PartTwo

[Guest guest]

Here is the second and final part of my book. Thanks.

 

----------

 

Next, what about the concept of what a man sows, that shall he also reap?

And the sound advice that follows from this: that is whatsoever ye would that

men do unto you, do ye even so unto them. It is the idea that whatever you do

either helping or harming, will eventually come back upon you and be done to

you. Is this true? Well, you are the source of whatever you do, and what you

produce; and you can't get away from yourself easily; so that whatever you

produce and do will always be nearby. So that sometimes a person receives what

they produce. But sometimes it seems this is not the case. Sometimes it seems

rich and powerful people can live off the sweat of others and even get away with

murder without it coming back on them in their lifetime. If you think about it,

this concept does not have to be true. If a force of destruction has a

continued supply of material to destroy (produced by an adjacent force of good),

it can keep on destroying indefinitely without b!

eing destroyed itself. So a force of destruction can do destruction to others

AND as long as there's a continued supply of fresh 'others' (provided by a force

of growth), then no destruction need come back on this force of destruction.

But since the force of destruction destroys what can support it; destroys the

key to crossing barriers, and boxes itself in; the force of destruction is thus

not all powerful. Because of this, it is possible for a few to escape it. Even

though an evil group may be more powerful than the individual, it is still

possible for the occasional individual to escape it over time. And if a few

escape and create an alternative group that is free of the force of destruction;

and that becomes very powerful, (due to their freedom from destruction); then

this powerful alternative group can come back and rescue the rest of us who

don't want to be trapped as part of the evil group. So, with the force of

growth that previously provided the people and mater!

ials for the evil group to destroy, now separate and escaped from the evil

group; the evil group no longer has a continued supply of people and materials

to destroy. It now becomes in the position of the force of evil alone. And

this is non viable because the force of destruction is not self sufficient.

Whereas the force of good alone, is, and is very much so. Now then, with the

force of destruction without its continued supply of people and materials to

destroy, it can no longer destroy without destroying itself. Even if it does

destroy part or all of itself, it still comes to an end and this coming to an

end, itself, is a destruction of the active workings of the force of

destruction. So that the force of destruction here and all who ally with this

force of destruction, feel the result of what it produces. So, when forces of

good are able to escape any forces of evil when hold them captive, mainly

through the help of a higher force of good of High Capability, then for!

ces of destruction do reap what they sow, and do experience what they produce,

because with no patsy to take their abuse, there is nobody else but the

producers of abuse to take any abuse. However, when forces of good trapped by

forces of destruction are unable to escape; then here, forces of destruction do

not experience what they produce because they do have patsies to take what they

produce. Without help from a fogoHC, escape by individual forces of good from

evil groups, is a rare event. But that doesn't matter, as all it takes is one

to succeed out of all who try, for there to be created a good alternative way, a

fogoHC, who will grow in power and life, and who will be able to set free al who

desire to be set free of evil. We have been through this discussion before at

the beginning of this book where we see how escape eventually prevails

absolutely. So, the writing that what a man sows he shall also reap, is just

information to man that God or a fogoHC is or will be!

a factor in this equation. and that He hasn't forgotten us. and that we will

be wasting our efforts if we think we can get away with being hurtful and

harmful even though at the moment it looks like we can get away with it. An

instruction is thus needed to tell us that we won't get away with being hurtful;

and so one is given.

 

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 thus

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 with all people.

Note: when part of you is experiencing (much) pleasure, the low level (non

beneficial, non pleasurable) part of yourself will be more difficult to find and

more difficult to see than the low level areas 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).

 

John 17, 20-21: 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.

"That they all may be one". We are progressing to be all together in one. This

is cozy. What's wrong with the coziness and companionship of us all together in

one? And how does the Lord's prayer end? "Thy will be done on earth as it is

in heaven".

Another thing that brings people together, is the bonds of Holy matrimony. It

is said God joins them together in one flesh. But only two individuals are

joined together concerning monogamous marriage. Limitations are placed on human

sexuality. Sexual desire is the result of many generations living with death;

and thus it contains imperfection and destruction. Even though human sexuality

joins individuals together (among other things); it cannot be used to join large

numbers of people together without removing its inherent defects. Through the

need to replace what death took away, evolution has wrapped pleasure upon

pleasure around the act of reproduction. Pleasure which normally would go

evenly to all other (interrelated) things, is removed from them and concentrated

to this act. Evolution has selected for this.

There's 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's a potential problem with high capability. When things get

to be so capable in an area, no more improvements can be made. But the high

capability and life of the situation, allows the force of good to cross barriers

and find lower levels and areas where improvements can be made. Thus the force

of growth need never cease. Yet, 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 pleasure accumulat!

ion from it, doesn't have to be a threat or problem. Yes, evolution has

determined that we'll experience this pleasure concentration/accumulation and

there isn't much we can do about that to prevent it. But it doesn't have to be

a problem. This accumulation can be one part of a focus equilibrium. We can

then provide the return part of the equilibrium by returning pleasure and

resources from the high capability area to the other areas; if this area of

focus needs to be brought to reduced capability for separation of the forces.

But even if this area remains at high capability, it can use that high

capability to seek out the other areas and increase their capability. Only if

that high capability failed to get busy and seek out the lower levels, would the

active force of good die here.

 

What I am content to accomplish is to allow people to experience a fuller

sexuality within their own monogamous marriages. That's all that's needed. You

see, I don't believe most experience that in their marriages. Human sexuality

is defective. Why else would it be limited? What can be gained by limiting a

truely good thing? (Where's the growth potential in that?) If you had a truely

good thing, would you want to limit it and keep it from others? No. Instead we

would want to spread it and share it and let everyone in on it and let it grow.

The good news of God's love and the Gospel is not limited to Mary, but spreads

to us all. We Christians are instructed to share what belongs to us, with those

in need. So if we can fix what is wrong or defective in human sexuality where

it is allowed, then we will have removed the reason for it being limited. And

eventually, in time, it can become not limited the way it is today, but instead,

balanced.

I'm not saying that what a couple has isn't good, or even for them,

completely satisfying. What I am saying is that apparently, no couple has

anything good enough to be shared with others. Hey, I didn't make the rules.

Yet this goes against Christian traditions of rejoicing together and sharing

each other's joys and sorrows (bear ye one another's burdens), and of being one

with each other. How are we to be one with each other if we have (supposedly

good) things we will not share with each other (not allowed to)? (Annanias and

Saphira were struck down for keeping things from the church.) I just wish to

point out the inconsistency of it. (And to say, there is nothing 'complete'

about this situation.)

 

 

 

 

Coming to terms with my beef with religion.

(Note: you can't totally blame me for bringing up the subject of sex, because

religion has already done that. To some extent, I am just responding to the

religious structure already in place. You can't expect me to go along with some

official dictate without having an opinion of my own, since this is an area

concerning a quasi essential which has a large impact on most all of us.)

Religion, the Bible, picks out this one area (righteousness) and gives it

the utmost importance -that we know who is born of God vs who is born of the

devil, by who is righteous vs who is unrighteous. And the dictionary links

righteousness to morality. So that we know who is born of God by whether or not

they are moral. And this area of morality, is an important area. It deals with

our reproductive drive. (But careful not to overshaddow the two greatest

commands: Love God, and Love thy neighbor.) We as humans are born with a number

of flaws or needs. We need to breath air. We need to drink water. We need to

be warm. We need to eat and excrete. If we do not do these, we die. Another

thing we're driven to or have hunger for, is reproduction. If some of us do not

do this, our society dies. This area of our essentials is flawed and contains

destruction as part of them. It is a noble goal to wish to overcome our

essentials and not be slaves to them. And the qua!

si essential that we have the best chance of overcoming, is the reproductive

drive. It may not be easy to overcome our reproductive drive, but try living

without air, food, or water.

