then we became one and formed the bride of Christ. God the

Father will choose Jesus, and His bride. That's the few who'll be chosen.

(From Matthew 22, 2-14). I also believe this interpretation applies to the few

that get in at the straight gate. So everybody who wants to be chosen will be;

its just that they will be one, as part of the bride of Christ when they are

chosen.

Matthew 7, 12-14: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do

to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that

leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait

is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be

that find it.

 

When we die we supposedly go to heaven (if we're born of God). Does it

then follow that if just a part of us is destroyed that it too goes to heaven

and exists alive; as a Godly part?

You may say that this Godly/earthly part idea makes us double minded, and

that our Lord is one Lord. But on the contrary: When we choose with our Godly

parts to come down / supply our earthly parts, that makes us double minded (as

the two are near together). (They can never be one in a single mind though, due

to the basic difference between them, in that one comes from freedom from evil,

while the other comes from being evil laden.) When our Godly parts choose to

move away from our earthly parts, that makes them a separate entity, with a

single mind; that loves God with all its mind. Whereas the entity/union of

Godly and earthly parts together cannot love God with all its mind, but can only

love God with the Godly part.

God is no respector of persons and He reaps where He has not sown, in that He

allows the good in a person to escape into Him and be separate from the evil in

that person; thus dividing the person up; even freeing the good that an evil

person must bring along to feed themselves.

Our earthly parts are of secondary importance. It is God who creates our Godly

parts. When God shines His intense nurturing face on imperfect life and causes

it to die; this is what happens: the good in that imperfect life is able to

grow out into God, while the evil is not and remains behind in death. (And if

the good doesn't include the person's consciousness and will -due to that being

totally evil, then that too is left behind./ Since evil must have a good to

feed on; evil no longer has a good to feed it here.) What's occurring here is

separation of the forces. God saves the good parts up into His Spirit. Nothing

good is lost. Even when a force of destruction tries to destroy us, God shines

his intense nurture, and our good parts are saved. When destruction is

destroying an earthly part of ours, God can increase His presence and nurturing

environment, so that in the short time it takes the destruction to act, the good

parts have grown out into God while the des!

tructive parts haven't. Once the good has grown out into God, God can move

Himself away so the environment is no longer nurturing, so the evil cannot also

get out. God can bring His nurture upon us in enough intensity whenever He

feels like so all our good parts would grow out into Him, leaving the evil

behind. We'd no longer have an earthly life, but would be in heaven with God.

Those on earth would say we were dead. But until He does this, we have an

imperfect earthly life and earthly component. What's the purpose of our earthly

life? We could bring it to death by self denying it. But why should we tell

God when to take us completely? Let God decide when we're ready to be with Him.

But a willful self destructive act by us to cause ourselves to be killed, can

never be (in a world with God). You see, we as imperfect life still have good

in us. And if we also have a self destructive directive to cause us to be

killed (for whatever reason); then that's a force of destruction within US.

When that force of destruction attempts to perform its directive; God will shine

His brilliant nurture causing our good parts to escape into Him, while the

destruction will be left behind. This means our self destructive directive will

be separated from us, no longer part of us. It will never achieve its directive

(in a world with God). So why try to achieve something that's not allowed and

will be separated away if you try it? Your attempt to do self destruction is

close to a choice for evil; -for togetherness of good and evil. That's a bad

choice. God will not have that without your free choice for it. So, if you

have the free choice; choose good alone instead like!

God chooses, and drop this self destructive bent.

'Resist not evil". There's a fine line between not resisting evil done to

us, vs, not being a doer of evil. If we allow something that is part of us

(that belongs to us and responds to our will); to cause destruction; then this

can be construed as our will causing destruction. We're not to be doers of

evil. (We are commanded to love. And doing destruction isn't loving.) If we

put our hand on a hot burner, we don't keep it there because we're supposed to

'resist not evil'. No, this'd be destruction done by us to ourselves; and we're

not to do evil. So, with what's ours and under our will, we act to not do

destruction. But when something not under our will causes destruction on us,

this is where we're to resist not evil (after our will has done what it can in

an evil free way).

 

I don't see God standing over us with an iron rod, making sure we obey.

No, God has pretty much let us have our way with this world (He has chosen not

to bring His Godly parts down to us, except for the time when Jesus came for a

short while). Here on earth, the force of destruction often prevents us from

being who we are and what we want to be. In our daily lives, it's not God, or

Jesus Christ who stands in our way, but the force of destruction. If God isn't

going to help us overcome this destruction, then very few of us will

escape/overcome it. (In all history, we've not yet overcome it.) But if Christ

came and separated the forces while He was here, then many of us (all who want

to) will be able to be free of destruction (except we won't be as many, but will

be together as one). Hey, I'm not going to pass up an opportunity like this if

Christ has brought it about. God (Christ) is the one best suited to cause

separation of the forces in the first place, because !

of His great power. We humans at our low power, have little chance at

overcoming destruction, ie (growing powerful as God, then dividing in two and

one part coming and accomplishing separation of the forces with its great

power). Hey, if Christ as God has made it now easy to choose/have life free of

destruction; then I'm going to join the band wagon and go with Him. He says

that his yolk is easy and his burden light.

Well, truth is a hard thing to understand; and a person devoted to saying the

truth as Jesus was can be misunderstood and misinterpreted and can offend; but

that doesn't mean He shouldn't say his piece.

Matthew 11, 6: And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

 

Realize that it's easy to obey a commandment to not do destruction (and to

choose not to do destruction) from a vantage point of being well nurtured at

high capability; but not so easy from a vantage point at reduced capability.

For us at reduced capability, we're forced to do destructions just to maintain

our being alive.

The Godly parts (generated from earthly destruction) are not subject to you

obedience of the commandments in your situation; but are subject to their own

obedience of the commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate

entity from you. After something has passed through destruction, it has already

'died to itself' and given up its (earthly) life; hopefully for its friends.

Thus these commandments have been filled by the life belonging to God.

 

John 1, 3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing

made that was made.

If you believe in the God of the Bible: God owns everything. Everything

belongs to Him. Anything you do according to your will: if it uses something

that belongs to God, then unless you have obtained God's permission to use it;

that makes you a thief. You may ask God in prayer for permission to use his air,

water, food, etc; but if you don't hear Him answer back and give you permission;

then it's still stealing. -If you asked someone if you could use their stuff

and they didn't answer and you went ahead and used it anyway, that can still be

called stealing. We're all a bunch of darn thieves. And to not steal is one of

the commandments.

Well, you can say we have to work for what we get. Well what job has God

offered mankind? The only job in the Bible God offers man, is to spread the

Gospel. (and all work related to spreading the Gospel.) But even so, most of

us are still guilty of 'stealing from God'. (This is how God can forgive our

debts as we forgive our debtors. This is why we are saved by faith, not by

works and obeying commandments.) God loves us, and does not deny us any good

thing and it is His will that we should grow and prosper. It is the force of

destruction that causes us pain and denies us the good life. When we, out of

the system of private ownership, deny people the goods of this world (that we

have plenty of) that they need to live, we frustrate the love of God. Don't do

that. Or God will require the very last mite from you for your use of His

stuff, as you did here on earth. -If you sow strict private ownership, you

shall reap strict private ownership.

There is a problem with obeying a commandment for the reward. There's often an

evil or destruction associated with obeying ANY commandment. When you do

things, you first do them according to who you are and what you were created as.

So if you're not currently doing what the commandment commands, then you have to

change from what you're doing, to what the commandment says. And this involves

shutting off part of who you are. In this case, the commandment is outside you

will; and requires you to decrease yourself and who you are. This is a decrease

in capability and life (which is what destruction is). So if you're not

presently obeying the commandment in consideration, then right from the start,

you commit destruction (against yourself) in trying to obey it. (Of course, if

your way is also destructive, then this is irrelevant.) Since destruction is

not a loving act; and we are commanded to love as our most important

commandment, there goes our salvation and eternal lif!

e from obeying the commandments right there. You may say that you are supposed

to deny yourself like this. But that's just imperfection trying to improve

itself. A person has to already have eternal life within them to be able to

obey these commandments of God/Jesus. One cannot hope to gain eternal life by

obeying these commandments, if they don't already have it. The only thing the

commandments are, are a gauge to tell you if you have eternal life within you,

or you need to get eternal life within you.

Finally, we come to the source of that eternal life. Christ always said

when He healed, 'your faith has made you whole' throughout the Gospel. If we

don't have that eternal life we cannot hope to obey the commandments. If we

have eternal life, we obey the commandments naturally, as from our own self.

The big question is, is God going to help us out. Is He going to make it easy

for us to choose good only vs good and evil together. And the answer is Yes as

expounded upon in John 3 16.

John 3, 15-19: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have

eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world

through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is

condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten

Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved

darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Here we have linkage to eternal life. The other commandments of Jesus

aren't individually linked to eternal life; but this saying is. All we need do,

is believe on Him, and He will do the rest. Once we have the eternal life, we

will do according to that eternal life.

This believing on Christ, is not a commandment. We aren't commanded to believe

on Christ. It's a choice. It is a trusting in God.

Note that not believing on Christ is related to evil deeds. This is the

choice I've spoken of. Do we want to do good things alone, or to include

destructive things? We ultimately must make the choice. And what we choose,

will determine our relationship to God. If we like to do evil deeds and can't

see ourself living without them (and don't want to change), then there's no

point believing on Christ and getting saved, because God and Christ are on the

opposite choice which is for good only; and they'll not have themselves present

in the choice for including evil. We cannot make God/Christ choose to suit us.

They have their own mind, and have chosen good only.

›Which came first -the egg or the chicken? Which comes first? God, or

Creation?

On second analysis, it may seem haughty and high minded to think that we can be

changed and saved by the word or a blessing. We could analyze God, here, as a

3rd party stamp of approval: depending on whether we believe on Jesus, or not.

And this is true. This is the one and only time when I accept the 3rd party

approval, as quite valid. You see, we are trapped of destruction. Our society

has been since its beginning. All this is, is a recognition of our situation

and a reaching out and admitting we need outside help. I do this. I admit my

trapped situation and open myself up and accept what God has to offer, by

believing on Christ. But God is no ordinary 3rd party. Unlike other 3rd

parties, God does not need my help or work to free me from evil, other than my

OK and permission to do this in me.

It may seem silly that if the blessing of God is put on a thing, it is made

good; while if the blessing of God is not put on that very thing; it is bad.

And even though it may be silly, I make this one exception to be silly. You

see, in this case, the blessing of God, is under my control. If I believe on

Christ, then I am blessed. If I refuse to believe on Christ, then I am not

blessed. Since it requires my choice and participation; this allows me to

express myself to God, and communicate that I accept His help and acknowledge my

trapped state.

But if I am told that if I do something one way; it has God's blessing and is

therefore good; but that if I do a similar thing another way, that it does not

contain Gods blessing and is therefore bad (even though the 2 acts are very

similar (nearly identical) and seem to contain similar inherent substance): then

in this case, I do not have control or decision over God's blessing in this

area. I do not decide here where God's blessing will be or won't be, over a

certain situation. That has already been decided. Since I have no decision

here where God's blessing will be present (vs not present), then this situation

provides me no opportunity to express myself to God, other than by following the

'right' path, the blessed path, and not committing any of the non-blessed paths.

But I say that a true God, does not need my work nor this complicated form of

communication (of my showing my allegiance through obedience in actions in the

conduct of my life to follow only the blessed p!

ath -some of which relate to my trapped state and which because of my trapped

state are difficult/painful for me to perfom), and that my word should be good

enough. Since this situation doesn't give much opportunity for the

expression/communication to God of my word or decision that I need His help,

then I disregard it as a direct communication and refer back to where my word

and decision is more directly communicating. However, if an indirect and

roundabout communication is sought; my failure to obey some of the difficult

commands (relating to my trapped state); should actually communicate to God that

I need His help in these areas.

I have tried God's word and blessing in the direct way of communicating with God

and asking God for help for my trapped situation. But if I still find myself

trapped of essentials: If I still hunger, then I shall say that I still need

help getting out of the trap of evil. If I still need, and hunger, then I am

still trapped. And until I am freed from my need and hunger, I will not be free

to do good only, like I want. And I will still have to deal with the evil

within myself. If I am still hungry, then God has not (yet) freed me from my

hunger. And if I still have hunger, then I still have it to deal with (in the

best way I can), as I still have it, as God has not freed me of it (yet). -If

I still have hunger after God has done His part, then any additional dealing

with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And for God to dictate to me how

I should do this: this dictating to me by God, is an act by God to do something

in me. But this act (of dictating) by God upo!

n me, has not relieved the hunger, which still remains. After God has done His

part, and with the hunger still remaining, any additional dealing with that

hunger falls solely on me to do it. And if the way I deal with it is contrary

to God's blessing, in some parts, then this is my way to communicate to God that

I have not yet been freed of my hunger, that I am still trapped of it, and that

I still need help. If you leave dealing with hungers/ and being trapped by

essentials, up to a powerful and almighty God, what would you expect? (I'm not

going to answer this one.) But if you leave dealing with hungers/ and being

trapped by essentials, up to a puny, low capability,

trapped-by-hungers-and-essentials little guy like me; then you get what you pay

for; and I think you know what you most probably will get from me. Sure,

reduced capability is the best environment for separation of the forces and for

me to become purified; but until I am purified, -(I am yet in the process o!

f being purified); things won't always be done in the pure, God accepted ways,

until I am pure, because I'm not pure yet! And WHEN God chooses to free me of

my hunger, is up to Him and His time table. If you wish to dispute God's

timetable concerning me and my hunger; take it up with God, not me. Cause if

you do take it up with me, I'll just have to deal with you, right along with my

hungers, as best I can in the ways I know how. -and those actions may or may

not have God's approval. What else did you expect from a reduced capability

human who is still trapped of hungers and essentials?

I have asked for God's help part ways. But when asking God for help requires

that I need no help; then I find myself unable to communicate with God in this

way (since I am still trapped, as I still hunger). What God does about my

silence in this area, is up to God. But what I do about it, is to not dwell on

what I can't do, but work with and do with what I am able to do. And this

involves dealing with destructiveness in actions as best I can, which due to my

trapped situation, are ways that are not always in line with the pure ways that

are blessed by God.

Because I recognize that God is not just any 3rd party, but is the 3rd party who

is powerful enough to free me from my hungers without my work, but only needs my

non coerced, unpressured word and decision to ask for it. If asking God for

help requires that I jump through hoops and prove my allegiance and be tested,

tempted and tried and then overcome -essentially that I am in no need of help:

then why am I asking God for help if I don't need help? But if I am in need of

help, then I'll have to ask God for help (in ways I'm able;) in ways other than

those requiring that I need no help.

If you wish for me to act like I'm not hungry, then I must be free from my

hungers. I will not pretend to be not-hungry by acting like I'm not hungry,

when I'm really hungry. I've tried God's blessing (part ways -or as best as I'm

able: I won't take it back and you can't blame me for asking), but if I'm still

hungry, then I additionally act ((to attempt to be free of my hungers as best I

can)-this is concept A, and also to feed), and also to apply concept A in my

feeding. I do not blame God for not freeing me from my hungers. God is not

obligated to give me anything. God gives what He gives and I accept whatever

help God makes available.›

One thing I'd like to emphasize about Jesus Christ: It is He who

brought an emphasis on LOVE and the importance of LOVE, above all other things.

All you need is love (The Beetles). So what's wrong with love and being kind to

each other? Hey. I'm going for that. It should be obvious that love is the

way to go.

Mark 12, 28-31: . . . Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel:

The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,

and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matthew 22, 37-40: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God

with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, if another commandment seems to contradict; which one wins out? -The

commandment of love.

1 John 4, 7-8: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and

every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4, 17-18: Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness

in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath

torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4, 16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Let's say I were to obey the commandment to love God with all my heart.

Since God IS love, to obey the commandment would be to love, love. When I see

love, I see part of God. To love and love it; is to love God. Not out of a

sense of duty. I love to love. And that is loving God (because God is love).

Love is so satisfying to me.

The first commandment is to love God. But since God is love, that becomes

to love Love. To love ourselves is one kind of love(1). If we treat ourselves

poorly, that's not loving this love(1) at all. Thus the first commandment among

other things, commands us to love ourselves. And then we are to love our

neighbor as ourselves.

Since God is Love, it is reasonable to assume He would care about matters

of love. He'd want to protect love, and not want it treated frivolously. He'd

want it treated with respect and valued highly; not trodden underfoot when it

became convenient. So it's reasonable He'd write commandments protecting the

actions of love. But the result seems to be that people are so scared of

breaking the commandments and getting in trouble with God, that they just stay

away from the game, and don't bother trying to love. But a God who is love,

would want more love not less.

What I want to discuss now, is what Jesus means by his saying to deny

yourself (and take up your cross). Note that we are commanded to love. We are

commanded to love our neighbor, our brother, our enemy, and God. But we are not

directly commanded to love ourselves; although this can be inferred, as I have

shown. To ourselves, we are told to deny ourselves to die to ourselves and

loose our life for Christ, and give up our life for our friends. You know, it

doesn't make sense. We are a person too. Why can't we be loved too? (I've

heard that to love others, spreads this love, while loving oneself then, does

not. If everybody loved others, then this love would grow, and the group would

be brought together as one. But if you loved others but no other loved you,

then you would not be brought together with these others, and would remain

alone. -Maybe they just don't want you to be part of their group. In this case

of being all alone, is where the directive to only lo!

ve others breaks down and where I se the logic of also loving yourself. We are

a person and a friend to ourself, too!)

In a world with destruction, it is true that the greatest love a man can

have is that he lay down his life for his friends. But to sacrifice your own

life for your friends, involves DESTRUCTION just the same. Love does better

when it is free from all destruction, including self destruction. Destruction

is the big problem. Over all the passage of history, it remains with us.

(Individual) Mankind has not been able to solve this problem. /(Being one, and

not as many-individuals, is so important, even to die for?) /The obtaining of

our essentials has caused us to develop appetites in obtaining them. Our

essentials and quasi essentials have evil in them that compels us to obtain

these things. Is it these destructive forces that Christ is trying to deal with

in telling us to die to ourselves?

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting 'lay down your life'; in that Christ really

means 'to utilize' your life, (doesn't involve destruction and sacrifice of that

life unless forced to). And since you are a friend to yourself (ie: lay down

your life for your friends) as well as others, you also are loved. Then again,

perhaps I didn't misinterpret.

What is Christ trying to say? What is so different between us loving

others and us loving ourselves, that we sould love others but not love

ourselves? The thing is that when we love ourselves, we bring down our Godly

parts unto our earthly parts to do so. Yet we often don't recognize the Godly

parts as a separate entity, (as they still respond to our will). But they are a

separate entity, and the consequences of bringing them together with our earthly

parts (to love ourselves), destroys their evil free status and growth. /To love

others, recognizes a separate entity, other than ourselves, and joins them

together. (But there is no joining together of entities gained in self love, as

the self is already a together entity even before any additional self love.)

It is our Godly parts that have the power and capability. Jesus is instructing

us not to invest in our earthly parts, which we'd do by bringing down our Godly

parts to feed them (in a self love).

When the evil of this earth destroys part of us; we don't replace what evil

destroys with our Godly parts. The evil thus boxes itself in while our good

parts escape into the Spirit of God.

What I think Jesus is trying to say here, is to forfeit your individual life,

living alone as an individual separate from God; in favor of a life together

with others and God. Here we are all one (with God). Bear one another's

burdens; if one suffers, we all suffer. If one rejoices, we all rejoice. As a

union, we are above reduced capability, and are thus out of the trap of evil.

Godly parts are one and together with God, whereas earthly parts are not. When

we become a new entity ie as part of a new entity by being one with God and one

in the bride of Christ, we hae thus denied 'ourself', and an individual

existence (also denied). What good is it to live life alone (in a reduced

capability position), when we can become one and join together with others and

God (and be at high capability, no longer in the trap of evil)? Perhaps this is

the idea behind 'deny yourself'./

We are imperfect because we're forced to do destruction to survive and we

have destruction within us. But does Christ want us to self eliminate because

we aren't perfect? (so as to make room for more perfect life forms?) Is self

elimination the way to go? Love others, but deny ourselves? We are person's

too. Why can't we love ourselves as well as others? Why can't we be loved too?