And because this drive is flawed; limiting it and putting it in reduced

capability, as opposed to letting it run unhindered; is a good plan.

The Bible tells us we are saved by grace and not by works lest any man

should boast. And this supports the idea that it is God who changes us inside

to be new creatures who no longer sin. The Bible places utmost importance on

doing righteousness (a word of obscure meaning)* as being the proof of whether

we are of God or of the devil. Yet the Bible does not put up front that God

will empower us to do this righteousness. The Bible says that we who have this

hope, purify ourselves, even as He is pure. This seems to be a departure from

God doing something in us; to us doing something in ourselves. It doesn't say

that God purifies us, but that we purify ourselves. How much help, if any, does

God give us in this task of purifying ourselves in this area of righteousness

and morality? This is unclear. There is an indication that some help is given

because the text says His commandments are not grevious, and that he who has God

in him, overcomes the world. You see, for u!

s to attempt to overcome a quasi essential like our reproductive drive, without

help, WOULD be grevious. Still, for this very important area, it is unlear what

help we recieve in this. There's one thing that is for sure: we are exhorted to

be pure as God is pure irregardless of the help we recieve. It is easy for God

to be pure because God has the power and high capability to be so. For us, in

our situation and level of capabiity, it may not be so easy. It makes all the

world of difference here how much help we recieve in this. And the Bible has

made this an area of utmost importance: why is it not forthcomming with

assurances of help from God? -That God will do this in us here? Why can't He

just save us here? Some of us have already chosen to go with Christ/God and to

accept His help in us. Why must we then do this additional thing? Isn't

inviting God in, enough? -enough to make us 'of God' as opposed to 'of the

devil'? What happened to God coming in and doing thi!

s in us? Apparently, inviting God to come into our lives in itself, is not

suficient. We must additionally act to purify ourselves in this most important

area of righteousness. According to the verse, our action is required. Why is

our action needed? You may say it is a matter of free will. That our will and

choice for this is needed. But I ask: Why: It was not our choice to be born

with our drives, hungers, and biological needs. These were handed to us by our

birth with no excersize of choice or free will on our part. So why would action

on our part above and beyond accepting God's help and letting God into us and

giving God permission to act in this area, be needed? Here in our essentials

and quasi essentials is where we are trapped. When it comes time to perform the

miricle and set us free of even the easiest of these (our reproductive drive);

the miricle worker slips out of sight and leaves it to us to comlete the task.

So why would action and choice on our !

part above and beyond accepting God's help and letting God into us, be needed?

-unless we actually recieve little or no help from God here and are expected to

perform this on our own out of our own stregnth and abilities.

Well, if our salvation (our future) is threatened, then this can be instrumental

in motivating even the most stubborn of us to curb our reproductive drive, thus

keeping it at reduced capability on a societal level, so that the forces will

separate and the good of it be purified and this trap in essentials be overcome.

So that God doesn't need to get involved here, because we can do it on our own:

eventually. Things at reduced capability separate in their forces on their own;

and what better way to bring someone to reduced capability than by taking away

their born of God status and lowering them to being born of the devil. Because

escaping traps (of essentials) at reduced capability is long and slow and only a

few at a time make it; we most all will find ourselves lowered to devil status

at some time. But this long slow way of escaping traps of evil isn't the only

way. With the help of an almighty God, many more could be saved and set free.

If we are expected to purify ourselves in our own strength on our own, then

there are problems. And this is the way it seems. Even from my own personal

experience I have invited Christ in and I am open to His help in putting me

above these traps of evil. Yet as of now, I still require air to breath and

food to eat, and my reproductive drive remains. I have not yet been freed from

these things. Yet I am asked to overcome one of these traps, that of my

reproductive drive. I am either free, or trapped. If I am still trapped of

something, no amount of commanding or threatening my salvation or condemning to

Hell, is going to free me; since these things are not helpful, but are just more

cruelty: cruelty and harm being what I am trapped of originaly in my reduced

capability. What we need is targeted help, not more harm. When I ask Father

God in heaven for help, I 'd be dissapointed to receive a serpent instead.

(Even so: also of my own personal experience, I feel there is something kind and

loving out there, that is not cruel or harsh; and is unlike the bad reaction I

have to some things I read.)

Even in my reduced capability situation I am trying to escape the traps of my

essentials. Its just that in a reduced capability situation, I do not expect to

succeed, but know that only a few will suceed out of all who try. Even so, I

still try, for the sake of those few. Because I know that when they become

powerful, they will come back for the rest of us who tried and wanted to

succeed, but failed. So if I am expected to overcome the world in reduced

capability of my own strength, then I would expect to fail most of the time, due

to my reduced capability situation.

Let's take a look at the Way of following all those rules and commands: The

Bible itself portrays an accurate picture of the result of striving at reduced

capability: only a few will be saved and many will find destruction. Even if

you sincerely try to follow all the rules and commands, only a few of these will

be saved. Now if only a few are going to be saved, then this method seems less

than effective. There certainly is room for (much) improvement. A method that

is ineffective must stand alongside other methods that are equally as effective;

and cannot claim to be the one infallible way. From what I see of struggling to

overcome what traps us in a reduced capability situation, only a few will

escape. The Bible lays down a bunch of commands and rules to follow but even

here, the promised result is only a few will be saved. This method provides no

improvement in the outcome. Following rules and commands is life-resource

consuming. In my struggling at reduced capabili!

ty; due to the difficulty of the task (in my situation), I cannot afford to

waste my (scanty) life-resources. So if I am to obey a rule or command, it has

to help me. Each command then will be evaluated on its merits. (The Bible

evaluates me on my merits of how well I overcome my drive, and there's nothing

unconditional about it: so what's the problem with my applying the same to these

commands: even the command over the drive? (God's love is unconditional; this

is not.))

If I have as much chance overcoming what traps me of this world whether I

randomly try things vs if I follow the rules; then following the rules cannot be

a one true infallible way, but instead is one of many possible ways.

The lack of production is bad with only a few being saved. I remember the story

of the foolish man who hid his talent in the ground and was cast into outer

darkness for his lack of production. Perhaps God will do the same with this

method whereby only a few are saved; due to its lack of production.

If in my situation I find that obeying a command is harsh and contains self

torture, then the command itself introduces destruction which is what I am

trying to overcome by obeying the command. Either way I won't be able to say

the job is done, even when I do obey the command. I HAVE made a choice. I HAVE

excersized my free will. I have chosen to be against things that are

destructive and to try to overcome them. If obeying a command is self torturing

and contains destruction, then I will still have work to do in overcoming the

destructiveness associated with the command and cannot say the situation is

handled until I do. I'm sorry if my religious conviction of being against

things that are destructive offends. But I will do this choice of mine (as I am

able). So that if a command contains doing destructiveness, I give it no better

priority than the other things containing destructiveness; and seek to overcome

all destructiveness whether it be from obeying a comma!

nd or from any other action.

The method of using reduced capability to purify things containing

destruction, is one of the valid methods. But even here, as the forces separate

and the good escapes; that good isn't returned to reduced capability, but is

brought to high capability. In my reading of religion, there is a problem with

being above reduced capability. The problem with reduced capability is that

there is always too much of the inanimate and we're unable to pack it full of

life. Yes, it has been good that religion has limited our reproductive drive

which contains imperfection/destruction, as opposed to letting it run

unhindered, when there was no other way. But now that there is another way to

try out, don't be so sure of a singular infallible way of your tradition that

you reject outright any new way. We now have ways not only for our reproductive

drive, but for every other advance to high capability that allows us to be full

of life without stalling the force of growth and good. Beca!

use our method eliminates the destruction, we can enjoy to high capability and

fill 'it' full of life. Let's enjoy the full advantages of the force of good.

Let me be frank: I do not believe in a cruel, harsh, taskmaster God, but

instead, a loving God. If God is not yet created, then the road to creating Him

will be long and hard in reduced capability with few being saved. But once a

loving God is created, He will come back and rescue all who want to, out of

those who previously tried but failed. And once a loving God is able, He will

free us from what traps us in our reduced capability, instead of rubbing our

faces into what we're trapped of in our reduced capability.///

*However, in the verse just previous, are instructions for seed to remain

in him; and what is more clear than that? -refers to use of the word

'righteousness' as having an obscure meaning.

The Biblical reference we've been examining is 1st John chapters 3-5.

Although I claim the Bible uses the valid method of purification by reduced

capability; this method only works where we go contrary to the up-front

exhortations.

A simple request really. All we ask is that your seed remain in you.

Unfortunately for us trapped in this world, evolution by many generations of

death and having to replace what death took away; has done things in our bodies

to cause destruction upon us unless we DON'T keep our seed in us. This is our

reproductive drive. What John is asking, is to go against/overcome our

reproductive drive. And if He has not set us free from our reproductive drive,

then that will bring destruction upon us as long as we obey. Since we do not

die if we don't have sex, we are thus brought to reduced capability, and not

total desolation, (by the destruction). *›(However, before, I said that the

destruction from obeying brought us closer to desolation, as opposed to not

obeying.)›

But reduced capability in itself has no value in separating forces if there is

no good present to separate out. Note that if we go contrary to the command

and have sex anyway, we are still at reduced capability as we haven't yet

escaped this quasi essential; plus we will have the good of our body's

reproductive drive present to separate out. Whereas when we obey, we only have

reduced capability. Compare the two situations. In one we have reduced

capability only. In the other we have reduced capability plus a good. (Of

course, if we are able to free ourselves, then we won't have reduced capability,

but then we won't need it either.) Note that when we obey, destruction within

our bodies destroys in us and we are brought to reduced capability. Now,

whatever other good there is in us, is then purified. But the material that our

bodies destroyed in us in order to create the reduced capability, is not

purified, because it is totally destroyed. Because things are interrela!

ted and depend on each other; our purified material wouldn't be very capable

(due to it missing an interrelated part), and reduced capability would spread to

other areas that were originally at higher capability. Yet the main point isn't

this, but is that we can switch from obeying the command to disobeying the

command, so now different material is destroyed and we can now purify a material

type that previously had been totally destroyed (when we were obeying the

command). Thus we can overall (by switching around), purify a complete person,

and not just parts of us. It is all reduced capability in either case (whether

we obey or disobey) when we are caught of a quasi essential. (So we can use

that reduced capability to purify all of us instead of just parts of us.) Of

course, that of us which is able to be free of a quasi essential, can remain in

complete and all time obedience, and because it is free of the quasi essential;

that obedience won't put it in reduced capabil!

ity (that is, destruction won't be able to do it any damage). So that if we're

unable to avoid the destruction our bodies put us in if we obey (that is, if

we're not able to be free of our reproductive drive); then we can use the guilt

from religion to put us at reduced capability, and thus purify the good of it.

(And if the guilt wears off, we can always use incomplete fragmentation.) (No,

actually what I'm trying to explain, is that obedience gives us reduced

capability(see*); and disobedience gives us the good: so when we switch around,

we have some of both, which is what we need.) Once our goods are purified by

being at reduced capability, then they'll become free from all destructions (and

also rise to high capability) and will thus fulfill the commandments of God.

But if we're not able to be free in our essentials and quasi essentials, then we

must go contrary to the up front Biblical commands (at least part of the time),

in order to be purified in all our parts. !

So do what you can to be free and not affected by all destruction. But where

destruction catches you, go ahead and purify it by letting Christ help you along

(By going contrary to the law part of the time, and recieving punishment from

Christ for it). But do not defeat the purpose of this by expanding this and

allowing what is free in you to become infected by destruction. This is where

the "higher" methods I've been discussing come in. -They are techniques for

being free of the destruction in the first place. -thus greatly reducing the

material needing to participate in the reduced capability purification method

involving intermittent breaking of religious commandments, (while not despising

them). So now I've described a way by which we may purify ourselves completely,

whereas if we try to obey the religious command all the time where we're trapped

of the drive, we will self torture ourselves all our life. But that's not the

far reaching consideration. When we obey th!

e command all the time where we're trapped of the drive, we have acceptance by

God in completeness and in high capability, and not in reduced capability, here

while we are alive. But because we are also trapped of our drive here, (as God

has not freed us of it while we live), we also have the force of destruction.

The force of destruction has a high capability good to feed on. -You thus

infect God with the destruction in your drive all the time you are alive, when

you obey. And when you dissobey the command all the time, you also have a high

capability good for the evil in your drive to feed on. For what purpose does

someone want to keep an evil alive and fed: an evil from a drive we did not

choose, but that was chosen for us to have through our birth? There is a choice

to be made here. What I hope I've done, is illuminate just what we are

choosing: so that we're not in the dark here. We have a choice between feeding

a destruction (from our drive), and keeping it aliv!

e through our lifetime. Or we can choose to spoil all the food down to reduced

capability so the evil is not fed, and is not carried with us, but separates and

then dies. This is the choice I make; and it doesn't obey the commandment all

the time, neither dissobeys it all the time. You may choose different, but I

just want you to see what you're choosing if you choose different. And it is a

choice to feed an evil and sustain it through your lifetime. And that's

abhorent to me. I as life, am by nature, opposed to destruction because

destruction produces voids of life, or the inanimate; which is the oppossite of

life which is what I am.

Remember the saying 'it is your faith that saved you'? Well, it is your faith,

or belief that God completely accepts you here, that will provide the nurturing

high(er) capability food for the evil in your drive to feed on (if you choose

different.)

Note: it is good 'righteousness' and 'morality' have obscure meanings, so that

we can enjoy the good of our reproductive drive in parts that have escaped the

destruction in the drive; while only those parts caught of the destruction are

in the wrong (when also enjoying the good).

 

The attraction of religion was that by joining God we can purify ourselves

faster than by struggling on our own. But in this case it looks like struggling

on our own, frees us faster. Whatever. I go with what frees us

from destructiveness faster. Just because I am trapped at reduced capability,

and am forced to do destruction some of the time (and am thus guilty of some

destruction); is no reason for me to feed and sustain destruction through my

lifetime. I can still be against destruction and act to free my higher parts

from it, even if my lower area is guilty of it. Don't get me wrong. I Am still

open to God's help in overcoming any evils in me. But I am not open to

sustaining and feeding these evils through my lifetime, in the name of God or

religion. It will not be me that rejects Christ, but Christ who rejects me, if

any rejection is to be done (if I can help it)./// Note that the command

concerning the drive, is against adultery. Christ defines adultery (in the

major part) as the love breaking and putting assunder what God has joined

together, by the act of divorce. And the Bible allowed multiple spouses. (King

Solomon had many wives, and it wasn't spoken against.) So it is !

not clear to me that I'm breaking the command over the drive, when I do my

method in its high parts. You may dissagree, but I still bet on my

interpretation. So what I am against may be just a widely held

missinterpretation of the Bible. I still must be true to my own directives to

try to be free from destructiveness (which I believe the living Spirit of God

has taught me in my life), whatever the case. This writing attempts to change

those interpretations; and in so doing, make life fuller for all.