How can we love others as we have been commanded, if we self deny and self

destruct? If we self destruct, we won't exist to love others nor self deny nor

do any more self destruction.

This idea about dieing to yourself, or not feeding the evil by not bringing in

good things: The contrast between eternal life and our life here on earth, is

made with respect to this dieing to ourselves (in the verse(s) Matthew 6

v19-21; 16 v24-25; John 12 v24-25 -namely John 12 v25). Our life here on

earth is a life caught in togethrness ith evil; whereas eternal life with God is

life free from evil. When it comes to dieing to ourselves or allowing ourselves

to be killed, that involves destruction. My point, is we don't allow this

dieing to carry over into our eternal life; so that we don't do harmful things

in our eternal life that's free from evil (according to the text). -We are

instructed to self deny in our earthly life. Do we continue this self denial in

our eternal life? (No.)

The difference between our earthly life and our eternal life, is destruction:

our earthly life is trapped of destruction while our eternal life is not. (Self

denial can also be (self) destructive and (when it is -and it is when self

denial of essentials/quasi-essentials is involved), can thus be classified as

part of earthly life). The question is what do we do about the problem of

destruction? It's not Jesus Christ or God who stands over us in a Holy presence

and gives us a hard time all day; but it's the force of destruction we're

trapped of in our earthly life that does this.

One of the more important precepts Jesus taught and elevated to importance, is

that what we do to others should be done to us as well. -What goes around comes

around. (I get this from 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you'.)

This shows a difference between good and evil. If you do good to others, you

don't mind when it comes back to you and others do good to you. Good is not

scared of having it done to itself. But if you do evil to others, the last

thing you want is for others to turn back the evil you produce onto yourself so

this evil is done to you.

If you make this self-denial a part of yourself then you are thus

instructed to deny this self denial itself, by Jesus' command to deny yourself.

(And when we fragment, we also fragment our action to fragment.) A reduced

capability environment results. We are instructed to bring our earthly life to

reduced capability. (And this mirrors what we've been discussing.) If you self

deny and self eliminate, there'll be no mind left to know about religion, but

the forces of growth and destruction will continue in your area, but without

mind or intelligence to care about obeying anything. This is one scenario of

what might happen if we were to self deny. But if we actually attempt to self

deny or self eliminate, then the denial/elimination itself will have become part

of ourself (part of the self); so that when we continue to self deny or self

eliminate, we also deny or eliminate the self denial/elimination action itself.

We deny self denial, and eliminate self eliminatio!

n, if we actually obey the command to self deny. Some denial and elimination

will be accomplished, but it will come to a stop after a certain point, as we

can never achieve complete denial or elimination because the denial and

elimination will knock themselves out after a certain point. This thinking

about self denial and self elimination, and religion, takes intelligence and

thought power above an animalistic instinct driven mentality. Once the

intelligence to consider and obey self denial has knocked itself out, what's

left is our animalistic instinct driven mentality, which still exists (due to

incomplete elimination and denial) and this thus then takes over and we do

according to it. In short, the message of self denial is to cast religion and

complex thought aside, and do according to our lower basal instincts; until a

complex thought system is created which contains no evil. This is the

environment of reduced capability but not total desolation we've been

discussing!

for separating the forces when there is evil. But where there is no evil, we

don't need this environment of reduced capability. But where there's evil; and

there is lots of evil and mean spiritedness out there; then this is just the

ticket. Go ahead and fragment them, yourself, everything. There's no religion,

or teaching of self denial that can stop you. Unfortunately for that religion,

any religion or system with lots of self denial and self elimination, self

eliminates itself and returns the fragments (the individuals) to reduced

capability; out of which develops new religions and systems. And this cycle

repeats until a religion or system free from/of destruction, develops.

In our solution to evil, (after our Godly parts have left), we fragment

ourselves where we're trapped by evil, in as non destructive a way as possible,

where our fragments can be put back together by a force of good but not by a

force of evil (due to evil being the weaker force). Our fragments provide a

rich environment for forces of good to grow in, but not too rich so that the

force of evil cannot grow here.

In fragmentation we have denied ourself; as 'ourself' no longer exists as an

entity -only fragments. We do this to deal with the problem of

evil/destruction. And Christ doesn't instruct us to self deny in our eternal

life -only in our earthly life, where life is trapped by evil.

Advanced capability groupings such as ourselves shouldn't exist where there is

evil. We should fragment so the evil is separated from the good and dies, and

so the good-alone will then grow/produce advanced capability groupings such as

us free from evil.

///Jesus says not to fear man who can only destroy the body, but fear He

who can destroy the body and soul in Hell. -And how God in the judgment has his

enemies who'd not have Him rule them, slain at His feet. And Jesus made a whip

of cords and cast the money changers out of the temple. (Yes, without access to

money/banks, the rich and poor would be the same and shops'd be forced to extend

credit to all. But the they'd just tattoo a chip under the skin -the mark of

the beast- to handle transactions.)

But the Bible says God is love. Jesus says to love your neighbor and your

enemy. But if God eternally tortures people in Hell/the Lake of Fire: is that

loving your enemy? If this passes for love: anything goes. Won't God reap what

He sows? Yet if people torture each other so and choose/create a God who does

this; then they are the source of this. -It is from them; and I don't have to

follow in those footsteps. I choose otherwise. I choose Love.

Note that the Bible saying of how God will have his enemies who would not have

Him rule over them, slain at his feet; is just unnecessarily irritable. You

see, since God is Love: those who would not have love rule their hearts, will

suffer the destruction which they instead choose to have rule them, without God

having to lift a finger. It makes a big difference who God is, and what God is

like. And God is Love.///

 

 

 

 

Chapter 9

 

"Intricasies and Details"

 

 

 

 

Chapter Introduction:

This chapter deals with what religion (the Bible) says concerning sex, as well

as a few other things; and some detailed ideas on how to do our essentials,

including sex. The chapter is divided into 2 parts A and B. Part A deals

mostly with religion and sex. Part B deals with the discussion of doing our

essentials. Note that I no longer practice many of these mental techniques, and

I put them out mainly as a type of journal to show may passage through this

area, and also to offer possible ways and possibilities.

In part B some serious abbreviations are intermittently used. These are: 'inc'

means incomplete, as in inc (incomplete) fragmentation;

'red cap' means reduced capability, as in red cap (reduced capability) zone.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

 

Part A

 

Jesus Christ came here on earth to confront the problem of evil, by

separating the forces in all areas. I don't specifically find this in the

Bible, but it does say He came to destroy the works of the devil.

Once the forces have been separated, this is finished, and no more of it needs

to be done. There is no more growth of this. In the Bible, it says that Jesus

Christ (not God the Father), is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This

means that He is not growing. And this is true. Evil doesn't grow and generate

new things like good does, so once evil is dealt with, that's it. No more

action is needed. Because the body of Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus Christ as a

man), had no growth, the Holy Spirit extended beyond His body from the Father.

It is this Holy Spirit that can then have all manner of growths free from evil.

So you don't believe God the Father grows. Well, not according to the

Bible:

Colossians 2, 18-19: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary

humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath

not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having

nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

(increase means growth)

God causes other things to grow:

1 Corinthians 3, 6-7: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the

increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God

that giveth the increase.

God IS growth:

Hebrews 6, 13-20: For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could

swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Saying, Surely blessing(1) I will bless thee, and multiplying(2) I will multiply

thee.

And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an

end of all strife.

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the

immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we

might who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the ›hope› set before us:

Which ›hope› we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and

which entereth into that within the vail;

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for

ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It says that God sware by himself. And He called Himself "blessing" and He

also called Himself "multiplying". God is Blessing; and God is Multiplying.

Multiplying represents growth. If you're going to multiply, growth is going to

be involved. And the blessing part represents that the growth is above reduced

capability; that it is free from evil.

(It is also written that God is Love. So we see that love is also blessing and

multiplying. Love involves growth (IS growth).) You know, they could have

said, "God is loving". The Bible may say God is Holy, and God is righteous.

But it doesn't say that God is Holiness or God is righteousness. But it does

say that God is Love and God is Multiplying and God is Blessing. And it is

clear that it is God the Father being referred to here, as that is who is

"within the vail" at the temple being referred to.

 

Next we'll portray an interesting twist to Bible verses concerning sexual love:

Mark 10, 6-9

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one

flesh.

What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19, 4-6

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at

the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave

to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined

together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19,9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for

fornication, and shall marry another, comitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her

which is put away doth commit adultery(although this doesn't directly relate to

'putting asunder').

There is the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. But since you

don't love yourself in a sexual way, this wouldn't apply as to loving your

neighbor in a sexual way. But if you are married, and you love your spouse in a

sexual way; you ARE loving yourself in a sexual way because the twain have

become one flesh. So the commandment can be seen as instructing you to love

your neighbor in a sexual way if you are married. This is a very liberal view

of how we should be behaving towards each other sexually. But it has a

restraint that I agree with. That what is being spoken against in adultery and

fornication, is not love making, but love breaking. When you love your mate

sexually, and then you love a second person sexually; it usually happens that

you are required to (or you) break it off with one or the other. It is this

love breaking that is the wrong being committed. "Let not man put asunder what

God has joined together". When young people are fornicating!

; one set of partners make love; but soon they break off and find a new set of

partners. It is this love breaking that is wrong. If you're going to do all

this sex, well fine. You can interpret these Bible verses to OK that. But

you've got to keep your old partners. You can't discard them. You've got to

keep loving them. Also, when a man has sex with his wife, since they are one

flesh, 'his seed has remained in him'.

The release of seed is not the evil, it is the body's prevention of the

release of seed, or destruction of brain chemicals, that is. But, the creation

of seed is a fragmenting of one's genetic make-up (unless one is pure breed);

and fragmentation has some destruction in it. So, it may not be good to create

seed at all; but fragmentation has its uses in removing evil: but when there's

no evil to remove, there's no need for fragmentation. Now, we are also

commanded, that if a part of our body offends us, we are to cast it from us.

This is a fragmentation. The creation of sperm involves a fragmentation; and if

our sperm offends us, we are instructed to cast it from us. (a fragmentation of

the product of a fragmentation. thus when we fragment the production of sperm

via temporary abstinence, we have a fragmentation of fragmentation, and

incomplete fragmentation.)

What I'm looking for, is why. What's wrong with sex? For sure, we can get

all moral and morally indignant, but I not interested in that. The Bible may

have an anti sexual directive; but if so, I want to know why and for what

reasons. That way, if we know what the trouble is, we can work around it in the

most positive ways. Well, here, we see that Jesus speaks against the breaking

of the bond God joins between two sexually connected individuals, concerning the

wrong of adultery. But there's more. The sexual area goes deeper than this.

Because we feel compelled to sex (because we live in a world with death which is

not of God, where we must reproduce or die off as a species), there is an evil

in sex where our pleasures, which should go evenly to all things, are removed

from other things, to surround sex with maximum pleasure to compel us to sex.

This leaves the other things lack luster and lacking in pleasure, and this is

the destructive part. And with destruction!

also being selected for in sex, this glut of pleasure is slowly destroyed,

leaving us completely lack luster and lacking in pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Matthew 5, 28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust

after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The key word is lust here. (Define lust.) Even if you're married, if you

look at your wife the wrong way, its adultery. So if you're not allowed to have

sexual feelings for your wife, then I guess you don't love 'yourself' in a

sexual way. (Still, there remains something sexual between a husband and wife

in what is allowed in marriage.) Well, like I was saying, there's an evil or

destructive force in sex we all need to be careful of. If we refuse to allow

the pleasures from our other things from entering into our sex, for as long as

we can hold out, then the evil in sex which consumes our pleasures, will not be

fed. The time spent doing sex at reduced pleasure capability allows the good to

separate from the evil, and the evil to die. And even if we're not able to hold

out till complete separation is achieved, some separation is achieved, and we

can then do a special series of fragmentations. So what does Jesus have to say

ultimately about sex? Lets continue on i!

n Matthew:

Matthew 19, 10-12

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is

not good to marry. (Here, point blank, they are considering if any sex at all

is OK; and Jesus' answer in the next verse:)

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying (the saying, Matthew

19,9), save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and

there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs,

which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is

able to receive it, let him receive it.

Well, the answer I get from this, is that it's not as simple as yes or no,

but that sex is a complicated thing, that we need to figure our way around the

dangers.

We were born with hungers and desires that are not of God. We were born

with what we are. Call it 'the flesh', 'the natural man' or 'mammon', but we

were born with desires of the flesh (hungers) that we did not ask for. Also a

part of us, is a desire for God, goodness and to please God. What we have; who

we are; and what we were born as: is this body and mind. We may not have asked

for these hungers and we may even choose against them, but they are part of us

just the same. Any religion that does not recognize this, sells us short. OK,

go ahead and say that these hungers are wrong and bad. I will agree that it is

OK to list and acknowledge what is evil in us, and call it what it is. But to

expect us to do something about it, is another ball game altogether. And

religion expects us to overcome our desires and hungers. We have to eat. That

is destructive to plants or animals (other life forms). (What about the

commandment: Thou shalt not kill?) I acknowledge !

that this is so and that I eat; but there's nothing I can do about it. I am not

able to live otherwise. Would you like to be eaten? The golden rule condemns

eating.

What we have, who we are, and what we were born as; is this body and mind. This

house; this body and mind, which serves as a house or container to hold our

consciousness; is composed of both God and mammon. What I suggest is that we

let the parts of us that want to serve God, go and do that; and the parts that

want to serve mammon (our hungers), go and do that. My point is that we have no

interest in seeing such a house as ours to remain standing. There is no benefit

to have Godly parts be together with mammon parts. This 'house' our body

contains both God and mammon -two opposing directives - together, within us. It

is not in our interest to maintain this togetherness. Thus when Jesus instructs

us that we can't serve two masters (you cannot serve both God and mammon) and

that a house divided against itself will not stand; we go ahead and be a house

divided against itself (which is what we are and were born as), and let this

house (which was not of our making or choosin!

g), to fall. And that is gravy for us as we'll be eliminating togetherness of

the forces and obtain separation of the forces. Jesus says that 'we' cannot

serve two masters (God and mammon). And this is true. The entity we know as

ourselves, will no longer contain both God and mammon. The part of us that

wants to serve mammon and go to excess in the desires of the flesh, will go and

do that. And the part that wants to put God first will go and do that. But

they will no longer be one entity, but separate entities.

Getting back to sex and religion: One may wonder, is there sex in heaven?

Mark 12, 25:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in

marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

What is the sex life of an angel? Unknown. But we may speculate that

since the only sex allowed here on earth is in marriage, and since there is no

marriage in heaven, that therefore there is no sex in heaven. But just because

the only sex allowed by God on earth is in monogamous marriage, doesn't mean

that holds true in heaven. Now, I wouldn't give this much weight, except for

the EXAMPLE that God has set.

Jesus Christ: He was (is) the son of God. He was (is) God's only begotten

sone. You know, from first glance at religion, you'd get the idea that we were

beneath Him, and basically the scum of the universe (an evil and adulterous

generation) (violence and sex). But then God goes and has an offspring with an

earthling. God chose to REPRODUCE with one of His creations, an earth woman,

and had an humanoid son, Jesus Christ. He must care about us a lot. I wouldn't

go as far as saying God had sex with an earthling, as God is free from the

hunger and coercive force we know as sex which has been shaped by death through

the generations, and the need to reproduce to replace what death took away. And

the Bible says that the Word (which then became Christ when the Word took on

humanoid form) existed with God and as God from the very beginning. But human

reproductive function free from coercion and evil, with the human woman Mary,

did take place; and a humanoid offspring was then !

generated after Mary's conception. Perhaps only Mary's genes existed from her

virgin birth. But at age 12, the spirit of God descended upon Jesus. -The life

essence from a human woman (12 years later) was combined with the life essence

of God (a spirit), and in a loose sense of the word, an offspring (Jesus Christ)

was created. Luke 1,35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy

Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:

therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the

son of God." If God did it (although only once) I don't see why a loving God

wouldn't sanctify and purify an already existing action (reproductive function)

that represents growth, (Growth being what God IS).

Oh yes, was there a marriage license? Was there a courtship? Was Mary even

taken out to supper? Never mind that Mary was already betrothed to another man.

Basically, Mary was told not to fear, and that she had found favour with God,

and that this was what was going to happen. At least she was notified of the

coming event.

Now, sidestepping the sex issue, we note that we believers are supposed to

compose the bride of Christ. We become one as part of the body of the bride of

Christ. This being so close together in one, is closer than even sex could

bring us. Remember that sex causes people to be joined together as one flesh

according to the Bible. Being part of the same body, we can probably feel what

each other is feeling. Here is the oneness that Jesus wants for us:

John 17, 20-23,26

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me

through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they

also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even

as we are one:

I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the

world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved

me.

26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love

wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

And here is a Biblical account of a big group hug that Jesus did:

Mark 4, 19-21: . . . and they (the disciples) went into a house. And the

multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.

(a euphemistic way of saying they were touching.)

And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they

said, He is beside himself.

 

When we're considering what's wrong with sex; what is the difference between

right and wrong, good and evil? Well, the Bible and Jesus tells us of the

golden rule, which is: Matthew 7, 12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would

that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the

prophets.

This rule is given a high place by Jesus, because it can be used as a test to

tell if something is good or evil, right or wrong: thus Jesus raises this simple

rule to be the whole law and the prophets. Recall that the 10 commandments are

part of the law. We can use this rule to tell the difference between good and

evil; right vs wrong. Good doesn't mind having it turned on itself and it done

to itself. But with evil, that's the last thing it wants. For example, ask

yourself if you like to kill. If you got mad enough at someone, you might; but

then ask yourself if you changed places, would you like to be killed? The

answer would be NO. So, killing is thus wrong and evil. Ask yourself if you

would like to steal. Well, if it meant you would get something nice, you might

say yes. But then switch places and ask yourself if you would like to be

robbed. The answer would be NO. So, stealing is wrong and evil. But if we

apply the golden rule to the sexual area, things are!

n't so cut and dried. If we have a man and woman (or even homosexuals) who both

like sex and who are sexually active: if the man does sex to the woman and asks

himself if he likes it, he will say yes. Now if the two changed places and the

same question was asked, the answer would still be yes, because the woman

enjoyed it too. And if they didn't mind multiple partners, that would be a yes

all the way around too. (Why limit your love (to just one person)?) So here,

sex would not be considered evil or wrong by the golden rule. And since the

golden rule represents the whole law (according to the Bible), sex would not be

wrong or evil according to the golden rule. (Now this is not to say there isn't

an evil in sex. There is the evil in sex of an essential. So if we are to

choose whether or not to do sex because it contains an evil (whereby we're

unable to do sex without the evil): well, then just do the sex in an

environment of reduced capability; and take advantage of t!

he difference between good and evil, which allows the good and evil to separate

in reduced capability, thus purifying the good of sex to now be without any evil

(the evil dies in separation). Whereas if we said NO to sex altogether, we'd

have nothing. -No good and no evil: which is the same as the inanimate, and

stagnation; and also the end result of destruction alone.)

(Now of course, if the situation is where the man wants sex, but the woman does

not want sex or doesn't enjoy it, then that's different, and the golden rule

turns this out as evil. But I'm not talking about, or trying to defend that

situation.)//////////////////////

///You may have heard 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the

kitchen'. But I just want to warn them not to burn down the kitchen.

The condemnations of the law seem to say: 'we'll flush you if you don't

flush yourself'. Either way, you get flushed (down the toilet). Instead of

expending your energies to 'flush' yourself (according to the law), expend your

energies to deal with 'flush', while letting others expend their energy to flush

you and themselves. Because it is 'flush' itself that causes all the problems.