I guess I haven't made it quite clear: When we obey, destruction destroys

material in us. The material the destruction destroyed, was completely

destroyed. The loss of that interrelated material then puts the rest of our

parts at reduced capability. But the destruction isn't in our other areas.

Unfortunately, our other areas, which have no evil, are brought to reduced

capability (due to their interrelatedness to the totally destroyed area). While

the area containing the evil, is brought to total desolation. This is not our

reduced capability purification method, and is unwise. No. The other areas

(which don't have this destructive force), should be at high capability. While

the area where the evil is destroying, needs to be at reduced capability

instead of totally destroyed.

(Now, as we grow, our low levels keep creating new material of this type, and

the destruction keeps destroying it.)

There is a non evil part of yourself your body totally destroys when you obey

all the time. How can we condemn an innocent part of us that's done no

destruction, just because it is caught by a destruction? I see no sense to

allowing an innocent and non evil part of me to be totally destroyed when I can

do something about it, even though it is caught and infected by a destructive

force. What I believe to be sufficient so the evil in this area is not fed (so

it doesn't spread), is to keep it at reduced capability (instead of total

desolation). This way, some of the innocent material is saved and escapes the

destruction, as well as having the destructive force be quarantined. If someone

were in danger of destruction, you wouldn't just let them be completely

destroyed if you could do something about it would you? I guess I'm put in the

position of having to ask forgiveness for having compassion on this part of

myself, -that is, allowing it to be not totally destroyed, but in!

stead at reduced capability; even though it is caught by a destructive force. I

hope I have turned on the lights so we see what's going on here.

By this standard (that is, assuming the evil in the drive does not spread to

other areas: -And that's debatable: -Is reduced capability actually able to

quarantine the evil, or is the total desolation (in the drive area) from always

obeying, needed? In some situations it may be needed. Its debatable.) OK: By

this standard then; since our faith that God totally accepts us when we always

obey, is a different area than our drive: the destruction in the drive does not

infect it, and the evil is not fed by it. So that Christianity, it might seem,

does not sustain an evil from our drive through our lifetime (and I would gladly

appologize for accusing of it -for I only seek the truth behind my feelings

including those in my drive). Yet, this Way -of total desolation in the drive

area (when we always obey), causes there to be reduced capability in all the

other interrelated areas where there was no evil. And this reduced capability

in the other areas strongly encourages necessa!

ry evils to be done in them. So that although the evil in the drive is assured

to be gone; the presence of other evils in other areas, is encouraged. That's

the thing about a reduced capability situation: that although this is where the

forces of good which are present, escape from and become purified and go to

higher capability; the force of destruction is also encouraged to be present.

So that with the obeying all the time way; the other areas, including the higher

capability (but now, not so high capability -due to failure (and destruction) in

interrelated areas) faith-in-God area; is incouraged to be infected by

destruction. But with my method of reduced capability in the drive area, the

destruction in the drive is encouraged to remain there; and the other areas are

encouraged to remain evil free. My method does not cause the other areas to be

infected: it has what I believe to be an effective quarantine of the drive evil

so it doesn't spread to other areas: and it al!

lows for some good of the drive area to escape and be purified.

 

I've thrown around the terms of reduced capability and separation of the

forces in reduced capability rather loosely. The idea of separation of the

forces in reduced capability, was that the metal of these forces would be

tested, and that the superior nature of the force of good would show itself (in

the reduced capability environment) and allow the force of good to grow out and

escape the evil.

But this idea is diametrically opposed to the idea of reduced capability being

the trap of evil whereby reduced capability traps us and traps forces of good to

supply material for the force of evil to destroy. We also have the concept that

the force of evil cannot exist alone, but needs to bring along a harnessed force

of good to supply it. -that it cannot exist in the total desolation that it

produces. And also that the situation of total desolation although not in the

force-of-evil's interest (because evil ceases to exist in it); is what evil

produces. And in it situations near total desolation; the forces don't separate;

(just as the forces don't separate in a high capability situation).

So which is it? Is reduced capability a trap which keeps forces of good

harnessed as food for evil; or is it an environment which promotes purification

and allows forces of good to obtain freedom (ie escape and separate) from forces

of evil? We must go back to the detailed explanations at the beginning of this

book. In the situation where there is not yet God, or that God is not helping;

then reduced capability, the majority of the time; is a trap, which harnesses

and keeps forces of good from escaping. But from my beginning writings we also

realize that infrequently, a force of good will escape. (This is almost

certain, given the reasons expounded upon in the beginning writings.) (Now, if

God is helping, then reduced capability becomes more of a purification tool, and

forces of good almost never fail to escape their evils.) -But getting back to

the idea that God is not helping:

Note that escape from all evils by a force of good is usually a step by step

process with many milestones to be achieved, in this infrequent escape by a

force of good without God's help. But the direction of escape is always for a

force of good to grow and become of higher and higher capability: not for that

force of good to progress towards desolation and nothingness (If nothingness

were the answer, then we should be following the force of destruction, because

that's what it produces) (Recall Jesus' words belezebub does not cast out

belezebub; and that a house divided against itself cannot stand.)

When we disobey, we feed the destructive force within our bodies, so it doesn't

destroy (parts of) us. When we obey, and go up against our drive, the

destructive force within our bodies then destroys in us and pulls us in the

direction towards desolation. (This is the wrong direction.)

We are trapped of our essentials and quasi essentials. This puts us at reduced

capability; not at high capability. And this reduced capability is a trap. It

traps us. We are aware that we are trapped. And we are aware that we need help

getting out. We also are motivated to try and escape and get out of our trap.

Is it wrong for us to want to get out of our trap? To try and escape this trap,

we do so by trying to move away from desolation and towards high capability.

But obedience to religion in this area, requires that we do just the opposite

and move towards desolation and away from high capability. Obedience to

religion requires that we give up our escape attempt. (Why would God require

that? That seems insensitive of Him. Why wouldn't He instead, work with our

escape attempt? He realizes that we are trapped and want to try to get out.

Why would He be against us trying to get out? How can I trust that a God who

wants me to stop trying to escape; will Himself !

free me in the end? How would my attempting to escape prevent Him from freeing

me? Isn't He powerful enough to get around this? "A house divided against

itself will not stand". Aren't we supposed to be working in the same direction?

ie escaping destructiveness unto high capability) Granted, my escape attempt

will in all probability, fail; but I also know that someone will succeed out of

all who try and that my trying is important for this purpose. -Especially since

He hasn't made much of a visible splash and show of power to assure me that he

will free me in the end. -Especially since He has basically left me to my own

and my society's devices with the exception of a few words of command.

If God is against my trying to escape in this area, as it appears that He is;

if that is his only action and response to me after seeing me in my trapped

condition: -is to tell me (through His commands) that He is against me trying to

escape (my destruction I am trapped of) and that if I quit trying to escape (and

obey), that He will free me in the end: then I find this to be a mixed message.

On one hand He wants me to quit trying to escape (the destructive force in my

body) and on the other hand He promises to free me of this in my afterlife.

-Especially when He won't free me now (from my reduced capability trap(s)).

This tells me that God is unwilling to work with my escape attempts and is

unwilling to work that into His plan. I also know that He is unwilling to free

me now in my present life, from my traps of essentials. And I am supposed to

trust that He will free me later? -with no other explanation for: His inaction

-other than to tell me not to try to escape? Gr!

anted, my escape attempt is of little value and has only a small chance of

succeeding. Yet together with all escape attempts by others; it is almost

overwhelming in its chance to succeed.

To ask me to give that up is to ask me to destroy part of myself. And that part

of myself is not a totally bad part and is even in the direction of the force of

good. I am against the destruction of capability-and-life; because I am a life

and because I value life (over the inanimate). I stand against the force of

destruction (of life) by refusing to destroy my escape attempt. Normally I

would not have such strong feelings about loosing such a small part of life, as

I am forced to destroy small parts of life every day in necessary evils I do

daily in my essentials I'm trapped in. But I take exception to this small loss

of my life part because together with everyone elses' escape attempt; it (due to

the specific type of life it is ie an escape attempt); it is very large even

overwhelming. (unlike many of the other small losses of life I suffer). If I

do not try, then I'm not a part of this Hope. How can a God who truly intends

to free me, ask me to give up this hope? i!

e How can I hope in Jesus to free me if Jesus wants me to give up this hope for

this same freedom?

 

It all started with Moses and the 10 commandments. Did God really give

them to Moses, or is this just the collective wisdom of the Jewish society?

Perhaps someone was aware of a strong noninterference directive in God, and

decided to write a bunch of commands and put God's name on it, knowing God would

not interfere. Let us assume that God really did give them to Moses. God has

taken initiative against evils, and has acted by giving us commandments. With

the commandment not to kill others, it doesn't hurt us to obey it. But if we

include all living things, then we'd not be able to eat without killing some

kind of life form; and our bodies would hurt us and consume us in starving to

death, if we obeyed. So we spread the evil to other life forms when we eat

them, in disobedience to not killing./ And with the commandment of the drive

area, destruction can also be shown to be present, when we obey. Many

generations of death have made their mark on us in our drive are!

a. That mark states that we behave in a certain way, or our bodies do

destruction to us. (This is our reproductive drive). This drive is not of our

choosing or doing, but is from death having its way over many many of our

generations. So that when we respond to it, our part is that of just trying to

avoid being hurt. But even if we do respond to avoid harm; death eventually

gets us in the end anyway. Even though we may respond to our drive, our part is

not that of free will, but is that of being coerced. You'd think an almighty

God would act to undo what death has done to us over the generations, and free

us from our traps. But instead, God assumedly gives us commandments while

leaving us still subject to our essentials and quasi essentials. Those

commandments condemn us to Hell in the afterlife if we respond to our drive by

trying to avoid its harm. Here, God assumedly responds to the evil in our world

by making us accountable for it and to blame for it, when a larg!

e part of it is from death over the generations, and nothing we personally have

initiated. And of course, our situation holds us accountable here on earth, as

we die no matter what we do. So, with no difference in treatment by God towards

we who avoid the harm of our drive; than our world's treatment of us; God need

not expend any effort on our part. However, if we are to be held accountable

and suffer in the afterlife, then there must be an afterlife. God must act and

expend effort to resurrect us, even if only to eternally torture us. Otherwise

we would be dead. And how could we feel anything in the nothingness of death

where 'WE' no longer exist as an entity? But if God is powerful enough to

resurrect us from the dead; why would not He use His power to free us from our

traps that coerce us here while we live? -Instead of just giving us

commandments -something that both man as well as God, is capable of? What would

an all powerful God possibly want with having us tor!

ture ourselves while we live; have no compassion on a trapped part of us; and

also bring low our other areas which did not originally contain harm; and thus

encourage harm to be done in them which could have been free from harm (which we

could have made free of harm ourselves)? To test us, to prove us* -But mainly

to see who got lucky. -At the expense of instead of saving all who want to vs.

only a few saved? There's no growth advantage in this: growth (and love) being

what God is. *(But the "other areas" don't need to be "tested", as they're

already evil-free.)

Note that religion depends on some sexual activity. Without some sexual

activity, a society would not survive beyond its first generation, and so the

religion would also cease (in this earthly situation). Religion takes what it

needs from human sexuality, and then proceeds to trash out the rest. Is that a

loving act? More like a ravening lioness making a kill. Religion may have good

reason for limiting the sexual area; but it cannot claim to be free from

destructiveness and bloodshed here in the sexual area.

But cheer up. Its not as bad as it seems. We have shown, independent of the

Bible, that God IS love, (benevolent), and growth. We have shown the need for a

Christ to come and die for us, independent of the Bible. We have shown the

truth of what you do to others will be done to you, and the golden rule,

independent of the Bible. We have shown the truth of being against things that

are destructive and being for things that are helpful; which is nearly the same

as love your neighbor as yourself; all independently of the Bible. Also shown

thusly, is that the sexual area is defective and contains some destruction.

Only in how we deal with it, is how we differ. So that even if the Bible is

shown to be a fake, most of it will still be true. Let's get back to the center

of our faith: Jesus Christ: He did not say the sexual area was most important:

No. He said Loving God and Loving your neighbor was most important. What I'm

thinking, is this small area of discrepancy with !

my method, could just be a widely held misinterpretation of the Bible. You see,

the Bible isn't clear when it comes to the sexual area. Words like

righteousness, lust, and adultery, are not well defined. What is adultery?

Statement 1a) It's something adults do. What do adults do? They commit

adultery. What's adultery? Go to statement 1a). How does the Bible define

adultery? Well, Jesus clearly says divorce is the perperator of adultery. And

I'm in agreement on that score. But adultery isn't limited to just that. Jesus

also defines it in the light of looking at a woman to lust after her. The term

'lust' can have subtle differences in definition that can mean a world of

difference. (Just exactly what is meant by 'lust'?) And Jesus' answer about

some eunuchs being born to it, and some eunuchs making themselves eunuchs, etc,

is not clear. Although the one thing that is clear about this, is that it is an

area where we all make our own way and discover how to be eunuc!

hs as individuals and not through any one standardized dictate or procedure.

And just what does the word righteousness mean? -Whatever is right? 1st John

hints at its meaning in the verse just previous; but even with that verse, the

meaning is hidden in a double interpretation. (and there is no commandment to

be righteous -only that we are of God vs. of the devil). And if we must wait

till we die to be completely born again, that would explain much also. And if

what the commandments require of us change with changing meanings, then the help

we receive may or may not be enough. And this thing about one spouse, is an

American, European, etc. tradition; not Biblical. Essentially the Bible is

unclear and leaves it to us to decide what it is, in the sexual area. So that

what I may be arguing against, isn't the Bible, but is what religious leaders

have decided what the Bible is in this area. There is much wiggle room for

interpretation here. Perhaps the Bible intends for !

us to decide what it is to be in this area. In that case, I'd like these

religious leaders to wiggle it the other way. They're going too overboard on

stamping out anything sexual. I mean give me a break: -A religion based on

circumcised vs. uncircumcised: -that is whether or not a male's penis has been

cut and the foreskin removed. Although we can take a lesson from this:

circumcision does not cut the whole penis cap off, but only part of it, which

symbolizes for the sexual area being not totally destroyed, but instead at

reduced capability: which is the method I propose. OK then. Whether or not it

turns out that the Bible is for or against "my" method in the sexual area (which

determines whether it gives wise or foolish advice in this area (according to

me)); the other major precepts of the Bible remain true: -irregardless of

whether or not the Bible speaks incorrectly in the sexual area. And this suits

me. Hey, being kind and loving to each other is what I want to !

do (as best I can). So now we can enjoy the important and major precepts of the

Bible, without having to be bothered by incorrect or unwise advice or commands

in the sexual area. To the incorrect and unwise advice/commands in the sexual

area (which I had shown to be incorrect); whether it turns out to be Biblical or

not, I say "B Bye".