If God or the legal system is going to either eternally destroy (kill) you in

Hell or capitally punish you for murder (or other sins/destructions); then they

themselves have broken their own law (thou shalt not kill), and should also

carry out the same sentence against themselves and their law, thus bringing

everything to reduced capability so that there is nothing beyond what we are now

here at reduced capability life here on earth.

It just doesn't make sense: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do

you believe in capital punishment? yes. Do you believe in even enforcement of

the law? yes. Well, somebody has to put the murderer to death. (The murder

will not kill himself will he?) (Let the murderers kill themselves and leave me

out of any killing.) Is not he who put the murderer to death: hasn't he also

killed? And since he has killed, shouldn't he also be put to death, according

to the law that if somebody kills, they should be put to death? The thing is

that what the law attempts to stamp out (destructive behavior), the law does so

by engaging in destructive behavior. The law (both of man and the Bible) brings

in and engages in and contains what it aims to stamp out. Will it ever stamp

out destruction? The answer is, yes: when the law and lawmakers/enforcers do to

themselves what they do to others, they will then bring our whole society to

reduced capability where separation of the f!

orces can occur and the evil (destruction) die. Only when the law and

lawkeepers do to others, will the destruction be ended. Otherwise, the law and

lawkeepers just keep introducing the destruction they act against and it will

always be with us, keeping us in the stagnation that comes from having evil

around. Since the law contains the destruction it seeks to stamp out, the law

seems to say that we must have destruction and we can't be without it. Well,

there is another way. Destruction is not the only way. There is alternatively

the possibility for life free of destruction. This is the possibility I will be

seeking to obtain.

One of the differences between good and evil is that Good is not scared of

having it done unto itself. But evildoers don't want the evil they do, create,

and bring into the world, to come back and be done to them. The law just

completes the cycle and returns what the evildoer produces(evil), back to the

evildoer themselves, without having to drag the rest of us and the whole society

down to get to this point (where the evil the evildoer does, returns to them).

Yes, murderers will kill each other, but not until they have brought us and the

rest of society down to depravity. The law just shortens the process (of the

destructor receiving the destruction they produce) so we who want nothing to do

with destruction, don't have to be dragged into it. This is the major purpose

of the law. We who have no interest in doing destructive things, have no

kinship with the destruction of the law because we have no destructiveness

within us. With no destruction within us, the externa!

l destruction of the law has little hold on us, and we are able to shake it off

and deal with it in peace of mind, as we do with all other external evils we

encounter.

But if you are going to participate in the destructiveness of the law, then

destructiveness is already within you. And if a whole society craves to

participate in the destructiveness in the law (craving revenge on criminals),

then there is no need to have the law, because all the law is for is to hasten

the day that the evildoer's evil returns to them, so the rest of us who want no

part of destruction, won't have to be dragged into it. But if everybody already

craves destruction and has destructiveness (of the law) within them and

everybody hates each other, then there is no point to the law as far as

protecting those who want no part of destruction because there is nobody who

isn't into destruction. -They all have destruction within them. So it would be

better for this society to be lawless. Otherwise it would destroy itself and

cease to exist.

We want an environment of reduced capability, not total desolation. And the

added destruction from the law would move the society towards total desolation.

But in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate, and the evil dies,

so that some good comes out of this society. So it's better for there to be no

law and for God to give these people up to their own cravings, in a society that

hates.

When the law picks on people who don't have (much) destructiveness within

them (such as being arrested for chewing gum or not flushing a public toilet, or

not washing your hands before eating or healing on the Sabbath), then the law

introduces destruction where there was none before. One purpose the law can

have is to shorten the process by which the evildoer's evil comes back upon them

so the rest of us won't have to be drawn into their destruction. But in this

case, the law here has subverted that purpose and has taken the role of the

evildoer in a lawless society; as this law drags people into destruction who

don't have such destruction within them. This law needs to have hastened, the

day the destruction it does, comes back upon it. (If it can't take what it

dishes out; it shouldn't be in the kitchen.) (Eventually the destruction it

produces WILL come back upon it, but in this case, all involved will be dragged

into it like it or not.)

If you insist on an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, (in order to

insist on executing murderers): realize that this system uses destruction in

order to stamp out destruction. If destruction works so well and is the

preferred choice of the system; why is it then trying to stamp it out?

And if you insist on strict adherence to this system, then you must be

consistent. If a lecherous man stalks, hugs and kisses an attractive member of

the opposite sex, then his punishment must be for a member of the opposite sex

to stalk, kiss and hug him; according to this system of an eye for an eye and a

tooth for a tooth.

 

Concerning sexual love:

How can a thing be right and wrong at the same time? I say it can't. Either an

action is good, or evil, or a combination of the two in different areas. When a

husband has sex with his wife; that is supposed to be OK. But when a man has

sex with a woman not his wife, that is supposed to be terribly wrong. (If the

same man and the same woman have sex, but with different marital ties, this act

can range from acceptable and OK, to terribly wrong, depending on the marital

ties.) But it is the same act in both cases. A man is physically capable of

loving only one woman at a time. When a couple first gets married, their sexual

passion is as hot as ever. But after a time, due to sameness and lack of

variety, that passion may wane. I mean, if you ate the same meal day in and day

out; you might get bored with it, even if it was your favorite food. But if the

intense sexual passion between a newly married husband and wife is OK, then why

is that intense sexual passion not OK b!

etween any man and woman? Either a thing is good, or it is bad. But we go

about treating an action as perfectly acceptable and good and then due to a few

technicalities, we treat essentially the same action as totally unacceptable and

terribly wrong. And we do so without a second thought. Essentially it is the

same act in both cases. The inherent goodnesses and/or destructivenesses are

going to be present in the act in both cases. Simon says touch your nose.

Touch your nose. (Simon is a 3rd party bureaucratic rule maker). Can a thing

be changed from good to evil, evil to good, just by putting the word or a

blessing on it? If that is so, why has not all the wrongs been righted, and

paradise on earth yet been created with the word and a blessing? More

specifically, why hasn't the word or a blessing been used to free us from our

essentials and quasi essentials instead of leaving us trapped of them? We can

have Jesus' word or blessing upon us if we choose, but that doe!

s not yet free us from our essentials/quasi essentials. "Give unto God what is

God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's". (In this case, our eating, and our

reproductive function appear to be yet Caesar's, as they are still our

essentials/quasi essentials. Dictating how we are to do these, is definitely

Caesar's way, and they are thus correctly rendered to Caesar. But let us try to

escape Caesar and Caesar's controlling dictates that hide behind Biblical

commands.)

The only logical assertion that makes sense is that all sexual desire contains

some error/destruction and is wrong: but that like eating, we can't get by

without it. (So that God is willing to process and purify a certain degree, a

limited amount, of sexuality; but not an undue amount of it.) Therefore

allowances are made to allow a limited amount of it. Well, if allowances are

going to be made, then I'd like more of a selection of ways; and I'd like to

have a hand, and understanding in the fashioning of these allowances: since this

area so deeply effects us all. Its obvious that sexual passion is being limited

by these rules over sex. But sexual passion itself, is defective. If we love

only those whom are attractive; whom we are sexually attracted to; then this

limits our love. The love of God will not be limited. And God loves everyone

irregardless of their attractiveness. In this respect, God is a more prolific

lover than any sexual lover. What I suggest, is that !

we are what we are and all we need do, is acknowledge this and that our

sexuality is defective (imperfect); take additional action to quarantine or deal

with the evil in it. And that once we do this, we do not need to try and

prevent it from coming out.

 

In the Bible it says "To those that have, more will be given and to those

that have not, that little they have will be taken away and given to that has".

Or the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Doesn't it seem like this is

the way it is? -That the rich are getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.

Well, what about God? God has done very well and is far richer than the richest

man. Thus between God and the rich (and all the rest of us), we will all loose

it all to God. But if we as the poor make ourselves part of God, we will

inherit a share of it all because we are part of God. How do we do that? The

Bible says God is love. If we act in loving ways and generate our income

through loving ways, then we will have made ourselves a part of God through

this. If we believe on Jesus Christ we will have made ourselves part of God.

So this is how many of the last can become first and the first last. But those

who become rich through meanness and underhande!

dness, will loose this wealth to God who is far wealthier and more powerful.

And since they have not made themselves a part of God, they won't get any of it

back as inheritance and will loose it for good.

 

One thing about welfare I have to admit, (although I don't like what the

republicans are doing when they cut off welfare); is that if you refuse to give

someone a handout, you haven't done destruction to them. You aren't helping

them, but you haven't done a harmful act to them either. Now, if you control

their environment so you hinder their access to materials and prevent them from

making a living like you do, then you are the cause of a destructive act. But

just refusing to help someone (that you've never helped before), contains no

destructive action.

Likewise, when a woman brings a child into the world through sexual activity,

it's not her fault that human children are born with a destructive force within

them whereby if they're not cared for, they die. I mean, its not the rich man's

fault that humans are under the condition whereby if they don't get enough food

they starve to death. Yes, one would hope that a mother would love her

children and care for them out of her own choice. And if she doesn't, the state

should step in and do so out of its own choice. But to try to hold mothers

accountable for neglecting their children, I think goes a bit far. (I'm not

talking about abuse here. Abuse does contain destructive acts.) If we are

going to hold mothers accountable and punish them, then we should hold rich men

accountable for the plight of the poor and punish them, because neither has

helped when help was needed. Are we going to legislate love? Now you may say

that because a mother created and brought into this w!

orld, a little baby; that she is accountable. (We have to put the burden off on

someone when the rest of us don't want to help out.) But if that is the case,

then we must hold this woman's mother (and father) accountable for creating this

woman in such a way, that the babies she had, have this destructive force within

them that without care and food, they die (which is the human condition: we are

trying to blame the human condition on the mother). And not only the mother of

the woman, but her mother, and the mother before her, and before her, all the

way back to Eve and Adam, helped contribute to the existence of the destructive

force within a baby which kills it if not given care and food. And then not

only them, but also God, because He created these people in such a way that they

could fall from grace. If you're going to hold a mother accountable because she

created a child, you must also hold God accountable because HE created us. And

I think to myself: they have alr!

eady held God accountable: -they nailed Him to a tree. So if you want to take

your place with those who crucified Christ, then go ahead and be judgmental and

condemn those mothers who you feel haven't sacrificed enough for their children.

I'm not saying it's right or good to not help your children. It's not. But if

you're moved to do something; help the child, don't judge and condemn the

mother, nor force sterilize the mother, nor imprison the mother.

The work mothers do in raising their kids is just as important if not more so

than any work done in a factory. It is fitting that mothers should partake of

the materials our society makes. They should be paid. I've been told that the

Bible tells mothers to take care of their kids. I'm not surprised. It's just

common sense. But the Bible here also states that every 'man' shall be rewarded

for their own labor. And if we pay a factory worker for their work, we should

also pay a mother for hers. Many mothers have raised kids for no pay, but I'm

saying and the Bible is saying that it's right that they should be paid. Now if

the republicans take away welfare for these single mothers, and these single

mothers can't find a job or a high enough paying job, then they won't be able to

take care of their kids, and social services will take them away from their

mothers; and put them in foster care. It costs money to pay people to take care

of foster children. And if you elimina!

te foster care, destitute mothers will just drop their kids off at hospitals and

someone will have to pay to take care of them and it won't be them without

money. It's going to cost more this way than before. Why not just pay the

mothers in the form of welfare? When will you realize that raising the children

is as valid a job and deserving of pay as any office or factory job or capital

gain from smart investment, that you do for a living? Why do you single out

certain types of work and say that they are less worthy and refuse to pay?

(Just because men and women naturally form family units and tend to take care of

their kids naturally without pay: ie human sexuality provides the incentive for

a little free labor.) May the stripping of pay you've done to these mothers,

come back on you, without the rest of us having to be drawn into it. -You

produced it. It stinks. We want to be far from it, leaving you with it.

Some mothers may think they own their children (whether 5 or 55) because they

brought them into the world and are required to take care of them: therefore

that care doesn't ever end. But no one can own another. Remember that we shall

all lose ownership to God (and only by being part of God do we inherit all).

 

Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now that's really something -to overcome

death. But if Jesus is still alive, we can't talk to him in the flesh these

days. He said He went away to heaven so He could send His Holy Spirit to us

all. Well, God is a Spirit first and foremost, and only took on a fleshly form

for our benefit. But because God is a Spirit, while we're flesh and are either

spiritually dead or infants; this poses a difficulty in communication: a

communication barrier. So, our relationship with God is difficult. It's not

'ideal' or the finished product. It's like us and rocks. If rocks had some

slow say of talking to each other, and they discussed whether humans existed.

They might have a suspicion we were there, but wouldn't be able to be sure, due

to their lack of being alive in our plane of life. We know we exist, and just

because some rocks don't believe it doesn't change it.

But I'm not so much concerned with the question of the existence of God; but

about the communication barrier. It's possible God could exist. It could

happen. But if so, it's difficult to have a relationship with a life form you

can't see, can't hear, and can't be sure if its not just your mind playing

tricks on you, or it's Him communicating with you. Or if it's an evil spirit

fooling you. Yes, we have the Bible a written instruction manual, but written

material can be interpreted differently if the author is not readily available

to clarify His writings. For example,

John 6, 52-54/61-63: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the

flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will

raise him up at the last day.

/When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto

them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I

speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Does this have something to do with sucking someone off? Or perhaps, His

epiglottis grows out for each to take a bite: or perhaps He gives milk. How

does one eat and drink of Jesus without hurting him?

Then there is the Biblical statements that if a man commits sin, he is a

slave to sin: and later the command: 'slaves, obey your master'. OK, we slaves

to sin will just go ahead and obey our master: sin; and thus become those

vessels created for destruction (so that our entity will no longer exist so that

the good parts of us will be set free from the destructive parts built into us).

The commands about obeying authority and obeying our masters, are irrelevant for

the most part, because it's not so much that we obey, but it's who we slaves

choose to be our master and ruler over us in the first place. (If you don't

like your master, choose another one/join a better group.) Unfortunately for

us, one master (sin), is born into us, and we're not able to choose away from it

(there are some hungers and needs we're unable to choose away from).

John 7, 38-39: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his

belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:

for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 14, 16-18: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another

Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him

hot, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall

be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 16, 26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the

Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall

testify of me:

John 14, 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will

send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your

remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Here we see that God doesn't want to impose His presence on those who don't

want Him, and thus preserves free choice; -enhancing our advancement in choice.

(Of course, it might be just our mind playing tricks on us. But if God doesn't

exist now, we seek to create a benevolent God.)

But this preservation of free choice, if God does exist, hinders our

communication with Him and makes the relationship difficult. But in a world or

evil as ours is, this is just the strong medicine needed to separate the forces.

So if you want for a loving God to show His face, let's get rid of all the evil

(lets allow the forces to separate and the evil die).

 

 

Part B

 

The whole 'choosing away' (from earth) idea: This most important 'choosing

away' action we plant in our earthly-parts so it will be present in our

young-Godly-parts; is ill named. Actually, it should be 'choosing to stay put'

instead of 'choosing away'! When a young Godly part is created, it is created

safe in God. If it chooses to stay there and not come to the evil of the earth,

it has then chosen wisely. A choice not to run away but to stay put and stand

one's ground in our earthly parts will serve us well as it passes into Godly

parts, when destruction destroys (parts of) us. Once translated into our young

Godly parts; this directive to stay put will keep our young Godly parts safe (in

God). However: if this directive isn't there or contains a directive to flee,

then our young Godly parts may wander or flee from their safety-in-God and find

the evil of this earth. So, we must replace 'choosing away' (referring to

choosing away from earth) in the previous writi!

ngs (which are still valid), to 'choosing to stay' (put in God).

When we stop and do nothing, this is the same as doing all choosing to

stay, because when destruction generates Godly parts (from either one), they

don't wander off or join earthly parts. This may be why we feel hesitation to

doing things and would rather sit and do nothing.

 

The following is a continuation of the discussion of essentials vs non

essentials -that is the non evil group; and separation of the forces in reduced

capability.

In reduced capability (where we've done incomplete fragmentation),

separation of the forces occurs. As the good becomes separate (even the good

from non accepted 'mammon parts'); our higher earthly parts (which we didn't

fragment), then reach out to join these separate parts ONCE THEY BECOME

SEPARATE. Once all the good has made it into the safety of these higher parts,

then one of two things we make happen:

(1)-If the good is from one of our essentials or quasi essentials where evil is

always lurking nearby, and total separation from evil hasn't been obtained; then

we do an inc fragmentation near the border of that evil. The size of the inc

fragmentation zone is determined by how lively-and-capable the evil is. But

since most of the life and good from this area has just transferred to our 'high

parts', there is little life remaining for this evil, thus the zone needn't be

large. But we still must do some inc fragmentation here to keep the evil from

getting into the rich high parts here.

(2)-Now, if the separated good (out of the red cap zone) is from a Non essential

and thus has no evil close by and is completely separate from evil; then no

elaborate inc fragmentation need be done to protect the high parts that moved to

contact this good part.

A short contact by 'high capability earthly parts', with good that

partially separates in reduced capability; helps separate this good further: (as

it grows into the high parts, while the evil can't (right away)). But once the

good has grown into the high parts, the high parts' nurturing environment needs

to be removed (by inc fragmenting) so the evil won't also infect the high parts.

Processing the good of our essentials that comes out of the red-cap-zone

can be quite engaging with all the fragmentation actions. But let's not forget

the much easier joining (by our high parts) of the 100% choosing to stay that

also separates out of the red-cap-zone. It requires no re-fragmentation or the

elaborate process we do for purifying our essentials. (We) our high parts don't

control what comes out of the red-cap-zone. (The high parts don't enter the

red-cap-zone, but wait for the good to grow/move out of the red-cap-zone.

-Otherwise the high parts would bring this zone out of reduced capability). The

high parts don't do the separation, (other than to bring to reduced capability

via inc fragmentation; whereby the high part that did so would no longer be a

high part, but would now be the red cap zone itself). Separation then is done

solely by the reduced capability of the red-cap-zone. The high parts just join

what has become separate.

Some things separate out of the red-cap-zone faster than others. Those

things with more evil (such as essentials) take longer.

As 100%gogr; 100%choosing to stay; and our basic consciousness (that is, the Non

essentials) soon separate from the red-cap-zone and are joined by our high

parts, that leaves essentials left over. So after a time, the red-cap-zone

becomes mostly essentials. Even with the constant introduction of fresh

material, there is still a glut of essentials there.

As of now, we have a 3 tier system. We have godly parts; we have high

earthly parts which we do at our maximum earthly growth; and we have the reduced

capability fragmentation zone. We've come up with systems of: 1) exposing our

high parts to small pieces of our essentials at a time; and 2) waiting till the

forces separate in the red cap zone and contacting the good that separated, but

then fragmenting that connection after a time: - in essence, exposing whole

material (not pieces) to our high parts for a limited moment of time.

This next writing requires an adjustment in thought. Now, we're not

considering a plan to cleans our essentials by doing small parts of them with

our non-evil-group. Here we're considering Godly parts (and making sure young

Godly parts remain safe in God).

Now, the previous plans/systems may be good to satisfy our earthly life,

but may conflict with the creation of Godly parts. We need to create 'choosing

to stay' in our earthly parts, so when destruction acts, 'choosing to stay' will

be translated into our Godly parts. But when we choose-to-JOIN-with things that

have obtained some separation from evil, with our high earthly parts: -when this

gets translated into Godly parts (when we fragment the connection here): (Our

joining action will be translated into the young Godly parts, causing them to

join earthly parts). -We don't want our Godly parts joining to where there is

even any connection to evil. And I don't see any way to really avoid it, and

still hold this method.

A solution to the problem I do see, is to maintain an environment of reduced

capability even though Godly parts are being brought down. (It helps that they

are young Godly parts.) The idea is to get the Godly parts that come back to

earth via the wrong programming, to be at reduced capability. Since the Godly

parts when young, start out at the same capability as the earthly parts they

came from; and since they choose right away to come out of their safety with God

and into the evil of the earth: then they won't grow much. (Oops: But really,

I'm fooling myself.)