 

According to the dictionary, adultery is sex between a married person and

someone not married to that person (And fornication is sex between people who

are not married.). So, I don't see the problem. If two people love each other

and want to include sex in that love, then they can just get married -even if

they are already married to somebody else. Well, is there anything in the Bible

that prohibits marriage between men and women who are already married to others?

It is the American/European (legal) tradition that allows a person only one

spouse, that turns these simple, common sense, Bible rules into something quite

sexually restrictive. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me who I can

and can't have sex in marriage with. It's none of their business. Here's where

I would like to see a little more separation of Church and State. Never mind

about keeping naitivity sceens off courthouse lawns.

The Bible requiring marriage in order to have sex, is something I could actually

agree to. Marriage represents a oneness with each other where you share

everything. I agree that you must love someone in all ways (emotionally,

financially, etc). -That you can't just decide to love someone sexually, but

refuse to love them in other ways. (All areas are interrelated, and growth of

one above the others results in unmatched supplies and needs.) -I think it would

be mean (and deceitful) to love someone sexually, but then when it came time to

eat, throw them into the street to starve while you had steak. I'm not

interested in not-loving people. All types of love are good, valuable and

interrelated. This lifetime commitment to love a person in all ways (as best as

you can); plus the not breaking this bond of togetherness by divorce; is what

the Bible stands for with its commands against adultery, etc. This in itself

isn't sexually restrictive. However, Jesus' comment on lusti!

ng after a woman being adultery (of the heart), does place Biblical restriction

on sex and recognizes the defective nature of human sexuality. The dictionary

defines lust as intense or unbridled sexual desire. Well, it makes a difference

just what lust means. Orgasm is usually an intense experience so that even a

man having good sex with his wife can be guilty of adultery of the heart if lust

means intense desire. But if lust means unbridled sexual desire, then this can

be in line with my method. My method recognizes that unlimited sexuality is not

good; and instead, puts it in reduced capability (by using sex's own destructive

force -via abstaining for a time); so that the bridled sexual desire of my

method wouldnt be considered as lust and therefore would not be adulterous. So

far so good. The Bible then need not be an impediment to our sexual enjoyment.

Neither the destructive force born into our sexuality need not be an impediment

to our sexual enjoyment, now that !

we have our new method. As for the Government's law against polygamy; they have

no business regulating my sexuality and I'll write out my own marriage

certificate of the heart before God, with the people I love.

Note that if we all loved each other in all ways, that the requirement of

marriage would be unnecessary. This is the way it is in heaven -we all love

each other completely; and there is no need to recognize differences between

people who are married vs. people who are not, as everybody is all together in

one with each other. Thus Jesus says there is no "Giving in marriage" in

heaven.

The Bible (maybe) doesn't necessitate the limiting of human sexuality beyond

-if you love someone sexually, you are also to love them in all ways (including

financially) ie the marriage requirement. It is the State and its laws which

turns this marriage requirement into a limiter of sexuality by imposing

monogamy. The apostle Paul does impose the concept of ownership in that each

spouse belongs to the other; but there is such a thing as joint ownership

concerning the concept of ownership, and thus the option of being married to

more than one. We CAN all belong to each other in the oneness of and marriage

to Christ.

Unfortunately, nature isn't perfect when it comes to causing humans to be

sexually attracted to other humans. Unfortunately, the Bible finds no place for

those not heterosexual. But these people cannot help the sexuality they were

born with; and it's unreasonable to expect them to totally desolate their sexual

area, when we allow ours to exist at reduced capability. Because of this, we

must overrule the Bible's condemnations in this area. However, I don't recall

any specific command against this, at least not in the 10 commandments.

(However, I think in some of the lesser old testament law, it is.) On the other

hand though; when we go to heaven, God will presumably correct any sexual defect

(probably by changing the person's sex), as well as free them from being trapped

by sexual desire. So that when these people go to heaven, they will no longer

be the way they are on earth. (I recall whoremongers being outside God's

kingdom but no mention of homosexuals being th!

ere, in the Biblical description of the afterlife.) So, those not heterosexual,

can overlook the condemnations as just the Bible spelling out that which is

imperfect here on earth. So once again, the Bible (in the sexual area) is on

again; -or has a chance at it. O well. Best of luck. Hope it pulls through.

 

So, now that we're allowed to: should we go around marrying everybody and

consummate those marriages? Well what I think we've been missing, is to examine

sex itself. Is it right? Is it wrong? Each action we do has inherent in it, a

certain degree of growth/good, and often also a certain degree of destruction.

I find it hard to understand how an action can be right in one situation, but

wrong in another. Take for example the act of killing. Killing is destructive

no matter how you look at it. So it's wrong to just go around killing people in

the course of one's day as something productive to do. But there are those who

will tell you that it's right to kill criminals on death row (who are murderers

themselves); and the enemy in wartime; and animals to have food to eat. Yet in

all cases and whether it be deemed right or wrong: the act of killing is always

destructive in each of these cases. I have made a case, and I believe an

airtight case, that it is destruction!

vs growth that should be synonymous with what is right vs wrong. Even if

something is 'right'; if it contains much destruction, it should be avoided at

all cost. And if something 'wrong' is not destructive, it's OK to do it.

Sometimes a destructive thing (like killing) is unavoidable (as in wartime, or

to have food to eat): yet that fact doesn't undo the destruction done. This

being said; There's no point dwelling on what we can't change. Still I feel we

need to recognize any destructiveness and call it what it is, even if we're

unable to avoid it; and then later, if we do become able to escape the

destruction, we can then do so. In some cases at reduced capability, its

conceivable that a destructive act can put an end to further destructions, or

allow a good to escape from a trap of destruction. Whatever. At this point I

wish to get back into examining sex itself.

We are commanded to love our neighbors our enemies, and God. Love is a

beautiful thing. To love others is a beautiful thing. But the act of

commanding someone to love: is that a loving act? To command and threaten

eternal destruction in Hell if the commands are not obeyed, can hardly be called

a loving act and contains some emotional destructiveness. So what. This just

falls under the category of an act in reduced capability which contains some

destruction but that acts to end further destruction. (Jesus was God in reduced

capability in his situation.) -The destructiveness in the act of commanding us,

brings us to reduced capability. -The love that we are commanded to do, and do

do; is the good that separates out of this reduced capability.

Now, if we wish to be free of destructiveness of this world, including

destructiveness of commands, we can just love. Let's love.

Now, I have found value in loving where it doesn't benefit me, in the low

levels, where it does not please me or repay me back. (It keeps my active force

of growth alive.) To me, the concept of marriage means to love a spouse not

just sexually, but in all other ways (which I am able). Well, if I love all

people as best I can, in the low levels (where I'm not benefited); it is the low

levels where I can express the greatest improvement: the greatest help: and the

greatest love. All other levels are lesser in the amount I am able to love in

them, yet I include these too -(these are more pleasurable for me). All this

represents to love people in the "other areas". Since I already love all in the

"other areas" (and intend to do so throughout the rest of my life), I feel I

have fulfilled my end of the marriage requirement. (Now don't forget that you

are a person too and to love yourself equally as all others (in other words

there is no requirement to over-give to the p!

oint of exhaustion on your part)).

I mean; if I already love all for no reward, then I certainly wouldn't stop

loving someone in these "other" areas, who had given me sexual pleasure. It is

inconceivable to me to deny someone who was so kind as to give me sexual

pleasure; my love in these "other areas".