Once 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented and thereby

removed, the remnant, mostly 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, will be at

reduced capability because they no longer have the 'rightly programmed' earthly

parts to help them. Once enough 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been

fragmented, we'll want to stop this (fragmentation of 'rightly programmed'

earthly parts) so we won't bring things to total desolation. So after a point,

we then fragment the fragmentation action. -(That's the inc fragmentation).

(At first we do only a fragmentation upon the most pure and evil-free earthly

parts (the good die young), and then only later (once reduced capability has

been reached), do we fragment this first fragmentation action; as well as the

'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, plus fragment the fragmentation of 'wrongly

programmed' earthly parts.) Oops I'm still fooling myself.

One point I had failed to consider, was that the reduced capability Godly

parts would not be able to move very far from God right away, and that because

of their separation from evil, they would grow. So that by the time they made

it back to join the things of this earth, they would be quite capable and of

high capability. The solution to this, is the inc fragmentation (that comes

from fragmenting the fragmentation action) (in the wrongly programmed Godly

parts). With fragmentation action (because inc fragmentation fragments

everything including itself) also translated into Godly parts, the fragmentation

keeps the material which is traveling to earth, at reduced capability. And when

that fragmentation sends material back to Godly parts; they too join new

translated fragmentation. Since fragmenting sends things to be Godly parts;

fragmenting the fragmentation action, sends fragmentation action itself as a

Godly part. And this fragmentation present in the Godly parts,!

keeps these wrongly programmed Godly parts at reduced capability, in their

journey back to earth. So all we need do, is to also make sure we fragment the

fragmentation action (in parts that have a love for things on this earth).

Another related dilemma, is that posed by the separating of the forces

themselves. The idea was that the good was able to grow out away from the evil

(in this reduced capability environment, which tested the 'metal' of each

force). But the act of good moving out away from evil, is an act of escape.

It's not an action of confronting evil, but of getting away from it. This is

what the separation action is. If this action of escape and 'getting away' is

translated into Godly parts, it will cause them to move out and get away from

their safety in God. What then shall we do; seeing that the separation action

is fundamental to all we've been talking about? What we can do, is just let

things run their course, in a wise decision.

Originally, when things start out and with nothing done to them, they are still

and don't contain 'running away' action. Reduced capability then selects those

parts of good best able to get away from the evil and in a good position to

escape. With these, their original 'stay put' stance, is changed to 'getting

away' action. But with the rest of good which doesn't have a favorable

opportunity/capability to escape the evil, we let remain in 'stay put' stance.

When destruction destroys parts with the stay put stance, their corresponding

Godly parts remain safe in God. It is these parts within the grasp of evil,

that haven't a good opportunity to escape, that our heavenly treasure is built

up with, as they pass through destruction and go to God.

When destruction tries to destroy parts-with-the-separation-action (that are

trying to get away/separate from evil); since we've chosen parts with a good

opportunity to escape, the destruction is often unable to destroy them, and

these parts then do not pass through destruction and do not yet generate Godly

parts. Now, sometimes, destruction IS able to destroy some of them; and this

directive to get separate IS translated into Godly parts, which then act to get

separate from their safety in God. But they don't come down to the evil of the

earth either, since their action is to get separate. They thus remain alone,

and grow only slowly due to their low starting capability (although eventually

they would grow to very high capability due to their separation from evil).

Since they start off with God as Godly parts, they are further away from evil

than they started; and the short distance they are able to go away from God with

their low capability, doesn't bring them that muc!

h closer to evil. As they grow in capability, and get closer to the evil of

this earth, they then act to also avoid it too. So, this separation material is

somewhere between heaven and hell, whether of not it passes through destruction.

And even if evil captures and destroys some of this material that has already

passed through destruction (which doesn't happen often -thus making it a poor

food source for evil), the process just repeats itself and the material returns

to this limbo between God and evil. So, all that desire separation will attain

separation. (Only parts that love this world, will return to the evil of this

world after that directive is translated into Godly parts.)

There are 3 possible situations: high capability, reduced capability, and

desolation. What happens when an evil brings parts of us to desolation (to

nothing)? We may want to be at reduced capability for separation of the forces,

but not totally destroyed and brought to nothing. At reduced capability, some

good is able to separate and get away from the evil; but at total desolation, it

is totally destroyed; it is not able to get away, and is brought to nothing.

Now, whatever is being totally destroyed is unable to do much of anything. When

an evil is totally destroying a part of us, it's tempting for nearby reduced

capability parts to try and help it out. But that's not good. The part under

total destruction is incapable of anything and thus stays put, so the young

Godly parts produced, also stay put safe in God. But if a reduced capability

part tries to help out; it probably won't be able to free the part under total

destruction (due to its reduced capability), bu!

t will just give it enough ability to make a feeble escape attempt. Now, even

the reduced capability parts now no longer escape and separate from evil as they

lose resources to helping the part under certain destruction. And the propped

up part that was in certain destruction and is now almost in certain

destruction, will have just enough to make a feeble escape attempt, which when

translated to its Godly part (when the escape almost certainly fails and evil

finally destroys it), will cause the young Godly part to escape from God, and

doom it to the evil of this earth, or to lonely separation.

No, it's better if the surrounding reduced capability parts don't help the part

under total destruction. Then, the red-cap-zone isn't drained to total

destruction every one, but remains to continue separation of the forces, whereby

some good escapes evil, and separation of the forces is achieved; and whereby

the Godly parts generated from the part under total destruction, remain safe in

God and store up our treasure in Heaven. Now, high capability parts may move in

to rescue the good under total destruction, and then quickly move (fragment)

away due to the presence of evil. But they will be successful at saving the

good and SEPARATING the good due to their high capability.

Why cause those parts not suited to escape, to bear the burden of escape, when

they can 'stay put' and be together with God in their Godly parts? Even with

those parts suited to escape, we may want to instead stay put and be with God

with them. But since separation of the forces is such a fundamental

empowerment, that may undermine the power of God if we did this. But let us

limit escape to those parts having a good opportunity to succeed in it.

Note that our act to 'not help', isn't a destructive act. No decrease (in

capability) has been done by not helping (where we previously haven't helped).

No increase has been done either, but that's no decrease. To 'not help' doesn't

mean we've hurt. On the other hand, our act to inc fragment, invariable does

some destruction, although we minimize that as much as possible.

We can employ the action of 'not helping' to take the place of fragmentation:

-as a better way to enact reduced capability and quarantine the evil, since this

action does no destruction (unlike fragmentation). Parts less well off, may be

so, due to evil destroying in them. Thus if better off parts, do not help the

lesser parts, then the evil won't be fed, and it will thus be unable to spread.

Unfortunately, the act of 'not helping' isn't enough but is only part of things;

as we still need inc fragmentation in some areas. (Even in doing our

essentials, where instead of 'not helping', we limit our creating (which is

forced to contain 'helping') to only a small section at a time; we employ

fragmentation). We do inc fragmentation in parts that have a love for things of

this earth (that is, our essentials). Otherwise, we replace fragmentation with

'not helping'.

Our act to 'not help', however, can put us at reduced capability after a

certain point. The act by better parts to 'not help', enhances/supports the

separation that occurs at reduced capability. This allows the better parts to

escape reduced capability and move to higher capability, thus leaving the evil

alone to die. The 'not helping' and 'not sharing' has its function in reduced

capability to support the separation of the forces that occurs there. But once

parts are beyond this, and have achieved separation from evil, then the 'not

sharing' and 'not helping' has outlived its usefulness and even becomes a

hindrance to further advancement. If the higher parts there continue to compete

among themselves and the better parts don't share (even after evil is gone),

then this prevents growth from taking hold, and stagnates the group just above

reduced capability. (-Which is the same result as the togetherness of good and

evil it just escaped from.) Capability and life ho!

pefully are more than a fixed step above the inanimate. Capability and life are

the keys to crossing barriers. And 'helping' and 'sharing', are the actual

crossing of barriers, and are part of growth and growth of life (what evil free

life is). So instead of holding onto the reduced capability which would hold us

back (needlessly since evil had already been escaped from), our evil free parts

no longer do 'not helping' but now share all; with the higher parts helping the

lesser parts. This is the way it should be.

Where shall we draw the line between helping vs not helping? Well Jesus

indicates at the barrier between ourselves and others. The individual position

is the reduced capability position compared to the group. It is here (in

reduced capability) that separation of the forces occurs; and where we do 'not

helping' to enhance that process of separation. -If we put ourselves in front

of an evil so the evil will get us instead of others. All this does is exchange

one part for another. The evil still needs to be dealt with and still wants to

destroy someone -now us. But now we have a free hand to deal with it as we see

fit. We then act differently within ourselves by 'not sharing' within

ourselves, to deal with the evil. The parts of ourselves that evil is

destroying, we deny help from coming from our other parts. This may be the self

denial Christ wants us to do. The place to deal with evil, is within yourself,

since that is the reduced capability position (where the !

environment is right to deal with evil).

The force of evil can't exist alone, and must bring along a force of good

with it (whereas the force of good CAN exist alone). So if we find a way to

separate the forces in an evil encounter then we can make it a profitable

encounter by freeing the good that the evil brought along with it.

When destruction has destroyed our meager 'stay put' parts and they are

safe in God; that then doesn't leave much in our earthly parts. We may wonder

why we haven't accomplished much or made much of our life. And people may point

out that we haven't. But before we become concerned about amounting to

something and accomplishing something and growing; the force of destruction and

coercion needs to be dealt with first, before we even think about bettering

ourselves or generating just growth. Because even if we did bring our Godly

parts down to earth to try and amount to something; the force of destruction and

coercion would just feed on them and destroy what they produced so that we still

wouldn't accomplish all that much anyway. If we brought down our Godly parts

to make it above reduced capability, then the forces wouldn't separate. (The

good-and-evil we're able to bring in at reduced capability is all we can

process.) No, it's better to store up treasure in heaven!

where the force of destruction can't get it (where moth and rust doth not

corrupt neither do thieves break through and steal).

In the following writing, the 'not sharing mode' represents the red cap zone of

previous writing, as 'not sharing' is one of the techniques used to produce

reduced capability: so that if we later invalidate 'not sharing' as a method,

the red cap zone is still valid.

Because it takes longer for our essentials to separate than for our

Non-essentials; there remains a glut of the essentials in the red-cap-zone. If

no new starting material came in (was created), the essentials would eventually

separate out of the red-cap-zone, eliminating their glut there. But our high

parts are alive. They bridge barriers as life does, and find/create more new

material. So, to start out, the high parts are rich in Non-essentials as these

separate first; (with the essentials remaining behind in the red-cap-zone to

form a glut of those there). With a continuing addition of new material to the

red-cap-zone, a glut of essentials remains in the red-cap-zone. But with the

(delayed) increase of more evil-free-essentials joining the high parts, the Flow

to the high pats soon contains the same proportion of Non-essentials to

essentials as the original material. And eventually, the high parts become so

structured. Only when the high parts run into a barrie!

r and the generation of new material is slowed, do the proportions change.

To facilitate enjoyment of our purified essentials and preserve

individuality, what I suggest, is to do the change to 'sharing' mode, and, the

joining by high parts, in two separate steps.

I want to go over the doing of an essential. (An early attempt)

When an essential has been completed and joined by our high parts, it causes our

high parts to create and do other things. The doing of essentials is not the

only thing that our high parts do. This is a time for us to branch out into

other things and do other things. Since our essentials are completed.

Getting back to our essentials: When our high parts are creating/doing a

new thing, they do so in 'sharing' mode. -Even in an essential and if it means

feeding an evil. -Because there is no other way to CREATE. But when the high

parts continue on creating in this new thing and they create a basic

consciousness within it: that basic consciousness acts to cause a 'not sharing'

mode, and stops the high parts from sharing with this created thing. This spurs

the high parts to create even more, but somewhere else. (But the high parts

don't do this change to 'not sharing'. -(Because the high parts are in

'sharing' mode.))

And as the high parts create the same 'new' stage again, they do so in 'sharing'

mode until our basic consciousness is again created as part of this new thing;

and it then acts gain to stop the pleasure sharing.

Now, these things that have put themselves in 'not sharing', do not remain so,

but eventually return to 'sharing' as they become evil-free. First, most of our

consciousness and associated Non-essentials leave the created item and return to

'sharing', while the essentials remain behind in 'not sharing'. Eventually the

essentials separate and after that, change themselves back to (unjoined)

'sharing' mode, -with the small amount of consciousness that has remained with

them. (If they have no consciousness to change them to 'sharing' mode, they

also have no consciousness to keep them still in 'not sharing' mode; and their

growth from (becoming evil-free) will cause them to change on their own, to

'sharing' mode.) The thing is, that the high parts have no control over the

essential's course through the red-cap-zone and finally to the 'sharing' mode.

When the consciousness appears, and changes a creating essential to 'not

sharing' mode; the high parts have no choice but to start creating anew; and

they create the same beginning stage of the essential until consciousness is

also created here; whence this creation too goes to 'not sharing' mode. Then

the high parts start fresh again and create anew the same beginning type

fragment of the essential, again starting in 'sharing' mode. And this continues

over and over until some of that beginning fragment of the essential in 'not

sharing' mode finally goes (of itself) into 'sharing' mode as it becomes evil

free. When this happens: then when the high parts create anew, they work with

these free beginning 'fragments' of the essential (in 'sharing' mode) to

WORK-with-them(not create them) to add/(create) further stages of the essential.

Both the beginning and further stages are in 'sharing' mode at this time (and

need to be so for the creating). Our high parts then go thr!

ough the same repetitive creating until some of the further-stages change

(themselves) to 'sharing' mode. The high parts then work with this to create

the next stage of the essential. The complete essential in 'sharing' mode is

thus obtained by these methods. The repetitive nature of our method is to

accommodate the high part's ability and desire to create.

One may find that the high parts' sharing with the essential which contains

evil, is bad. But the act of creating may require a 'sharing' mode. It may be

possible to put something that already exists in a 'not sharing' mode: but the

act of creating brings something into existence where there was nothing before:

This represents growth and 'sharing'. So to create, might force it to be done

in a 'sharing' mode. It is helpful to note that the created items have to pass

through reduced capability before they can be at high capability, as in the

going from nothing to something, reduced capability is passed through.

Note that in doing an essential; unlike an evil attack; we are unable to use

'not sharing' to deal with the evil in the essential when we are creating the

essential. Only the inc fragmentation can transcend here and give additional

assistance (to provide reduced capability).

In our suggested method here (of 'sharing' modes and 'not sharing' modes), we

are doing the essential piecemeal, so that the evil is small and at reduced

capability. Recall we previously proposed a method of doing an essential

piecemeal to wash it clean of evil.

(With our piecemeal method, we could let a rich environment remain in contact

with a whole essential for a short moment of time; or we could let the rich

environment remain in contact with a piece or stage of the essential for a much

longer time.) In our piecemeal method the essential needs to be in pieces, and

that is accomplished by going to the 'not sharing' mode.

Concerning the trigger to 'not sharing' mode: if our high parts (although

they created all things evenly (both essentials, and Non-essentials) like we

want for even growth), didn't produce consciousness soon enough (because they

were not yet capable enough), and thus the piece of essential created was too

large (which allows the evil to infect the high parts)? Well, we just have to

change the suggested method. When some of the consciousness-of-the-high-parts

move close in with the piece of essential, if it needs to, it doesn't have to

wait till the high parts create new consciousness, but can separate itself from

the high parts and take the essential and itself into 'not sharing' mode. This

consciousness soon separates out and returns to 'sharing' mode, and grows to

rejoin the high parts again. (When the high parts are powerful enough to create

consciousness soon enough, then this method is no longer done.

Concerning the trigger as to when we change to 'not sharing' mode: a better

trigger, is if we grow into a new stage of the essential, we should continue for

a short while, then trigger a change to 'not sharing'. The newness of the next

stage of the essential should be our trigger.

Note that just because we change a piece of our essential to 'not sharing',

doesn't mean it ceases to exist. -It still continues on (eventually to separate

out); but it no longer experiences creation from the high parts.

Remember that all evil-free parts (of our essentials) quickly return to

'sharing'. This includes previous completed essentials (which are now evil free

after passing through the long initial not sharing). The new insight is: the

high parts now don't (usually) have to create new stages of the essential from

scratch, but work with already existing, completed (evil-free) essential (the

needed stage of), to just generate more of it -the newly generated material

being the new stage, which must then go through a long initial 'not sharing'.

The high parts can then move right on to the next stage by working with the

cooresponding already-completed-(evil-free)-essential. Actually, note that this

isn't my current mode of operation but is just a journal of what I've been

through before, and is like one of the possibilities that an essential may be

done by. Skip when boring or overcomplex.

Now our high parts don't create each stage so repetitively anymore. Earlier we

did a stage repetitively, because we were waiting for some of that to return to

'sharing' (from the long initial 'not sharing'), so the high parts would have it

to work with. But now, our high parts are able to move onto the next stage

right away, by working with already existing previous-essential.

Note that when our high parts are working with a

previous-complete-essential to produce a certain current stage, they may DEPEND

on (existing interrelated evil free OTHER previous-complete-essential

stages)-A*, but the high parts don't also create these other interrelated stages

they're depending on here. (The high parts WORK-with(not create) that A* to

then create the current stage.) The way to make sure the high parts aren't also

creating other stages, is that they should exert no effort. Whatever comes to

the high parts with no effort on the high part's part is OK.

The high parts create only one stage at a time and it is sent to its long

initial 'not sharing' before they start to create the next stage. (This

creating only one stage at a time, is to quarantine evil in accordance with our

piecemeal method.)

 

›I am reminded of the Bible verse where comparison is made between

patiently enduring punishment that you don't deserve, vs that you do deserve, in

that it asks what reward could you expect (none), for patiently enduring

punishment for wrongdoing on your part. So, when guilty of wrongdoing, don't

patiently endure punishment (ie stay put stance), but instead try to escape and

make a break for it, as unacceptable material, when killed, doesn't build up

your heavenly treasure.›

But the most important addition is yet to come:

In an attack by evil, if a part is destroyed standing its ground; that will get

translated in the Godly part, and that Godly part will remain safe in God.

But the worst situation occurs when a part of us is destroyed that is loving

something connected to the evil of this earth. When that part is destroyed, its

love for earthly items is also translated in the Godly part; and that Godly part

thus leaves its safety in God and returns to the evil of this earth. The only

trouble is that in its journey back; since it is separate from evil, it grows

well and becomes quite rich. And when it finally joins to the earthly item

(with the evil of this earth nearby); then the evil has a rich food to feed it,

that is from heaven and God. This is why bullies go about and destroy a love

you have of something on this earth, perhaps by taking or destroying one of

your prized possessions -so as to provide a rich food to feed the evil within

them. Because when the Godly part (generated by their destruction) returns to

something on earth that they control, it becomes a rich food for their evil to

feed on. The force of evil needs a rich enviro!

nment and a rich food in order to get around, because it also destroys what can

support it, help it, and get it around. The force of good on the other hand,

doesn't need so rich an environment or food. So if we can somehow 'poison' the

heavenly food that comes back down to earth, to be at mediocre capability (at

reduced capability), then the earthly evil will be frozen in its tracks because

the food won't be rich enough for it; but WILL be rich enough for whatever good

is accompanying the earthly evil, to allow it to escape/separate, so that the

evil now starves and dies, alone.

The way to cause the food to not be so rich (that returns to earth from heaven

due to the love of an earthly thing being destroyed), is to fragment this love

of an earthly thing and also simultaneously fragment this fragmentation action

itself. You see, when the fragmentation action itself is fragmented, its

function is destroyed: so it thus joins the Godly parts, that will return to

earth. With fragmentation (action) now present in the Godly food returning to

earth, that food is fragmented and brought to reduced capability; thus poisoning

the food for the evil in the bully, so the evil in them will die and the bully

become good. (This includes sexual 'bullying'. Including marginally that which

occurs when one person is infatuated with another, but the other person destroys

development of that infatuation (an earthly love) by not allowing a relationship

to occur. Just inc fragment your infatuation here so the heartbreaker will be

made good.)

So, the most important addition, is to add this inc fragmentation in our earthly

loves (our essentials). Whether we are able to obtain our essentials, or some

bully prevents us from obtaining our essentials" the response is the same: in

both cases, we will need to deal with the evils present, by inc fragmenting

these earthly loves. This is an additional thing we can do (in addition to our

just described piecemeal method of dealing with our essentials). This is

especially helpful since we can't do 'not sharing' when we create our essential

(although 'not sharing' does make up a part of our piecemeal method, but not the

direct part.) Inc fragmentation serves as a backup for what our piecemeal

method misses (after the fact).

Let's put everything together, as to how we deal with evil both within our

essentials, and external evils. As just mentioned, when dealing with evil

within an earthly love of an essential, we use the piecemeal method, backed up

by inc fragmentation. (Note that when we've done inc fragmentation on something

once; we don't do it again and again, unless that something has passed through

destruction again and is coming down as a rich Godly part again. In that case,

we do do it again, once.)

And, every once in awhile, we may want to do an essential without the piecemeal

method or any other method, and allow our high parts to grow/create a complete

essential all at once; and then clean it up after the fact, with the backup inc

fragmentation (method); -for any special qualities the essential would deliver

only this way.

Note that if there was no God, there would be no rich Godly parts coming

back from when destruction acted, and there thus would be no rich food for

evil/destruction to feed on and maintain stagnation indefinitely. But since

there is so much evil in our world; we can see that there exists this rich food

from Godly-parts-returning-of-an-earthly-love; and that there thus exists God.

Once we realize this and believe in God, we can poison the rich food through inc

fragmentation of the Godly parts, of our earthly loves, to cast out evil and put

an end to it which is currently in so much abundance due to the existence of a

benevolent God. Oh I guess there are other explanations as to why there is so

much evil and stagnation; but there is also this reason.

One may wonder how we will all be able to be together as one when we are

all so different and all prefer different activities. Well, actually, it's not

so difficult. Many things are compatible with each other and can coexist along

side without one detracting from another. I've covered how to put things

together in my discussion on balanced intermediate focus and the common mind.

But there is one thing that is incompatible. The concept of good/growth is

incompatible with that of destruction and evil. Here again we've already

discussed this, in great depth.

 

A correction: When Godly parts are created, God saves all the good while

leaving all the evil/destruction behind. But God doesn't just leave the evil in

an eternal sleep after it has self destructed when it becomes alone; but

resurrects it to then live in Hell -as God doesn't pass judgment between good

and evil, but lets these things judge themselves by what they themselves

produce. So, the destructiveness of translated fragmentation as well as all

other evils is not absorbed into God as a Godly part, but makes up the Hellbound

parts. The translated fragmentation then acts to tone down the goodness that

resurrects these parts so that they are at reduced capability and can continue

to separate out, and not at high capability where the forces would remain

together in torment.

 

A more in depth discussion:

The force of evil has its main strength in how it can control living things.

(For example, put the force of evil with the rocks and the inanimate (which is

the end result of evil's action), and not much is accomplished by the force of

evil even in millions of years (whereas the force of good would make much with

this or with what it produces): the rocks and the inanimate are not much

affected or bothered by evil.) Thus if we can overcome evil's control on our

mind, we have won most of the battle.

One would hope we'd all have the wisdom to reject destruction as our enemy,

since destruction is anti life. Since we are alive and if we know how valuable

and good life is, then we'll value life over the inanimate, and not be lured by

individual short term gains from destruction; since that collectively results in

everyone's loss of life-and-gains-made. But if a person's life is miserable

anyway, they won't have much to loose. -Here is a reason against making the

majority of a population live in poverty.

Our essentials contain both good and evil and we're unable to separate

them. Because of this evil; our high parts act to prevent our essentials from

being done as long as possible. But this prevents anything from being done, and

prevents the good and evil of our essential from coming out so that the good and

evil could separate. Now; the good-and-evil of our essential remains with the

torment of the togetherness of these forces for as long as we act to keep our

essential 'as is' within us. Yet, if we bring out our essential with lots of

growth, then the evil in it will be well fed and won't die or separate, and our

torment will continue and be magnified. So we want to bring out our essential,

-(to change its original state of togetherness of the forces by allowing the

forces to separate), but we want to do so in an environment of reduced

capability and low growth so the forces will separate. Note: When your bodily

doings are inside you, they are thus together with y!

our high parts; and thus are not at reduced capability. When you bring them

out, then they can be away from your high parts, and at reduced capability.

Recall when we covered not interfering with our body's doings: Then we were

concerned about using every bit of high part's resources to do choosing to stay;

leaving nothing to add nor detract from the body's doings.

Well, here we remove all action by the high parts, not to save resources for

some purpose, but to: 1) remove all growth of the high parts, and 2) to allow

the feeble bodily doings to come out (since they are no longer being blocked by

the high parts) so that the forces will separate, at this low growth, reduced

capability environment. So not only do the high parts not help any; the high

parts also remove their blocking so they don't hinder any either.

This is yet another way we can cleanse our essentials. Lets call it the 'bodily

doings' way.

Now, since the current piecemeal method depends on the high parts working with

previously completed (evil free) essential; we can precede the piecemeal method

with a bodily doings way to provide the original essential.

Then there is the after-the-fact backup method using inc fragmentation in

the wrongly programmed Godly parts (or hellbound parts) that are returning to

earth due to an earthly love. This method provides high growth in the

production of essentials which may provide things the low growth methods don't

provide. So we can intersperse this method between the low growth ones as

needed. This method also allows for God, in its function.

When you feel all alone and that there is not God to love you; just

preserver and allow that feeling to run its course. As you voluntarily exist in

this bleak and reduced capability situation outside of God, the forces separate,

the evil dies, and you can once again know and feel the presence of a loving

God. It's not that there is no God when you feel this way: it's that evil is

being dealt with and separated away from you. -And you need to be in a reduced

capability situation (ie outside of God) for this to happen.

 

Isn't good food wonderful? But what if it spoils: what can you do? Of

course, you can throw it away. But you also could try to save what good is left

in it. But what if a person becomes 'spoiled' so to speak: what do you do with

them? Well, you could throw them away; but you might alternatively try to save

the good in them and separate the forces. At first, it may seem easier (and

more cost effective) to just throw them away; but since nobody's perfect (all

have sinned and come short of the glory of God); then are we to dispose of us

all, because no one is perfect? At first it may look easy; but disposing of

people isn't an option at all (because we'd have to dispose of us all) (and if

we tried to dispose of us all, then we'd also dispose of this disposing, -in and

inc-disposal bringing us all to reduced capability, which would separate the

forces); so all we have, is to try and save what is good in people.

Now, should we do nothing until we're able to do it perfect? Should we stop

ourselves from doing anything if we can't do it perfect? Or should we bring it

out anyway and try to separate the forces? Any action that you can do has some

good in it. This is because you are alive, and life is the product of goodness

and growth. Just because an action isn't perfect doesn't mean it has nothing

good in it. Because it was done by a living person, it thus contains some good.

We can then separate the good from the evil in reduced capability.

Bodily doings method:

But instead of allowing an imperfect action to come out, lets be perfect and not

do it at all? /But the less we are able to do (perfectly), the more reduced

capability we find ourselves at: and this forces us even more to do many more

things imperfectly, or, do nothing at all./ Well, our bodies have programmed

into them, several drives/directives that are not form God, but are from many

generations of death (and death isn't from God). What our body is, isn't our

doing or under our control. But we do have our will, mindpower, and

consciousness that IS under our control. With our mind and consciousness, we

want to (get away)-and-be-separate-from those bodily doing programmed through

many generations of death. This means not actively doing these drives; and it

also means not interfering with them. You see, if you (your will) stop(s) your

body from doing these drives; then your will has become involved and together

with these bodily doings! The scribes and Pharisees of t!

he Bible (and today) would have your will/consciousness STOP your body from

expressing its bodily drives. But that requires your will/consciousness to be

involved in and together with your bodily doings. (The scribe and pharisee is

thus almost as much enslaved to the addiction as the addict is, and thus are

also guilty of a quasi essential.) What Jesus wants instead, is total and

absolute separation from bodily doings. This means your will/consciousness not

becoming involved with bodily doings at all: not even to stop them. This is why

Jesus says unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees,

you shall in no wise enter heaven.

. . With the newest bodily doings method then, half of us separates from the

bodily doing, while the other half does not even try. So how does this bring

about the absolute separation from the evil of bodily doings that Jesus seeks?

Well, with the removal of half (or maybe more) of ourself; this leaves what

stays behind at less capability, and relatively, at reduced capability. At

reduced capability, the remaining material separates in its forces due to being

at reduced capability, and complete, absolute separation is thus obtained. We

can do this setup in both the bodily doings/pleasures of our essentials, and

also concerning evil attacks from the outside, -not related to evils in

essentials. (With the attack we can additionally do 'not sharing'.)

Note that for this method to work, we must be successful at removing at

least part of our consciousness from the bodily doing. If we're unable to do

that, then its time to try some of the other methods, or if already at reduced

capability, to just let nature take its course and the forces separate on their

own.

 

Now, with earthly parts that have already been split in half: the stayed

behind half (that is with the evil and essential) does not keep halving over and

over. -Only new earthly parts which have come back(which have not yet halved),

split in half. So we always split something in half, but it will only be the

new earthly parts that we do this with (that is, that have come back from God).

Then these new earthly parts (of the stayed put half) can divide themselves

between just being there vs doing necessary evils in the essential (which

wrongly programs them).

›Note that 'not sharing'; inc fragmentation; and halving are all methods to

create an environment of reduced capability. What is most important, is

creating a reduced capability environment where evil is, not which method is

used. Note that inc fragmentation can create this reduced capability even when

there is a God, while the other methods don't.›

Let me go over my latest method, -putting everything together. First we

initiate the doing of our essential. We do so by taking a new earthly part that

is not guilty of doing essentials, and with most of it, we do the essential.

But with a small part of it, we always leave out of doing the essential. Note

that this new-earthly-part-material comes from the stay-behind and don't try to

escape half of a previous cycle.

Now, the reason we always leave a small part out, uninvolved (and not doing any

essential -any new essential anyway), is to eventually put an end to this

earthly doing of essential. You see, when some part doing an essential is

killed/destroyed (by evil in the essential/outside evil), then most of it is not

accepted by God, and it returns as wrongly programmed 'Godly' parts (Hellbound

parts); -to be processed by inc-fragmentation in it, followed by half choosing

to escape vs half choosing to stay put. This would keep occurring over and

over. But if we set a little bit aside each time, then that little bit that

stayed put and also didn't participate in the new essential, WOULD be accepted

by God when killed, and would become part of our heavenly treasure. This way,

as the killed-unacceptable-material kept being recycled over and over, it would

eventually all find its way to heaven and as heavenly treasure. We can spare a

little bit to be set aside each time we do an essent!

ial. (›In a more recent method, we also set a litle aside (a 2nd set aside) to

do inc-fragmentation in it even before it is killed.›) It's not going to make

that much difference in our enjoyment or satisfaction of the essential to set a

little aside. This may be the easy yolk that Jesus sets upon us. But even if

we slip and don't set any aside, then all that material will have to be

re-processed, and we can just catch it the next time around. The reason we set

a little aside each time we do an essential, is so material that's unacceptable

(due to it being involved in the essential) won't keep cycling eternally, but

will eventually find its way to heaven. And an occasional slip-up won't ruin

this; only a lifetime of consistently never setting a little aside will.

Where we do inc fragmentation: Now then, after we're doing the essential-(with a

little set aside, -not doing essential): Sooner than you think, the evil in the

essential or some other evil comes and kills some of this material. Now, in the

material that was killed, that was acceptable to God (-since it stayed

(-wasn't escaping), it has a chance at being acceptable), this material

-accepted by God and rightly programmed and part of our heavenly treasure-; we

do no inc fragmentation in, even though it has passed through destruction. And

with parts-doing-the-essential that aren't yet killed, we continue to do the

essential with them; with no inc-fragmentation (›except for a small second

set-aside›). Only with the material wrongly programmed and (not accepted by

God) that was killed, we then with it or near where it connects to our earthly

us, we then fragment it and simultaneously fragment our fragmentation action

(that is, we inc-fragment it). Soon thereafter we addit!

ionally choose with it, for half of it to try and escape all evil, especially

the evil and bodily doings of this essential; while with the other half we

choose with it, to stay and not try to escape. Now with this new stayed part,

we see if we can go with it as uninvolved and not doing any essential. and if

our essential is over, this marks the end of our doing the essential at this

time. But if we're not finished, we then activate this new stayed put part to

mostly be doing the essential, while setting a small part aside (more 1st set

aside). The additional material doing essential, helps bring the essential

closer to completion.

(Once the essential is done, we may still be processing some returning wrongly

programmed Godly parts, but now, the stayed half does no new essential and

doesn't (yet) split into a small set-aside part and a larger essential-doing

part.) When we do the essential again, it is this as yet unsplit-stayed-half

that initiates the next round of essential.

Now, in my ›most recent method›, I thought a small second set aside (of

doing inc-fragmentationwiththeessential), might be wise, because after a wrongly

programmed thing is killed or destroyed, it may not have the ability to change

course and do this inc-fragmentation. But if we do it here on earth, and then

it is destroyed, then this inc-fragmentation will also be translated as is. In

any case, it provides a place in our earthly self where

wrongly-programmed-Godly-parts with no inc-fragmentation can return to earth and

be inc fragmented. They then can choose half to try escape and half to remain

there. (all to maintain reduced capability.)

So, now we go about doing our essential unhindered except for two small set

asides. The first set aside does no essential at all. The second set aside

does the essential yes, but with inc-fragmentation of that essential.

The reason no inc-fragmentation is done in the escaping half, is: if it escapes

all evil, it needs no reduced capability. And if it fails in its escape, it

comes to the inc-fragmentation of the stayed-put-half of this earth, and uses

that.

Also, no inc-fragmentation (from the second set aside) is done in the first set

aside, since doing inc-fragmentation would make it unacceptable and it wouldn't

become heavenly treasure when destroyed (which is the purpose of the first set

aside).

When we do the second set aside (involves inc-fragmenting the essential), we

have to be doing the essential. So, the first essential we do, we might

inc-fragment it, so we'll have this set aside right away. But instead of doing

this 2nd set aside first and then after it's done, then doing the larger

unhindered essential; let's do both at the same time, in their respective

proportions. This way we can get a feel for the whole picture and not get stuck

on doing just a part. As we do this inc-fragmentation, realize that only a

small part of this second set aside will be in active inc-fragmentation, while

most of this second set aside will consist of

reduced-capability-essential-remnant. More importantly, remember we limit the

second set aside to be a small portion of the essential doings of the stayed put

half.

When we choose half to escape, that escaping part looses its acceptability

(although the stayed part retains it). Now when a part inc fragments, it too

looses its acceptability and becomes a wrongly programmed part. Otherwise, we

leave a high-capability-good-part at high capability (and don't try to bring it

to red cap) when its not infected by evil.)

Now, with the halving action (ie half to escape/half to stay), separation is

additionally supported, whereas we don't achieve separation with inc

fragmentation alone. (you see, the inc fragmentation prepares conditions so

separation is favored. The act of escape IS the actual separation of the

forces. Note that the halving (which contains the act of escape) also prepares

the conditions for separation (by also bringing to reduced capability).) So if

we're going to loose acceptability either way, the best way in this case, is

with escape-and-halving. And if that doesn't bring to reduced capability, (as

it sometimes doesn't -due to returning wrongly programmed Godly parts bringing

to high capability) then we can do inc fragmentation in the remaining part

-›(less the first set aside)›.

One might say that allowing a high capability good part to be under destruction

is OK in that it produces greater heavenly treasure due to the greater material

being destroyed. But this allowing a high part to feed and sustain an evil in

togetherness of the forces, goes against everything the fogoHC stands for.

Separation of the forces is a basic truth and tenant of the fogoHC. Thus this

isn't done, and the long lasting torment the high good part would have gone

through here with this, isn't done. So, here, even though a high good part has

not yet passed through destruction, it can halve (when evil infects it). We

also halve unacceptable parts that infrequently achieve high capability before

they pass through destruction.

When not choosing half to escape/half to stay, or preparing the set asides;

the higher-ability unhindered essential often generates new activity/growth of

its own. When it does, we allow that new growth to join all older parts of

itself, (the unhindered essential), but not any of the old/new

second-set-aside-essential. The problem is the unhindered essential tends to

outgrow the inc-fragmented-second-set-aside-essential. After a time of growth

in the unhindered essential; this new unhindered essential splits off some to be

second set aside: which then joins with the other older second set aside parts.

And finally, the small amount of new growth the lower-ability-second-set-aside

generates, can just join its second set aside automatically without any

processing.

The question comes: since the growth came from unhindered essential, does it

maintain its connection to unhindered essential? Well, yes and no. It became

second set aside through the process of incomplete fragmentation. The

connections to unhindered essential that were fragmented, are gone for good.

But the connections that were not fragmented in the incomplete fragmentation,

remain.

Let me expand upon this in greater depth: The unhindered essential (since

it wasn't inc fragmented), is of higher ability compared to the second set aside

and has a greater potential for growth. Now then. -So that the unhindered

essential doesn't greatly overgrow the second set aside (in the period between

destructions, and choosing half to escape, and generating the set asides), we

have the above described method of sharing growth with the second set aside,

plus a second new method I will now describe: When the unhindered essential

grows, it gets into new areas. When it first gets into a NEW area/stage, let

those first fruits be the second set aside, by doing inc fragmentation in them.

Thus a second set aside for the new action is soon established. At this point,

the unhindered essential (no longer puts more into this second set aside, but)

reverts back to unhindered essential and does this new item now as unhindered

essential. (This is the second way to do the s!

econd set aside.) In doing things this way, we avoid failing to live up to

growth requirements being generated in unhindered essential, because we have

nothing of the new action as unhindered essential at first. (When we break

growth requirements in the second set aside, that doesn't matter due to all the

fragmentation going on there anyway.)

When we first switch to unhindered essential (from second set aside): since that

itself is a new act, do we then do it first in second set aside? Well, No.

That's only one of two methods. In order to switch to unhindered essential with

the new item, we must break with this method here, and do the first method.

Thus we cannot share completely from the unhindered essential to the second set

aside; but we can share enough so the second set aside isn't left far behind.

Note that what differentiates between second set aside vs unhindered

essential; is to either do inc fragmentation with the essential, vs, do the

essential without inc fragmentation. A correction: Because of this, it is no

longer needed to do a separate action to establish the second set aside (like we

do to mark out the first set aside).

Note that we do inc fragmentation repetitively to generate this second set

aside. -I say repetitively because inc fragmentation quickly brings itself to

an end; and to maintain a decent supply to be translated with this essential, we

must keep re-initiating it, until we are done creating this second set aside

(when finished with the essential).

›(This all comes after we've established the first set aside, via 'dividing'.)›

Note that once our essential is satisfied, we then act to stop doing more

unhindered essential. This needs to be done to minimize evil. And although

it's easy, it represents an additional step.

When destruction destroys part of us: (if short on energy) all we need do,

is HALVE (Half to escape and half to stay), if it's an unacceptable part. The

activities of set-asides, inc fragmentation, and further essential doing; are

for our comfort and benefit. We do them as we need, but they aren't necessary.

When doing a round of essential;: since the inc fragmentation is semi

destructive, -also automatically brings itself to a stop; material needing to be

halved (plus set asides plus inc fragmented), is thus generated. This continues

as long as we do essentials. When we're done and wish to stop essentials, we

then just halve without set asides (including no inc fragmentation), and finally

stop the actual essential and halve the return from that. (This includes from

both the stopped essential, and shortly after, the stopped stopping).

(It could be this complex, but actually things work out to be much simpler as

we'll see later.)