The act of sex is essentially the same act, whether it be between married

people, or unmarried people. And whatever destructiveness and whatever good

there is in this act; is present in both cases. (And because sex is a quasi

essential, there is some destruction in it.) So that whether married or

unmarried people have sex, they will both need to deal with the destruction

inherent in it. This is where my method of reduced capability in this area

comes in. And we need to deal with inherent evils (destructions) in sex before

we spread it all around and marry all around. (This answers the question I

posed at the beginning of this section.)

And dealing with the evil in sex, does not mean infecting all the "other areas"

of love with its, or other, evils (destructions) because the love of other areas

is required to be done together with sexual love (i.e. the marriage

requirement).

Concerning unmarried people having sex: first I will say that I will neither

command nor condemn; But I will warn: if you love sexually but refuse to love

in other ways; this uneven unbalanced growth will give you pain and trouble.

(However, the requirement to bring the loves of other areas together with sexual

love (which contains an evil), seems unwise, as the pure good of other areas may

feed the evil in the sexual area.

-No. If the sexual area is brought to reduced capability, the good will be able

to grow out into this surrounding nurturing environment, while the evil won't

and the forces will thus separate. So do bring the loves of other areas in.

But do also keep the sexual area at reduced capability. -not high capability.

-not total desolation.

Also: Note that the marriage requirement, (which requires love (as you are

able) in the other areas, before sexual love is allowed), is the use of a

commandment to label the act of 'not loving' as an offense; and threatens

destruction upon those who violate it. Yet last time I checked, the act of

refusing to love, although not a loving act, is also not a destructive act. Yet

the commandment commences an active attack, and by labeling it a violation; thus

accuses it of containing destruction, and then threatens return destruction

against it. Well, if we are to be punished for not loving concerning the sexual

area; why aren't the rich punished for not helping the poor (remember, they

essentially did away with welfare)? Well, if religion wants to go after the non

destructive act of not loving other areas concerning our sexuality, with its own

destruction; that's fine by me; because I consider it a destructive act aimed at

ending further destruction. You see, even though th!

e act of not loving is a non destructive act, it creates an environment that

encourages destruction with its unbalanced growth. So if religion wants to

fight it out with non lovers (those who satisfy their sexual urges but refuse to

love their partner(s) in other areas), I will step back and not interfere. As

for myself however, I am too involved in loving, and getting out of destructive

things; including the destruction of religious commands, and including the

destructions encouraged by uneven growth.

Concerning my agreement with the Bible that divorce is a perpetrator of

adultery: don't get me wrong. Some people take this too seriously. Whatever is

destructive, I must speak against. And destroying the loving union that can

exist between men and women, IS destructive. That being said, I must also agree

that some destructions are unavoidable. Note that an abusive spouse has already

destroyed much of the loving union between a man and woman, so that a person who

divorces to get away from an abusive spouse, really has not done that much

destruction themselves. Divorce is a one time thing. We don't divorce a spouse

every morning when we get up. We can be forgiven for past sins. (All it means

is we're not perfect; and who is? -Certainly not me). Much more worthy of our

concern, is the evils we are trapped of in our essentials, which we are coerced

to keep doing over and over, on a daily basis.

A society that spends so much effort to stamp out and limit two people

feeling good together; worries me. If the object is to prevent people from

feeling good; then I feel a direct assault has been launched against me and all

people, right from the start. I didn't realize I could offend and/or threaten

so many people just by feeling good. That wasn't my intention at all. My

intention was to feel good, and spread good feeling, as life bids me to do

-being a life form and alive myself. But the thing is, this type of feeling

good, is odd. Its not like going to the movies. From the female's point of

view, this type of fun, for a few minutes of fun, links to it, and engages,

years of care and expense not only to the mother, but the whole of the society.

Now neither women nor society may in their wildest dreams wish to take on such

burdens, but evolution has known that if they don't, that society will die; and

so has linked our well being and feeling good to these burde!

ns. (Its much more difficult for a woman to escape nature's requirement that

links her well being to these burdens of chilren; than it is for people to

escape the marriage requirement that links this 'fun' to marriage.) But a

society that attacks those for having fun, takes on a cannibalistic self

destructive spirit, and just may help perpetuate the situation where our having

fun is forced to be linked to these burdens. (Both are stagnations from the

togetherness of destruction and growth.)

 

Recently, the Baptists have defined marriage in an amendment to their

constitution, as being between one man and one woman. (But why prevent the

GROWTH of an Holy estate (a good thing) (by limiting it to just one man and one

woman)?) And they also reaffirmed the Biblical assertion that a wife should

submit to her husband in the lord. (But the Bible also says that bossing around

will be gone in heaven -that the way the 'gentiles' lord it over each other in

their leadership, isn't how it is in heaven -that anyone who wishes to be leader

in heaven must serve all. And also that this marriage we know on earth does not

exist in heaven.)

I've also found the Biblical reference to the one man - one woman assertion.

But the background to it is more important. It's clear from the reading that

the apostle Paul expects us to die to the flesh and its desires. He exhorts us

to try to be virgins, but that if we can't 'contain', it's OK to marry. It's

clear he wants us to eliminate the flesh or come as close to that as we can;

and this is not in line with having many wives. Paul asserts that by believing

in Christ, we are freed from the flesh, and that we then have a free, uncoerced

choice between the flesh and the spirit (and are thus accountable for our free

choices). However, I assert that we've not yet been freed from the flesh and

its desires; that we do not yet have a free noncoerced choice; and that we thus

cannot be held accountable for something we've been tortured into. Or even if

it's the right thing to do to try to completely eliminate fleshly actions, as

opposed to allowing them and letting their fo!

rces separate in reduced capability. -If we're incapable of doing anything but

fleshly actions, do we stop doing anything because we cannot do it perfect (or

spiritually); or do we keep doing what we can -our imperfect fleshly actions in

hopes some of the good in it will separate from the evil in them, in reduced

capability, and become pure? (I like to think of the second option.) (Romans

9, 30-32 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after

righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is

of faith.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to

the law of righteousness.

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, . . .)

The Bible verses that support Paul's assertion that we have (or that we will

have) a free choice: Romans 6: 2-3, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 18. and Romans 8: 2-3,

11-12. I tend to agree with the interpretation that we WILL have that free

choice. But that leaves now and our lives now. How will we live them free of

the flesh? In addition to help from Others, I offer my methods.

At some point Paul says it is sin's fault: Romans 7: 17. Then it's our free

choice. (see above references).

Then even after receiving Christ, we are still 'bestet'. Romans 8: 22-27

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together

until now.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,

even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the

redemption of our body.

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man

seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should

pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with

groanings which cannot be uttered.

And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because

he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Now the verses about one man one woman: 1 Corinthians 7: 2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let

every woman have her own husband.

The concept of ownership is invoked, and wife and husband are singular (not

plural). Yet this verse does not eliminate the possibility of every man having

his own wives and every woman having her own husbands. You see, Paul invokes

the concept of ownership to explain how it is between men and woman (at least in

his eyes): 1 Corinthians 7: 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the

husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power his own body, but the

wife.

Still, the concept of ownership can be conceived as eliminating the possibility

that a woman shares ownership of a husband with others, or a man shares

ownership of a wife with others. So depending on how you define the concept of

ownership (as in 'own' husband/wife), shared ownership may or may not be

possible. (Actually, a better way to avoid fornication, I feel, is to marry all

you have sex with. Although this does bring in a whole bunch of concubines; and

Paul doesn't think much of concupiscence.) In another verse, Paul confronts the

situation of a man with more than one wife. He does not condemn the man as an

adulterer, but only says that he cannot be a leader in the church. (Well, how

about a church with no leaders, where each individual has equal rights and

participation? Jesus did say the bossing around that the gentiles lord it over

each other would not exist in heaven.)