Let me review the sequence of doing an essential. We've already halved: and

with the stayed half, this is then divided into a small first set aside, vs the

majority of the material (via 'dividing'). This majority of material is then

used for essential doings (with inc fragmentation in a small part (the second

set aside)); and the rest for (unhindered essential). Note this dividing is

UNlike halving in that both parts stay put.

Note that when we're done with our essential, and are halving without doing set

asides: in both the escaped half and stayed half, we go to oneness with God and

abandon individual existence, in the final result. My point is; after a time,

the escaped half escapes and moves some distance away from evil: -as the escape

action automatically comes to an end and Godly parts are generated from that; we

don't halve these but allow them to bring to high capability here. Since all

evil is escaped from, the high capability brought by the Godly parts isn't out

of place. They then rejoin God.

(Also, when doing essential, don't forget to do a small first set aside in the

stayed put parts of all halvings (whether or not they've passed through

destruction). ›(Remember, the small first set aside doesn't participate in its

creation: -that is in the dividing into this small first set aside vs the rest

of the stayed put part.)›

Recently, I've discovered a problem with 'dividing' to create the 1st set

aside. Recall that we take a stayed half, and divide into:

1.) a 1st set aside vs 2.) the major part. The small 1st set aside is to be

free of all present or new essential doing. But the act of dividing, itself, is

an essential. How do we only utilize the major part to do this essential,

dividing, if the major part hasn't been created yet? (It is created by the act

of dividing.) Well, we could depend on previous material for this, but how did

the original come about? And if the original is flawed, then wouldn't this

maintain error? What we can do is: with a fresh stayed half, to do 1. the act

of dividing plus 2. a single episode (not repetitive) of incomplete

fragmentation upon the whole act of dividing. -leaves no unhindered part. We do

a special act of dividing that separates all parts containing itself (includes

the incomplete fragmentation), from all parts not containing itself, of the

stayed half. The one time inc fragmentation of this act of dividing, leaves

some of this dividing intact, but most importantly, genera!

tes an area, a 1st set aside, (in this stayed half), where there is no act of

dividing, -where the dividing has been fragmented. (In comparison, in our major

parts, we do do repetitive inc fragmentation in the 2nd set aside.) But in this

structuring of a fresh stayed half, we needn't do inc fragmentation again here.

In fact, the act of inc fragmentation is also an essential, and with too much of

it we might not have any essential-free 1st set aside left of the stayed half.

The purpose of repetitive inc fragmentation, was to allow enough to be

translated with destroyed unacceptable parts to be useful in their afterlife.

So we give up our destroyed part's comfort in their afterlife, to be able to

accomplish the essential of dividing, in the present. A solution, is to catch

the wrongly programmed parts the second time around. Once we've accomplished

dividing, and thus have a major part to do essentials with, we can then with it,

do repetitive inc fragmentation in an all in!

clusive gesture upon these returning higher capability (and thus tormented)

-although they have had one episode of inc fragmentation, unacceptable parts

(that is, returning, higher capability, unacceptable parts). Once repetitive

inc fragmentation is done in them all, they're no longer good food for evil.

Once at reduced capability, the parts can separate in their forces and the good

parts escape, ie halve. Usually, we do halving first, but in this case we do

repetitive inc fragmentation first.

Now with a major part (and the ramifications of creating this major part dealt

with), we can then go ahead and do our essential with our major part as

described previously.

The method of halving alone may work for awhile, but due to the fogoHC's

bringing so much returning unacceptable parts to high capablity, this method may

be overwhelmed. When this happens, I fall back to the inc fragmentation method.

After we've halved once, as a matter of our method, do we then halve again and

again with the remaining stayed part? Well an area is only halved once; when

it's a new action. Old actions aren't halved by us again, but we do allow good

to escape old material as the forces separate. This is a type of (natural)

halving. It emanates from the material itself and doesn't need our effort.

When we do a new stage of essential, "we", reach in and halve only the new stage

but not the other previous stages, as a matter of our method.

I've had to come to terms with the error(s) of my ways. I've discovered

that some of this writing is based on sloppy thinking -specifically the idea of

a 1st set aside, and also some of halving. (Inc fragmentation remains strong.)

In reduced capability, the forces separate as the good grows away and escapes

the evil. This occurs on its own and doesn't need our effort, nor an overseer

to initiate it. This separating of the forces (at reduced capability), is a

force of nature and exists even in the low levels where no 3rd party exists to

oversee it (due to good and evil being different). My proposed halving action

requires us to take unstructured material and halve it into an escaped half and

a stayed half. But actually, the action of separation does this for us without

needing us to do it. The good grows and escapes the non good, and is the

escaped 'half'. What remains is the stayed 'half'. Forces of good from the

most feeble to the most powerful (including living forces of good (perhaps) such

as us), act naturally to grow and escape material containing evil: and in this

case, we ARE (part of) the escaped half and we act to escape; but we're not

needed to choose what will escape and what will sta!

y, as the material involved does that on its own: -the reduced capability

environment, and the 'metal' of what good is, that enables it to escape because

of what's in it; not what we decide will escape. Separation of the forces, and

the true halving action occurs on its own and naturally: of itself. It is not

something we DO. (Although as a living force of good, we do act to escape the

force of evil, in accordance with separation of the forces: ie, this self doing

halving action.)

›Hold on a minute. Later, I will come to the conclusion that reduced

capability is a trap, and that only infrequently do forces of good escape evil.

Thus separation of the forces in reduced capability cannot be that much of a

powerful force of nature right? When life is growing together in between

atomizations, there's an element of randomness in the size/power of the groups

that form. Even if the forces of good and evil were equal in value; this

randomness would provide infrequent high power groups for any and all forces (in

competition). The fact that the force of good is superior to the force of evil

(in that it builds up what can help it and bridge barriers and make it grow),

greatly enhances this randomness, so that more higher power forces of good are

formed. And if those forces of good actively use their higher power to escape

and separate from forces of destruction; this results in even greater high power

forces of good: and also increased production of sep!

aration of the forces. Of the separation-of-the-forces produced; all occurs in

reduced capability and not in high capability neither in near-desolation.

Up to this point, reduced capability is still a trap, and the total escape by a

force of good from all evil is still an infrequent occurrence. But this doesn't

mean the separation of forces - escape by forces of good that occurs in reduced

capability (especially in the low levels; by itself; without our doing it);

isn't still quite a force of nature. In the larger more inclusive overall tasks

which require the highest powered groups (ie escape from all evil); this is

still an infrequent occurrence. But in the smaller component tasks, is where

the separation of the forces due to randomness and the superior metal of the

force of good really shows itself to be a force of nature. In a complete

essential task, our force of good may not yet have achieved complete freedom

from evil (that's why it's called an essential). But in the individual

component parts of that overall essential task, the superiority of the force of

good more easily and frequently shows itself and causes !

much more separation of the forces in these smaller areas on a smaller scale.

For example, consider the motion of gas molecules -they are moving rapidly.

With slightly larger particles, they vibrate in brownian motion as they are

buffeted by the smaller gas molecules crashing into them (with the crashes

mostly averaging out to the vibration). But with even larger groups of

particles, there is no apparent motion at all./ The escape by forces of good,

is like this example in that it is much more active in the smaller component

parts of tasks. (It is at the smaller, component part level where separation of

the forces in reduced capability is more of a force of nature and is more

active.) And there are times concerning medium sized tasks when a force of good

will temporarily escape an evil in reduced capability but due to the trap of

reduced capability, will fall back into that evil at a later date. And if this

is repeated often enough, occasionally the force of good will e!

scape the evil for good.

In the case of essentials, we often need to delay the escape of forces of good

in these smaller component areas for the benefit of the larger overall task.

-This is the evil part that we unavoidably do in satisfying our essential, and

is why we call it an essential. When we don't need to delay separation of the

forces (with repetitive inc fragmentation), we refrain from that.

Up to now, the separation of the forces at the overall (larger) task level, is

infrequent. But what if God intervened in the medium sized areas where forces

of good often temporarily escape evil -mostly to fall prey to it again (in all

probability), if God didn't intervene. But what if God did intervene where good

escaped evil for a moment, to rescue that good? Well, separation of the forces

would in this case greatly increase in the overall area and reduced capability

would no longer be so much of a trap, but instead an environment of

purification. And separation of the forces in reduced capability becomes even

more of a force of nature, because of God's help.

What happens when destruction destroys material? Material in the stayed

half has only the force of evil, or temporarily, good in the process of

separating (escaping) away. If destruction destroys material that is non good

or is evil; that is inevitable as that material stays and does not escape. But

what if destruction destroys material trying to escape? Not all the good is

able to escape destruction, and some is killed trying to escape: what about that

material? Well that material is in the hands of God, either to resurrect it at

the end, or to save it up into His Spirit before destruction can complete its

directive. To destruction, it makes no difference whether God saves the

goodness, or it is destroyed (perhaps to be resurrected later); as, in either

case, it is gone from destruction's sight. (This may be why we can't hear from

the dead: in order to fool destruction into thinking it has completed its

directive.)

The idea of returning Godly parts depends on the existence of God (which is

highly probable). But I must return to how God deals with evil/destruction's

effects. God could shine His nurture when destruction acted so all the good in

a part under destruction would be saved into His Spirit. All the good would be

saved -the stronger good and even the most feeble good.

Another possibility is that God could allow destruction to act and actually

destroy; but then resurrect everything at the end after sorting all the good

from the destructive (in their remains). The Bible seems to support this

alternative.) In any case, all good would be saved and separated from

destruction, but would loose a lot of time and growth if it had to wait till it

was resurrected at the end. In any case, good that escaped into God, would not

return to the evil of the earth. The action to return to the evil of the earth,

is a destructive action, and would NOT escape into God, but would be left

behind.

Getting back to what happens to material destroyed by destruction. Material in

the stayed half contains little good (as good would have acted to escape).

Since it is destroyed, it is in the hands of God. God is good. Thus God is

interested in joining with other good (because it is part of Him) and He is NOT

interested in joining with material that is not good. So destroyed material

that is not good, is not joined by God. Destroyed material that is good, then,

IS joined by God: either by God saving it or by God resurrecting it and then

joining it.

The idea of a 1st set aside in the stayed half, is silly because the stayed half

is mostly non good. The only good in it is trapped good (good that is forced to

be done with evil as part of the same action). If we do a 1st set aside in this

material to make it acceptable to God, then we have made it good. Good

naturally escapes (in reduced capability) and becomes part of the escaped half.

Plus, if we were able to make the material good in the first place, we would

have done so already and would have made all the material good. The amount of

essential we need, is that amount, and it is forced to contain both good and

evil. The good that separates out of the stayed half and out of the essentials,

IS the 1st set aside, and is not done by us, but by the good itself. (If we

were to do it for it, then that wouldn't be a reduced capability environment

separating the forces.) It is this good that is trapped in an essential and it

is this good that escapes as the forces separa!

te -of itself. (If we as a force of good were able to separate the good out of

an essential, we would separate all the good and not just a small 1st set

aside.) So we do not do halving and we do not do 1st set asides. We do do inc

fragmentation.

Note that the action by good to escape is not destructive. Thus why do I say

that that makes material unacceptable to God? (Well, once material has escaped

evil, it no longer continues escape action and escape action comes to a stop so

the good is again acceptable.) But one of the reasons is that an escape action,

if it acts to escape safety in God, then this is why it is

unacceptable/destructive. But God is able to sort out good from evil, and not

join evil. If God never joined with an escape action, then it could not disrupt

any togetherness with God, as there had been no togetherness to disrupt. So

that in this case, the act of escape would do no destruction. And once escape

had accomplished its directive of escape, its action would end and it would

cease to exist. or be a problem.

But also, Jesus in the Bible commands to turn the other cheek and go the extra

mile (if evil catches you). This allows for escape action before evil is able

to catch you, but not after evil has caught you (and in an essential, the good

is caught with evil.) At the level of the cheek and considering each cheek as

an entity in and of itself (to receive Jesus' commands), however, the cheek that

has not been smitten, is not under command to deliver itself to the smiter; and

may act to escape: although the entity of ourself (who has been smitten on one

cheek), IS under command to turn that unsmitten cheek over to the smiter. Thus

the smaller component forces of good of an essential; grow to escape the evil

that had them in its grasp, as they do naturally (even without us doing it); and

without breaking Jesus' command.

What Jesus was intending by his statements to turn the other cheek, and go the

extra mile, was quite benevolent and good advice to us, the meek and

downtrodden. Actually it is intended to we who at one time or another, are

losers in the many contests of life. If a man compels you to do something, or

is able to smite you, then there has been a contest between the two of you, and

you've come out a loser of that contest (in God's eyes and standard of you being

super victorious here). The action of separation -of escape by forces of good

from the destructions in this earth, (and to join God (who is also good) ie good

-that is, God, getting together with itself/Himself), is a Force of nature and

is the power of God. You aren't going to stop that even if you try. Jesus is

saying for the losers of these contests to take a break and rest on God's

shoulder -to rest on God's power: while this power of God shows these compellers

and smiters that even if their victim doesn't put up !

a fight and even helps them out, that they still will be overcome and God will

still extract every bit of good from their grasp separating it from them to be

with Him. The power of God and the separation of the forces is not weak but is

strong very strong. You. -If caught in the battle, do not need to extract your

last gasp to the point of discomfort, neither enact a revenge which involves you

doing prolonged destruction upon them to stop their evil. As the power of God

and separation of the forces, will overcome them; and your revenge. (Let the

power of God fill you with life and beauty instead (by allying yourself with it)

(it is a good, growing, and non destructive thing -although, feel free to

scratch any itches).)

So, now I see that the action-of-escape by forces of good, does not thereby make

them unacceptable to God (and even if it did temporarily; once it had

accomplished escaping, it would be finished escaping; and no longer doing it, it

would then be acceptable). With escaping-good being acceptable; when

destruction destroyed it, it would be good heavenly treasure; thus further

eliminating the need of a 1st set aside.

This idea of Godly material being pulled by interrelated needs into taboo

areas, is just incorrect. A thing that has truly escaped the trap of evil of

reduced capability, is able to do a zero baseline without it hurting them: thus

allowing them to grow into areas at their leisure (as they are able) and evil

free. Godly parts would be able to do the good of taboo areas as evil free.

The test would be that the absence of new taboo good would not be irritating or

compelling, or lethal.

Concerning the idea of Godly parts: if God saves all the good into His

spirit as destruction acts, then there is no return of wrongly programmed parts.

All that is non good is just left behind (not saved into God), and destruction

just destroys it. However, if resurrection of both wrongly and rightly

programmed parts is God's way; then my ideas on Godly parts will (may -depending

on how God reacts) have application at resurrection time.

If God waits till all is finished to then resurrect: He'd certainly sort the

remains of what was good, in a separate place from the remains of what wasn't

good: so that any action to return to the evil of this earth (an evil action);

wouldn't be present with anything good (with any good part).

The same would be true if God's way was to save all good up into His Spirit the

moment destruction acted. He wouldn't save into His Spirit, any action of

returning to the evils of this earth (which is a destructive action). So that

there would be no such thing as returning Godly parts. So that there would be

no rich food from God, needing to be poisoned. Or so we might think. Up to

now, we've been concentrating on what happens to the good when destruction

destroys. But what happens to the unacceptable parts? What does God do with

them? Well, if God just rescued the good, and left the non good behind, then

the unacceptable parts would be lost (and it would appear that God was showing

favoritism). But if God resurrected the unacceptable parts as well as the good

parts, then that resurrection would cause these parts to be in torment of the

forces of good and evil together. And in this case my method of inc

fragmentation would come in handy here. But I'm trying to secon!

d guess what God would do with these unacceptable parts. They'd be no use to

Him, as He would have no plans to join with them. He could wait and resurrect

these parts at the end. But my guess is that He would resurrect them and send

them back to us (whom they are from) in our time frame so that we would have an

opportunity to do something about them and with them (as they would be no use to

anybody else). If this is how God is doing it, then in this case, there would

be returning rich heavenly food that needs to be poisoned or inc fragmented, so

it won't feed evil. So my discussion and ideas on Godly parts (using inc

fragmentation) may be of some use after all. In this case, the people who are

rich in this earth, may be so due to their material being unacceptable to God,

and God returning it to them (much better off than He received it) so they could

work on it further. Note, that since God does have interest in joining

acceptable resurrected good; that good would rema!

in in Him.

Now, for those of you who believe in the word for word literal absolute

truth interpretation of the Bible, I leave you with this:

The Bible says that you need to be a friend to Jesus if you are to be saved; and

that to be Jesus' friend, you must do everything He says. And one of the things

Jesus said in the Bible, was: And whosoever shall compel the to go a mile; go

with him twain. Now, if someone compels you to do something other than walk a

mile, does this command by Jesus still apply? Well, whatever Jesus says, goes.

And he might apply this to some things but not others. You know. Whatever He

says. But until he does so, all we have is the Bible of the past. Now, if we

do extrapolate this command beyond just walking a mile; consider this: But our

essentials are very compelling. They compel us to eat, breath, reproduce, etc.

But you say; no man has compelled us to do our essentials, -they themselves

compel us. Lets take the case of our reproductive drive. It is the result of

many generations (of people) living with death, so that sexual desire was

selected for. In a sense, all these genera!

tions before us have contributed to the sexual desire which compels us now. If

a group of people compels you to do something (as opposed to just one), (even if

those people are now dead, as are the past generations of man)); does this put

it outside the command? I've heard "nobody put a gun to your head to make you

wed and bed this woman". But actually, our essentials do put a compelling force

to our head, and in the case of the female ferret: lethal force -('essentially'

a gun to the head). But lets get back to the Bible: In Genesis, the fall of man

is not laid on all the past generation, but on one man: Adam. And in Genesis,

the fall of man that Adam did, caused him and all other men to be aware/ashamed

of their nakedness. Recall the Biblical account of how Adam and Eve put on

animal skins after their fall. So if Adam, by what he did in the garden of

Eden, compelled me to be aware of my nakedness, then I should be aware of my

nakedness times 2. And if I am sexually a!

ttracted to pretty women and then take one to be my wife because Adam compelled

me to be so by what he did in the garden; then by the command to go the extra

mile, I am instructed to take 2 women as my wife; and if I'm still compelled,

then 4 women, etc: so that in the end we men and women all end up married to

each other in one big sexual family orgy. Hey, I'm just going the extra mile.

But watch out for these women's boyfriends and try not to let them smite you,

because if they do, not only will your other cheek be smitten, but every other

inch of your body also. Oh well. Such is life.

So then if a terrorist coerced Patti Hearst to rob a bank, should she then go

and rob a 2nd bank? Well there is nothing inherently evil/destructive in

walking a mile, so that we needn't extend walking the extra mile to things that

are evil/destructive. But the Bible claims the estate of marriage to be an holy

estate, sanctioned by God (and therefore not evil) and therefore in line with an

extra mile.

 

We've seen that we fear not man's destruction of our self (as that which is

destroyed and is accepted by God, becomes our heavenly treasure); but that we

fear for and must prepare for: that which is destroyed and is also not accepted

by God. All the hatings and destructions and meanness and also much of our

satisfying our essential urges, are not accepted by God. So we must deal with

this material and reprocess these parts of ourself until eventually, after much

recycling and separation of the forces, they are accepted. (If a whole human

can go to heaven when they die, then it follows that good parts of a person can

go to heaven when they are killed: and it follows that bad parts of a person

can go to hell when they die. This method is just a way to deal with that: -to

instead send those hellbound parts back to earth.)

Note that this method depends on the existence of God at this time. What

if God doesn't exist at this time? Well, if God doesn't exist, then what you

do, doesn't matter much anyway. And this method is as good as any in such a

bleak situation. It allows you to try and escape the evil. And it allows you

to stay and fight (in the unhindered essential part); -all of which are

unacceptable to God. It just asks you to set a little aside for the possibility

that maybe there is a God. Are you so sure there isn't a God? And that little

bit of set aside isn't going to much worsen your already really crumby chances

in the bleak situation of there existing no benevolent God. (This all seems

like a reasonable argument, but we've already shown the invalidity of a 1st set

aside.) And when the position of God has been filled at a later date, He will

be interested in getting together with those who have been interested in getting

together with Him.

Perhaps God exists, but does not (always) resurrect a part of us as soon as

it is killed, but waits till all is finished. This would eliminate all this

Godly part stuff. Yet, the unacceptable parts of us would be resurrected at

some time, and they would then need the translated inc fragmentation at that

time; so my methods are still valid. If there is no return of Godly parts after

destruction, then we aren't at high capability. Remember, if we're already at

reduced capability, we need do nothing, even though it's an essential (which

contains evil).

You see, if our unacceptable parts are left dead, they won't be alive to

feel any torment. Only when resurrected would they feel the torment of Hell;

whence the translated inc fragmentation would come in play to prevent eternal

torment and continue separation of the forces.

Perhaps God will fail to resurrect the inc fragmentation or will put it in a

separate place (thus thwarting my methods). But if so, why wouldn't He then

just save us from our evils? Perhaps He just wants to torment us for being bad.

In this case though, the torment would not be of our doing or as a result of our

acts, but His. And a God who likes to torment people for sport, is not a loving

God nor a God I want to be with. In the action of separation, I propose that

God separates the destructive from the good remains after death. Inc

fragmentation contains destruction; and so does the evil/essential that is inc

fragmented: thus they should both be on the same side of the separation; as

they are the same kind of action.

 

It may be pleasant or uncomfortable for you at the time, but it doesn't

much matter if you live your life in the lap of luxury as a rich person, or

suffer as a poor person or POW. -What difference does it make in the big

picture? Of all the generations of man or our ape-like ancestors, spanning

perhaps a million years: what is left? -Just us, the present generation. We do

live better than our caveman ancestors, and our accumulated technology and

machines have allowed us to support more people than in the past. There has

been some progress. But just think: it took all the generations before us to

get us where we are now. There isn't much left of all those people. And in a

few decades, we'll join them. There is progress, but it sure is slow. Until we

are removed from destruction and death, stagnation will be the rule. Until

we're removed from destruction and death, we will be inadequate. Don't think

you are free. When your four score or so years are over, ther!

e will be very little left of you that we can see. So until you overcome death,

you will be in need of someone who can. I want us to recognize that because of

death, you and I are not rich, but are very needy, no matter how much we make or

what our position in today's world. I would suggest that we need to recognize

our state, (that we're caught in a stagnation of life and death; good and evil

together) by calling out for help. We need to call for help and keep our eye on

getting help from someone powerful enough to help us out of our predicament, on

their terms (this originates from our valuing life (life outside the stagnation)

over the inanimate). The only terms a benevolent God would require (a

benevolent God being the only one who could help out), would be our valuing life

(free from stagnation/destruction) over the inanimate. If we value

death/destruction as a needed commodity in our life, we'll be out of line with a

benevolent God, and would expect no help from Hi!

m in this. If we are so needy because of death, then why aren't we trying to

overcome it? How much research do we devote to overcoming the aging process?

Well, some, but it isn't a top priority.

Unlike the dinosaurs, we know about asteroids, and have a space capability. If

an asteroid were on a collision course and we only had a few months, I don't

think our governments would be able to stop it. Perhaps we think that if it's

God's will we die, so be it. But I think a benevolent God would want us to

grow/advance and escape the stagnation if we could and to value life over the

inanimate; and therefore wouldn't mind us trying to overcome these things. It's

just that today, we can't hope to depend on what WE can do against death. If

we're able to be free of hate and destructiveness, then I think we should do it.

I guess we must first learn to love each other and overcome hate before we

overcome the physical death of our bodies, otherwise we'd preserve a hell on

earth. We must make life worth living (free of the stagnation) for all, so

we'll all value life over the inanimate; so we'll value overcoming death.

We live in a world where oftentime the strong overpower/prey upon the weak

as a way of life. But strength that hasn't learned to uplift the lower life, is

strength unworthy of its strength. It is a stagnant mini-system that will be

escaped from and overcome. -It is stagnant and not growing, exactly because it

does not uplift the lower life around it.

 

Life has much randomness to it. Most actions you do have both some good

and some harm in them. If you flip a coin, half the time it's heads, and half

the time it's tails, on average. Lets say that heads is good, and tails is

evil. Go ahead and start flipping coin. With all your power, try and prevent a

tail from coming up. -You're the one flipping the coin. If you're lucky, you

can flip a streak of heads. But unless you're really powerful, sooner or later

you'll flip a tail. What I'm trying to say, is that unless you're really

powerful, you can't depend on your ability to prevent evil from coming out. So

don't spend all your energy on trying to prevent evil from occurring, but spend

energy also on dealing with/processing evil (and God's rejection of it) after

the fact -when it does come out of you. This is what many of my methods are

about.

Recall the parable of the unjust steward. He was declared unacceptable by his

master, but he prepared for that unacceptability.

When free from evil, we, as life, grow, create, increase. When there is a

void of life; then high powered life acts to create and grow life where there

was none before. That created life may notice voids and deficiencies in itself.

This created life isn't yet powerful enough to create well in and of itself.

For this life to respond to its deficiencies by including harm in its ways to

try to fill and create; is a destructive act. You see, this created life that

is not very powerful, is not ready to fill its deficiencies on its own. If it

tries, it will include harm in its ways, and so stagnate with the togetherness

of good and evil. What it can do instead, is just be itself. It can do what

it's capable of without destruction and not try further to fill its perceived

deficiencies.

Note that the idea to not-do ways containing harm until we can do them harm

free; does not apply to our essentials. because with them, whether we do them,

or not; harm still occurs (in different areas), and we find ourselves in reduced

capability the trap/stagnation of good and evil, either way. Only when

abstaining from a way does less harm than doing the way, ie, helps eliminate

togetherness of the forces (and its corresponding torment), do we then abstain

from that way. Otherwise it doesn't matter.///

 

Recently I've heard how generations of welfare have caused generation after

generation to be dependent and loose their ability to be self sufficient. (But

welfare didn't play much of a role before 1960.) They seem to say welfare has

done a harm to these people. I ask you: I tell you: nobody does it on their

own. Everyone belongs to a group that helps them survive. These people with

good jobs who complain about the welfare, belong to a group, their company,

which pays them for their work. The people on welfare do not belong to a

company group, otherwise they would have no need for welfare. So, why would

someone who has a company-group to support them (who has a good job): why would

they want to prevent people outside their company group, who in fact have no

company group, from joining the welfare group for support? What business does a

company group have over people who are outside their group, as these welfare

people are? Forcing someone to be alone and part of n!

o group, is a semi destructive act. If we must take what we dish out, then

shouldn't these people with good jobs be forced to go it alone also? These

people of welfare haven't forced others to go it alone, why should they be

forced? (Is this some kind of casting-out-evil - purification ritual

-guaranteed to build character- practiced by republicans?) -Well, do not put in

reduced capability where there is no evil. Unfortunately there is evil in our

essentials; and we're all dependent on our essentials. But I prefer my methods

for dealing with the evil in our essentials.

People who are kicked out of company groups; who are not brought into company

groups; who are kept out of company groups; are kept out for a reason: because

the rulers of the company don't like them. They're being punished for not

kissing up enough. (If people are given welfare, then they aren't being

punished enough.) And within the company group, there'd be less fear of not

kissing up enough, because there's always welfare, and the uplift on the economy

providing ease in job changes that accompanies welfare. Now, I think the attack

on welfare is an internal problem within the company. I think it is a problem

of cooperation. The rulers of the company have been used to being the master

and dictator and telling people what to do. With welfare, in order to prevent

people from being lost-resources to companies, companies must change from being

the dictator to being the servant. This is hard for them. And they won't

accept it. So we've gotten rid of welfare. But don't c!

ome to me and tell me welfare has harmed generation after generation. If you

want people to come to you and do your jobs, try being nice and reaching out to

them. Starving people out / into submission is not my idea of a good way to do

things. We need to learn cooperation better than this. This is a slavery no

better than the dependency created by welfare. This mean spiritedness has got

to go.

We humans are a sorry lot. We have these dependencies on food clothing and

shelter. I thought everyone understood that. Welfare doesn't change this.

Neither does having a job. (And the stagnation of the job system must be

escaped from if advancement in our lot is to be made.) These dependencies were

not caused or created by welfare. We brought them to the table from our very

beginning. This is the human condition. What foolishness is it that allows us

to think welfare caused the dependencies of the human condition? We've had

these dependencies from the very beginning and yet somehow we think we're a free

country. No we are yet slaves. We all have these dependencies. No one escapes

them. These dependencies have evil in them. Thus we all need to be cleansed.

The purification ritual of being thrown out and alone is one way. I prefer my

methods of dealing with essentials which I've already discussed in great depth.

Unfortunately for those who choose the 'thrown o!

ut and alone' way, they have destroyed welfare. You see, welfare is the reduced

capability living which purifies. The total desolation of no support whatsoever

does not purify these individuals. Instead, it totally destroys them. They

will be lost, but they will pass on this total destruction as they go out , to

the rest of us. In diluted form this will bring the rest of us to reduced

capability, and purify us. But if things go too far, we too will be totally

destroyed. It all looks pretty unstable to me. Better stick with my methods

and quit picking on people. Thanx.

Since we're now forced to work; work is an essential, which thus contains

evil/destruction (due to our being forced to it). Treat it like the other

essentials/quasi essentials. Unlike most essentials (which you are able to

bring to completeness and then stop for awhile this 'work' essential is slow to

come to completeness, and oftentimes just keeps going on and on.

Consider that work is a sin much of the time. (Anything done outside of God is

sin according to the Bible. -Anything outside of God is at reduced capability

and in the trap of evil.)

It is conceivable that a rich person might become self sufficient. Because

the rich are more powerful than others: its often a loosing proposition to force

the rich to do anything. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the rich and

powerful might get their way some of the time. And shouldn't we all be allowed

to express ourselves -express who we are. If the rich are allowed to express

themselves then what they do, is totally from them and hasn't been coerced: it

is an extension of themselves and who they are. But after the rich have

expressed themselves: if they don't help the poor and the lower members of

society, then I become alarmed because this is thus a stagnant system. And I am

thus spurred to work on an escape plan that escapes that system and to join a

system where people help each other not because the are required to but because

they want to from inside themselves in their heart. That's my thoughts on

welfare.

 

When the fogoHC offers himself for you to join with and be one with Him; go

ahead and join Him. Because in Him you are part of a greater life that can

better deal with the evils of this world, because He-you are at high capability

and out of reduced capability / out of the trap of evil: whereas, in your own

strength, you're at reduced capability and in the trap of evil. In such oneness

with the fogoHC, the above described methods (for doing essentials) aren't the

same. For all practical purposes, you no longer do these methods (you no longer

exist as an individual but only as oneness with the fogoHC), and it's as if

these methods were gone away and you instead depend on the oneness with the

fogoHC. Do not deny yourself this oneness with the fogoHC. Shed my prescribed

methods (for doing essentials) and all the troubles of the world, and be one

with the fogoHC. This is how we were meant to be. But there's a problem with

the large and powerful group. If any evil is i!

ntroduced into the group through you, the group won't be able to stop becoming

infected with evil, without casting you out of the group and into the individual

position. You see, this is the purpose of the individual position -to be at

reduced capability to deal with the evil so the forces will separate and you

become purified. Here in the individual position, while you are being purified,

is where you can make use of / take advantage of the purifying power of my

prescribed methods. But you can't spend all your time in this individual

position. Sooner than you think, the forces will separate, you'll become

purified, and you (your good) can then once again escape your individual

existence to become one with the fogoHC. If evil crops up again, as it may,

since we were born imperfectly then we may in time, return to the individual

position for removal of evil, but it won't be forever. We need the rejuvenation

from oneness with the fogoHC. The total desolation from staying !

too long in an individual position, is not the purpose of the reduced capability

of the individual position whereby the forces soon separate and the good escapes

into God.

Don't look to your activity in your essentials to satisfy your deep needs, as

that would overburden them (and hinder their escape from reduced capability).

Instead, look to and depend on oneness with the fogoHC to put you at high

capability out of the trap of evil and to satisfy your deep needs. The activity

in your essentials is unstable and may not always be able to provide. If it

fails, don't overburden your essentials with further essential action, but

instead depend on togetherness with the powerful fogoHC instead, to satisfy your

needs. When activity in your essentials does succeed, then actual success is

the good and well being from that essential, escaping into God. But realize

that whenever/wherever there is essential doings, there is no oneness with the

fogoHC (due to the evil in essentials). When you do essentials, you are in the

individual position, and on our own, having left togetherness with the fogoHC;

(you lack togetherness with the fogoHC until the good!

of the essential escapes the evil of the essential into God -hopefully with

God's help). The individual position while doing essentials is so your

essential doings won't infect the fogoHC or lead your other parts into reduced

capability/the trap of evil, like they are in, and are in the process of

escaping.

It is Jesus Christ / God the father who are powerful enough / alive enough to

make our life worthwhile by joining with them. Yes it's true that we were born

imperfectly; and because of this we'll spend some time away from God, doing

essentials. But don't let this cause us to never come together with God.

That's too much to miss out on. God is the big power/life source, not your

essential doings. Once done with essentials, you are no longer doing them, and

in this time, you can come back together with God and be so much more alive and

in love, until the next time you do essentials (until the time we're perfected

and no longer need to do essentials). Oops But the fallacy of this thinking, is

that it denies the separation of the forces. The good of essentials can't help

but escape its reduced capability environment and join God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION:

You may ask; what about "you cannot serve both God and mammon"? Well, when

you're doing essentials, that part of you is serving only mammon. When that

part is done with essentials and repents of them and rejoins God, then that part

is only serving God. /Remember, we can repent and be forgiven not just 7 times,

but 70 times 7, (and probably more)./ But what about the Bible verses

condemning those who accepted Christ but who later rejected Him? Well, we never

reject Christ, we just act additionally to satisfy essentials. It is Christ who

then acts to prevent the serving of both God and mammon, by severing our

fellowship with God until we repent of our essentials. You see, Christ is our

mediator with God. God cannot handle our evil, and so must be separate from it,

and us. But the act of severing fellowship is also a destructive act.

Remember, Christ was counted as sin for our sakes. So, when we are bad, Christ

acts to sever fellowship with God, and He also goes with u!

s (in separation from God). Remember "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?". But

after the forces separate out, Christ returned to God, and so do we, after we

repent. Because of Christ, we can have fellowship with God when we're good; as

opposed to never being allowed to know God because there was some bad in us and

we weren't perfect. (Well, this is a fine idea. But the separation of the

forces in reduced capability is a central idea that we shouldn't loose sight

of.)

Hebrews 12; 6,8,11: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every

son whom he receiveth.

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye

bastards, and not sons.

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous but grievous:

nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto

them which are exercised thereby.

///›This analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (Hebrews 10;26):

Note that the conditions for not being forgiven, are very specific. That is, we

must 'sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.' If we do this;

and only if we do this, then are we not forgiven. Note that 'sin willfully' is

the present tense. We have to be sinning willfully at present, otherwise the

conditions are not met. Paul could have made the condition 'if we have, or have

ever sinned willfully' (after receiving the knowledge of the truth), which would

be past tense. But he only indicated the present. Thus, if we're sinning at

present, then we aren't forgiven. But if we stop, then we're no longer sinning

in the present, and the conditions are not met, and then this verse doesn't

apply. This fits in well with my method. In the consequences (-for filling the

condition of 'sinning willfully (after knowing the truth)'), Paul doesn't say

our future is doomed, but only our !

direction towards the future -that is our pondering in the present about our

future (a certain fearful looking for of -present tense). (*Note 1: This part

DOES refer to past action as a condition. But the condition is for 'being

worthy of punishment'. We know that if we HAVE sinned, we're worthy of

punishment. But we also know that God forgives us even though we are worthy of

punishment. Of course, this verse says we're not forgiven. But that denial of

forgiveness is only for present sin. After we repent and aren't doing present

sin, then this denial of forgiveness no longer applies. Worthiness of

punishment still applies, but we can still be forgiven.) Now the verse:›

But what about Hebrews 10; 26-29,38-39: For if we sin willfully after that we

have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for

sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which

shall devour the adversaries.

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

(But given our reduced capability situation, I'm not sure it is even the right

thing to do to try to obey these commandments. The right thing to do might be

to just let our essentials come out and separate in their forces at reduced

capability.)

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath*

(See Note 1) trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of

the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done

despite unto the Spirit of grace:///

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul(the apostle

Paul) shall have no pleasure in him.

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to

the saving of the soul.?

(I do not draw back from my faith in Christ, but continue with it, even when I'm

away from God/Christ doing essentials.)

This kind of speaks against what I've been saying. But interpretation is in

pretty fine detail here. (Actually, what I think Paul is speaking against here

is that we can't just go ahead and sin because we know we'll be forgiven,

because of Christ's offer of forgiveness; and not against what I propose. My

proposal recognizes that we're not forgiven and are cut off from God while we

sin ie satisfy essentials/quasi essentials.) The ways I've spoken of are what I

see for myself and have received as the knowledge of the truth. I've not

received the knowledge of the truth that allows me to be free of my essentials

yet. I have believed in Christ, but it has not YET allowed me to be free of my

hungers and essentials. If I were already perfect and free of essentials, then

I wouldn't need to be saved. I admit I'm not perfect. -And because of that,

that I do imperfect things. Now if you want to call that sin, or, drawing back

to perdition -vs- something that requires chastiseme!

nt, well, that's up to interpretation of a fine detail. But no, I do not count

the blood of the covenant wherewith I was sanctified, as an unholy thing. Holy

means separate. Separate from what ? Separate from evil. Unholy thus means

togetherness with evil. -Togetherness of good and evil. -A serving of both God

and mammon. I have no desire to infect God with the evil of my essentials! I

cooperate fully with Christ when He severs my fellowship with God when I have

evil of my essentials. I don't seek to have fellowship with God, and the evil

of my essentials both, together (which is a serving of both God and mammon).

And when we 'sin', how else do we do it, but willfully. I was under the

understanding that while we willfully sin we are not forgiven. But when we

willfully repent, we are. Whether that be 7 times, or 70 times 7. I do not

seek to have sin, and forgiveness, together at the same time (which would infect

the Spirit of grace, and God with the evil of my es!

sential). To back these things up, I go to 1 John 1; 8-10: 2; 1,3,4: If we

say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to

cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in

us.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any

man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that

saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is

not in him.

So, when I'm not keeping his commandments, I'm not together with God and am

not knowing Him. But when I repent, and am keeping His commandments, then I

have no evil within me to infect Him, and I can and do know Him and be together

with Him. In any case, it certainly won't be me that prevents me from getting

together with God after I repent and am not doing essentials. I'll be actively

pursuing togetherness with God here. And if I'm denied it because of what I did

previously concerning my mind and my essentials (even though I now repent), then

I really can't say I've been loved, or been given a special opportunity. But I

believe Paul was speaking against thinking you could go ahead and sin without

worry because it would be forgiven you; and not against my method.

However; later on in 1 John, we have 1 john 3; 9: Whosoever is born of God doth

not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is

born of God. So now after God gets ahold of us, we're supposed to be perfected

and be perfect. Being born of God, according to the verse, is supposed to make

me sin free and perfect. Well, I find myself still subject to essentials, so I

guess I'm not yet born of God. (But instead, perhaps the entity known a 'I', is

scourged to remove the evils.) I'm reminded of Christ's words that we must be

born again; and his words to the Pharisees that their father was not Abraham,

but the devil.

///›This next analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (1 John

3;6): The verse relies on wisdom about 'the past' in that like it or not, we

live in the present and only the present. The past exists only in its effects

and what it has caused to be or not to be, in the present.

What this verse says to me: Even if someone were to become powerful enough and

become God, if they then sinned, the destructiveness in the sin would infect

them and bring them down to stagnation and mediocrity. And God/Christ (who are

sin free), would grow much above and beyond them. Thus even God cannot sin and

get away with it. According to the verse, nothing you do in the past can get

you Christ/God (if you sin at present). -Even if you had become God. Christ

may have come into you and supped with you, but the moment you sin, Christ

abandons whatever is left of that in the present. The material and the life

still remain, but it is no longer part of Christ. So Christ did not break any

promises, but he did break off himself from what he had with 'you'. This

breaking off, is a destructive act, and may be why Christ is counted as sin for

our sakes. But it must be done to protect God from the evil of our sin. This

allows God to be together with us when we're good, but!

or Christ to break it off (so God isn't infected) when we're bad. Note that

this verse also hinges on the condition of present sin; so that when one is no

longer committing present sin, this verse no longer applies. Now the verse:›

And then there's 1 John 3; 6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever

sineth hath not seen him, neither known him.///

But this verse does not consider the situation where a person abides in him

for awhile but then sins. A later verse, however, does: 2 John 1; 9: Whosoever

transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that

abideth(note present tense) in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father

and the Son.

Now, this verse, is right in line with my method. But the previous verse gives

my method difficulty if we try to apply it.

Like, when I repent and keep his commandments, then I 'know him', according to 1

John 2; 3. But when my essentials pop up, and I sin, then the 'abideth' phrase

comes into play (as at this point I have left him), and then somehow my previous

knowing of Jesus is somehow erased so that I 'hath not seen him, neither known

him'. The slate is wiped clean. But when I repent again and stop doing my

essentials, then I am keeping his commandments, and once again I know him and am

together with God. As long as I still abide in him (which I do because I've not

yet started my next round of essential: -you see, my previous periods of keeping

his commandments are nullified because I did not abide; but this present period,

I AM abiding (so far)), then I still know Jesus and am together with God the

father. All according to 1 John. Oh well. Clearly, my method finds difficulty

here. But then I'll take what I can get, because I've no other choice. I'd be

in limbo between heaven and hell!

.. But then, that's how I started out -as a life here on earth. However, I

think the idea of 1 John, is that when you receive Christ and become born of

God; that then gives you the power to remain sin free. (1John 5;3-4: For this

is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not

grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the

victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.)

But my observation is, that although we might wish for God to give us this

power(to be free from sin/evil); that there is a possibility that this is just

plain incorrect. -That we don't get any extra help from God to accomplish this

task of purifying ourselves and being sin free. In other parts of the Bible,

there is the idea that:

Essentially, you've got to do this part yourself: 1 John 3; 3: And every man

that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Hebrews 12; 1-2,4: Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great

a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so

easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that

was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at

the right hand of the throne of God.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sing.

(I don't think it would do any good to complain that it's a hard job.) Come one

come all. Step right up. There is a hard grueling job that needs doing. How

may I convince you to take on this burden?

It make a difference how much help we receive in being able to live sin free.

If we receive no help, then we'll still be trapped in our essentials, and will

be forced to 'sin', and that will screw up the logic of this verse. But of

course, the author of 1 John believes nothing but that being born of God always

delivers the sin free life. He denies any existence of the situation of being

born of God, but still being imperfect and sinning. Thus if we sin, it is

because we are previous to God getting a hold on us and bearing us. This is how

I see it; but you may disagree. Doing so causes logical problems, however. I

mean, if you first obey Christ's commandments, then the verses say you know God

and are together with God. But if you then slip up and sin, then this one verse

says that the previous knowing of God never happened. What did it do, get up

and erase itself? And there are the promises of Christ: Behold I stand at the

door and knock, and if any man open, I will !

come into him and sup with him. If the person then falters and sins later, does

this mean that it never happened? -that Christ never came into him and never

supped with him? Well if so, then this would mean that Christ had broken his

promise, because the man had still opened the door, but because of this verse,

Christ never came in to him.

And if the person is considered not to be born of God, and at the end becomes

damned because he did not ever achieve being born of God; then the instruction

by Christ to Peter (a human) to forgive 70 time 7 after repentance, would be

disregarded by Christ himself (also a human). So, you can see, this doesn't

work out.

However, perhaps one might wish to be insistent and say that this

interpretation of that one verse is valid. -That God promises us nice things,

but in the fine print, or even with no fine print, He just reneges on those

promises as a trick to get us to carry heavy burdens that we otherwise wouldn't

carry. (Even so, my method is still functional; it just erases my previous

meeting with Christ, and strips me of born-of-God status half the time.) The

promises of eternal life, and a utopian world where everyone loves each other is

the bait. Then the hook is set, as we become involved, and are reeled in. And

you too can become fishers of men. A world where everyone loves each other is

something we most all want. But considering our position, -that of being

trapped at reduced capability in the trap of evil, and in bondage to our

essentials; we're incapable of being destruction free (sin free); unless we bear

a heavy burden; and even then its not quite up to perfection. !

For the sake of argument, lets say God is a trickster/deceiver (the devil being

the number 2 deceiver, an even worse deceiver). Another attribute of God, is

that He is all powerful. Why would an all powerful, underhanded God bother with

trying to butter us up before putting us to work? Why would He even want our

work? Why would such a God wait for thousands of years, leaving us alone?

Wouldn't such a God just come in and take what He wanted, and oppress us right

away? I think so. But if the being behind this was not so powerful; and say

had only the power of an ordinary human being with a printing press; then such a

tactic might be profitable in this situation. So, no. God is not underhanded

like this, otherwise we would have seen evidence of it, much more than a bunch

of writing in a book, before now. Men, however, are underhanded.

Now what would happen if we did start to see evidence of Godly power, and

thought He might be underhanded? Well, the thing about underhandedness,

meanness, and cruelty, is that it can't build up power and life very well,

compared to a good God. (Remember the analysis of the forces at the beginning

of this book.) (Thus we have a good God, not an underhanded one.)

You know, God isn't obligated to make promises or help us in any way. And the

amount, degree and type of help if He does give it, are up to him. If the name

of Christ doesn't have quite as much power over these many generations; I'm not

going to complain. But this idea challenges the power released by being born of

God and inviting Christ in. I invite Christ in. And any shortfall in power to

overcome my sinful nature, I will use my method to make up. I could have taken

on a heavy burden to do the same but instead, I do my method. When I don't

overburden myself, this allows me to escape stagnation and reduced capability

that otherwise I would have been totally desolated (or overburdened) and thus

trapped in. And I leave it to God to determine whether I'm born of God or not.

I invite Christ in. I admit/recognize I'm a sinner and that there's evil in

me/my essentials. But I don't take on a heavy burden to stop this evil in my

essentials: not when I understand a method!

that will deal with the evil just as well. I am at reduced capability. At

reduced capability, the forces separate on their own anyway. I shall not

overburden (unto desolation) my parts that are doing a bit better than the rest,

that have a good chance at escaping the evils of essentials (which is the actual

forces separating in reduced capability), otherwise if I did, I'd ruin their

chances to escape, and I'd have prevented the forces from separating (as the

forces don't separate in desolation like they do in reduced capability).

Every good thing is interconnected. We feel this. We know this

instinctively. Just because we cannot obtain the good of our essentials without

also including destruction (in order to even live without being intensely

irritated), doesn't stop us; we go ahead and have them WITH the destruction

(sin). This interrelatedness is the drive that pulls us into sin. And when we

can bring out and purify these essentials at our reduced capability, we do so.

We are at reduced capability. This forces us to include 'sin' in our doings and

are thus imperfect and in need of salvation. But at reduced capability, the

forces separate on their own anyway. So we can bring these things out and

purify them at our reduced capability as much as we can do without bringing

above reduced capability: and the good part, can escape (its essential; other

people's individual identity; and our individual identity) to join God. So you

see, we can work with God. We can bring our own production in !

(as long as we stay in reduced capability), and also work with God.

I think you can see we've really opened things up. No longer do we need to

walk the perfection tight rope; constantly fearing a slip-up will cause us to be

fritter fried in hell. Now, we can instead, be more relaxed and more loving and

considerate to each other. Please; let us now love.

It is your 'in God' life that is best able to utilize the parts of your

essential that have separated in reduced capability and been purified to be evil

free. A purified essential isn't very big or impressive. But to our 'in God'

life, it has great value and interrelates for great production and growth. So,

don't miss out on growth of 'in God' life if you already have some purified

essential.

If we don't join with God and experience His abundant life, then we will be less

alive. Essentials that we would do, have little value or meaning to us because

we ourselves have little life to value or enjoy it. Its like dressing up a pet

rock and treating it to the finest accommodations. The rock draws no enjoyment

from this because it is not alive. Realize that your doing of essentials isn't

the last word: but that above this, is your doings where you're in oneness with

God; and that that is the last word, and where your heart is.

As we live our imperfect life at reduced capability; the forces separate,

and the good parts become pure for a moment. It is here where a

High-Capability-being can bring these parts up to high capability, without being

infected by the evil of this area. Here, is where help from the fogoHC is

expedient, and needed. Because if a fogoHC doesn't help here, then the

probability is that these pure good parts will become reinfected with the evil

of their reduced capability life as they continue on living their life, which is

made difficult by the reduced capability they are at. So why would an all

powerful God blame us for our lack of production of perfect life, when He could

just help here (at this timely junction) and greatly increase the production of

perfect life at no risk to Himself? However, if there was not yet an all

powerful God, but only religious tricksters; all they would have is the pulpit

to blame and shame us, without the power to do anything about the bad s!

ituation.

The path to creating a fogoHC when there is no fogoHC, is long and hard and

slow; and very few make it. But once a fogoHC is created, they can help when

evil has been separated away, and greatly increase the life that escapes the

trap of evil. But if there exists a fogoHC who does not help the good parts,

that for a moment, have become pure in reduced capability, then it is the same

as if there existed no fogoHC at all. If no help is given by a fogoHC at this

point where help is needed (and is also safe for the fogoHC); and these people

in reduced capability are expected to escape the trap of evil of their own

reduced capability life; then this fogoHC will have made no difference here,

where they could have safely made a lot of difference. To blame and hold

accountable we-at-reduced-capability for this kind of a fogoHC's inaction, is

just more of the same reduced-capability bullshit that we as reduced capability

life will still be seeking to slowly, hardly, and longly, esc!

ape from as if there were no fogoHC at all: free from such a fogoHC's presumed

commands. (Those commands, much of which we seek to be able to do, as they

represent a life free from destruction; but that we're unable to do-and-also

maintain our reduced capability life, due to our being in reduced capability and

the trap of evil.)

Perhaps the reduced capability life we live, is just God's way to deal with

the evil. The forces separate in reduced capability and the good escapes the

evil. Things are going according to plan. But if the fogoHC stepped in with

His power here; this would no longer be a reduced capability environment. So

maybe it is good that the fogoHC doesn't interfere. But the commandments given

by God, are interference. To the extent they make us aware/notify us of the

problem at hand (and don't bring above reduced capability), they have served

their purpose. But to expect that they will be obeyed in our reduced capability

situation, is unrealistic, and a heavy burden. Even so. Even though not

obeyed; the forces will separate and our good will be purified. So let's try to

be as good as we are able, and escape with that good.

You see, there is the motivation (because our own life values this) of

trying-to-free-ourselves-from-evil; vs, the motivation to do so to get on the

good side of a strong and powerful perhaps vengeful God. I as a reduced

capability life with my own motivation to try and get free from evil; do see the

advantage in joining with a powerful loving fogoHC and giving up my individual

reduced capability existence, to accomplish this escape from the trap of evil.

But if that doesn't work out (due to my failing to obey commands in my reduced

capability situation); then I will still have my own personal motivation apart

from any pleasing-somebody-else motivation; and will continue on with it in the

slow hard way (without God's help/ as if there were no God) (the only way I

would have). What other choice have I got in such a situation? And you can't

blame me for trying to link up with a loving God. I would still be trying.

And if I do happen to be the lucky one to create a loving fogoHC out of the hard

long slow road; I certainly won't continue this long hard slow road, but will as

a fogoHC, act to make a difference when it is no danger to me.

I was just thinking: if the major purpose of Christ was to allow us to be

together with God when we're good while only severing fellowship when we're bad,

then that right there is the help we've been looking for. That right there is

the help that comes down and rescues our good that has become separate from evil

out of reduced capability for a moment. So God through Christ, is already

helping.

Separation of the forces is the basic tenant here. There is an area that must

be at reduced capability, and not at high capability, so good can escape and

separate from evil. This means the fogoHC cannot be here as they would bring to

high capability. But the fogoHC can stand outside this area and enhance the

separation that occurs, by joining with what becomes free for a moment; as

opposed to letting it reenter reduced capability and the trap of evil. And I

hope in Jesus to do this.

Yet, since we are still trapped of our essentials and quasi-essentials, means

that we are still in need of help getting out of them -even if that help be just

allowing us to work them out in a reduced capability environment so that the

good escapes and separates from evil and into God. And if we are totally

destroyed as punishment for breaking commandments, then that is NOT the reduced

capability environment we need, but is an environment of total desolation, where

the forces also do not separate and where we cannot become purified. Anyone who

causes this, is against the separation of the forces, and is for keeping the

forces of good and evil together. (This is the society of 'haves' and many

'have-nots'; and not a society of all middle class.)

Note that an environment of desolation (ie a very low capability environment);

although it does stop the forces from separating; it doesn't prevent the

formation of a fogoHC in the slow hard road where only a few make it. Parts

with both the force of good and evil together, remain so in this torment and are

unable to change or free themselves, for the most part. It is the parts not

beset with evil so much that are able to grow together, with eventually some of

them escaping this trap of evil to form the fogoHC. This fogoHC can then act to

free the rest of us who are trapped (by helping, and changing the environment

from that of desolation to that of reduced capability.) This environment of

desolation, where one's force of good is unable to escape one's force of evil;

is a trap of evil. Here, we need outside help, in the form of giving

capability, to help us out of this trap of evil if more than a few are to escape

in a reasonable timetable ie in our lifetime. This is whe!

re the fogoHC can come in and help us. The desolating of us for breaking

commands (in reduced capability) IS this kind of trap of evil; and is not

salvation to those it is applied to. In reduced capability, trying to obey

these commands is a heavy burden that places us in desolation. And punishment

from God for breaking these commands is also desolation. If this is salvation

then we will need to be saved from salvation. (A hellhole by any other name,

would still smell as stinky.) If we are found damned and are desolated for

breaking commands: we would still be trapped in a desolation trap of evil and we

would still be looking for a savior to save us from that desolation trap of evil

as well as trying our feeble and remote chances of being an escapee. I hope

Jesus can be that savior. But if he can't for me, then I would still be in need

of a savior, and I would still be hoping. If there is any good trapped in

desolation traps of evil, that good would still be hoping an!

d need saving.

 

A thought about eternal life: to resurrect or recreate a person: if all the

possible combinations or possible ways that a person can be created and live

their life, were expressed, then each one of us would find ourselves in there

somewhere. So that as a fogoHC makes things more and more capable and puts more

and more life into all areas; this is what's going to happen. Note that we are

used to reduced capability life in stagnation where there is much of the

inanimate where life should be. At high capability, the place would be packed

full of life, instead. And when packed full of life, all the possible ways that

life could be, would be expressed.

 

A thought I had, was about the idea of turning the other cheek and

resisting not evil. Well, if you decide to obey that command then you take that

in as part of yourself. And as the evil (in what it is, that is destructive),

it will destroy you down to reduced capability. But the destruction eventually

will also destroy (the part of) your (life that causes) obedience to resisting

not evil and turning the other cheek. So when that's gone -because evil

destroyed it -because you resisted not evil -because you stuck around and had

the other cheek smashed: then it no longer exists (with you), so we do according

to whatever we do at reduced capability without that command. And that would be

for the good to escape the evil thus achieving separation of the forces.

Another idea that fits in here is if your boss tells you to do something, or has

you do work that is destructive to you (either by making you work too fast or it

is dangerous work or whatever): You see, the reason!

you obey your boss: Lets say you obey your boss and do what you're told. To be

able to do that, you have to take in and make a part of yourself this action to

do what you're told and obey your boss. But as that work destroys on you it

eventually gets to destroying this part of you within you whereby you do what

you're told. And when that's partially destroyed, its at reduced capability and

the forces can then separate. And when that is completely destroyed, it is

gone. You don't any longer always do what you're told. Thus you have escaped

your boss. And are on your way to escaping the stagnant system.

 

I've convinced myself that life is what's important. And something I can't

argue against is the force of growth is just the way to go (that is, vs the

force of destruction). And so if you bring out the idea of the existence of a

benevolent God or a benevolent son of God: there's so much life there; that I'm

going to respond favorably towards that. In the actual living of my life

however, I find myself unable to be totally good. And that where the rubber

meets the road I'm going to do things that may contain some destruction no

matter how much I logically am against that. Like in my essentials of eating,

or whatever, animals have to die and stuff. But what I don't like is the use of

religion to shame and blame people because of that. I realize there is a

problem with essentials and things like that, but that's not a solution. So we

have to work on the solution. And if religion isn't going to help to be part of

the solution then I don't have time for it. What I do!

n't have time for in religion is the use of religion to condemn and knock people

down so as to stun them and take away their life, emotional force, or money.

Some might say that religion is supposed to stun people and knock them down to

be at reduced capability for separation of the forces -so as to remove evil from

them. This may be all well and good, but the person who does the stunning must

be stunned just as much themselves. -Because parts that do stunning, connect

themselves to evil through this. Thus they must be stunned equally to also

remove the evil from them. High capability evil free parts do not do stunning

to parts needing to be brought to reduced capability because they contain evil,

since that very action would bring evil into them and spoil their evil free

status. No, it is only parts that realize that they need to be stunned that

must do the stunning to themselves if religion is to be used as a stun at all.

I want to revisit some thoughts on eating. Eating seems to be destructive

to either the animals or plants that are destroyed by it. And the Bible says

eventually we'll no longer have a belly, and therefore won't have to depend on

eating. But at this point there doesn't seem to be much condemnation against

the act of eating; although fasting is revered in the Bible. In human

sexuality, religion does put more of a clampdown because its not such an

essential. In the Bible, Jesus assures us that we have these needs and that God

will supply them and that we shouldn't worry about them.

But we have Mark 16; 15: And he (Jesus) said unto them: go ye into all the

world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

Well, a creature is inclusive of animals and perhaps even plants. And since

they don't talk verbally with us, we must show them with our actions. And if we

eat the creature, that's not a very good way to preach the gospel to them. In

fact, that's not preaching the gospel to them. I mean, if putting something to

death is preaching the gospel, then if we just kill everybody then that's

preaching the gospel. And I guess you do go to God after you die. But it just

doesn't fit in with the loving ways of what the gospel is. So if we don't

preach the gospel to the creatures we eat, because we ate them, then we haven't

done what Jesus said; and we're supposed to do everything that Jesus says. You

see, its this thing with essentials that gets us. I suppose you could preach

the gospel to them and then kill them.

In the Bible is the 10 commandments. One of those is thou shalt not kill. The

Bible does not specify thou shalt not kill another human. It just says thou

shalt not kill. If you have eaten animals or plants, you have had life killed.

Killing is destructive, and there is good reason for us to be against things

that are destructive. But we cannot help but kill when we eat; when we are

forced to eat to live. So if you've killed animals or plants to be able to eat,

then it can be said that you have broken the commandment: thou shalt not kill.

And so I don't think we can say we are yet born of God if we're always breaking

the first of the 10 commandments.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings Blip:

 

We fully appreciate your noble intent of sharing your book with the

members of this list. Your postings are quite large in size and email

systems will find it too difficulty to handle. We suggest that you

store your book in a Website and just provide the Website reference.

Also the subject matter of the book is quite vast and does not meet

the scope of this list. A single paragraph summary linking its

relevance to Vedantic Perspectives would be quite appropriate.

 

Members who want to share similar materials are also requested not to

use this forum to post entire book or long essays that are not fully

consistent to the list objectives.

 

Have great holidays,

 

Advaitin List Moderators.

 

Note: The total length of the postings exceeded the limits and the

mail server has truncated all your messages.