In yet another verse, Paul is more clear on the subject. Romans 7: 3 So

then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be

called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so

that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This pretty well nails it down and eliminates shared ownership. Although we can

question what Paul means by "shall be called" (an adulteress). Is he referring

to the law calling her an adulteress, or that society would call her an

adulteress? I would assume it would be the law he is referring to, yet he does

not make it definite by saying that she IS an adulteress, but only that others

call her an adulteress (assumedly by the law). What is clearer is Jesus'

definition of adultery whereby he says 'do not put asunder what God has joined

together'. -Now, if a person shared ownership of a spouse, they would not be

putting asunder what God had joined together, but just adding to that

togetherness. Our salvation is based on being a friend to Jesus, not the

apostle Paul; and doing everything Jesus says, not necessarily the apostle Paul.

(And you don't have to be a practicing orthodox Baptist to be a Christian.)

Paul in the 1 Corinthians 7:4 verse (but not the Romans 7:3 verse), makes

distinction between what is his command and what is Jesus', as well as what is

not a command: 1 Corinthians 7: 6,11 But I speak this by permission, and

not of commandment.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart

from her husband . . .

And finally: since God joins those who are married in one flesh, they are one.

So that the only way a woman could have a husband and be married to another man

would be if she severed the bond between herself and her husband. If she did

not sever that bond, but had them both all together: then what looked like two

(or more) men, and what used to be two men before the second man married in,

would in reality be just one man and one husband. (The concept of husband vs

wife being established by Paul's conceptual dissection of the married whole, to

explain the workings of husbands having power over the wife's body and the wife

having power over the husband's body.)

Ownership denies access to those who don't own but allows access to those who do

own. Perhaps the concept of ownership is applied to keep out those who are not

married vs those who are married(ie, those who love each other in all ways)

/-that is, to disallow partial-loves(ie, to love sexually but not in other

areas)/: and not to limit to just one spouse.

Once again we have made it possible for the Bible to come along and be with us.

We wish it the best of luck. But in the end, it is up to the Bible itself. We

have our lives to live and lead, and must mainly concentrate on that and our

flesh -which gives us trouble of itself even without any Bible sayings.

Revival of the 'temporary abstinence' method; at least on an occasional basis:

Here we go again: Paul says that the body is not for fornication, but for

the lord; and that we are not our own, but are the lord's, as we have been

ransomed with a great price.

Now, after we've done what our boss, our parents, and our family wants, then we

have a few moments to ourselves to do what we want. But what if we gave up

voluntarily our say over our own body and left those resources to the lord to do

what He wants. The reason for this, is that by joining a group and a whole, we

can accomplish much more than as individuals. Perhaps the resources that I

would use to enjoy my sexuality, prevent the lord from using me in his Christian

whole. And perhaps the lord's timetable for using me is different than my own

in that I might have to wait (a long time) to be used.

Because I agree with the concept of joining a group as opposed to struggling as

an individual, I have tried this out, for a time anyway, (a short time). There

are three possibilities: There is the wondrous and great production we can do

acting in unison as a group; there is the meager production we can produce as an

individual; and there is the absolute desolation of no production that can

happen if we give up our individual activities and resources with the thought

that they will be used by the group, but when the group fails to use them. We

wish to try for the first possibility, but if that fails and goes to the third

possibility, then we revert to the second possibility. You see, we have needs

and are trapped in our essentials and quasi essentials. The reason we join our

resources to a group instead of using them individually, is because the group

can do better for all than we can individually. But if after we devote our

resources to the group and not ourselves: if ou!

r desires and needs are not alleviated/satisfied (and better than individually),

(either due to a union that doesn't exist yet, or one that squanders our

resources without thinking of its individuals); then the reason we devote

ourselves to the group has not been realized. Actually, we have already covered

this. The way to make a good and growing group, is to build up and strengthen

the individual, and then the individual out of his/her abundance, shares with

the group. And who is to say the lord doesn't want for us to build up in our

individual pursuits in some situations. We can test this out by giving the

resources to the lord (mainly in our mind), and if our individual needs are not

well satisfied, then we know the lord wants us to build up our individual

activities and do this individually. What is wrong with the lord building us up

as individuals, until we become powerful enough to join together as one? Who's

to say that's not His way? -Especially since we have di!

scovered that logically, that is the best way to be a growing group and whole

-by building up the individual positions.

So I'm going to have to say, that we are our own in many cases, thanks to the

benevolence of the lord. When there is available, a group opportunity (that

will better satisfy us all), then we should give up our individual resources for

that group opportunity: that group opportunity then building up our individual

positions better than we could individually (as individuals). But if no group

opportunity is available, (or no group opportunity that when joined builds up

its individual components available), then we revert to our individual actions

we can do until a good group opportunity becomes available. To say that the

body is not for fornication, is not because we are the lord's, but because of

the imperfect and destruction infected nature of sexuality itself: is why we

should be cautious in allowing the body to be sexually active. -Cautious yes,

but definitely not celibate, unless there is something available to replace it

and do so in a better way. -Until that time, we !

have our imperfect, individual, sexuality to work with: and we will do so in a

cautious way. (Now, in a roundabout way, since God is all things good; and

therefore not anything evil; the body is for the lord.)

It may be necessary in some situations, in order to jump start the situation,

and create a good group, that we may have to give up our individual resources

without receiving satisfaction of our individual needs. Yet the lack of

satisfaction of individual needs, is a signal and proof that the group way isn't

working/isn't available, and that it is best to do the individual way, lest we

find the third possibility of desolation and no production at all. So, doing

this sacrificial thing may be OK for short periods, or for longer periods if you

are sure in your mind and see clearly how this particular sacrifice will create

the good group. But if you don't see this, then its definitely not the way to

go. Also, if we continue on in the individual way; randomness will cause some

to do better than others, and the good group will be created randomly from

individual interactions, eventually. So, do not make a big sacrifice unless you

have some special insight; as the standing insigh!

t, is against it. -There is no need to risk total desolation and no-production

(that would come from giving up your individual production for a group (or

attempt at creating a good group) that then failed the individual.)

Let's say you were a man with a mission. Lets say you talked to God every day

(and He talked back); and knew for an absolute certainty that He existed. Lets

say God had chosen you to be a leader amongst all peoples and in order to make a

statement and get people's attention, He wanted YOU to sacrifice and give up

your life for these people (while they were yet sinners). Now then, the act of

giving up your resources and life force, is a destructive act. -And since the

good group you are attempting to create, doesn't exist yet, you receive nothing

in return for the resources you give up. When the act of sacrifice is done, the

result is nothingness (of what was removed and given up). But since you have

taken this sacrifice action in and made it part of yourself, you must also give

up the resources that make this action function, as this action is now part of

'you'. (This is a voluntary thing you do to yourself, and isn't something

somebody else does to you.) When you sacr!

ifice the part of you that is doing the sacrificing, after a certain point, this

action ceases to function and only partial or incomplete sacrifice is actually

achieved. Even if you are diligent, and do not give up the resources that make

this sacrifice action function, until last, you are still left with this part of

you (the sacrifice action -and your being and intelligence needed to perform

that action), with resources present with it, and not sacrificed and not given

up. So that 'you' will have only done incomplete sacrifice of yourself. Even

if this sacrifice action then turns on itself, after a certain point, it ceases

to function, and leaves material behind, unsacrificed. From this remnant

material of a God, can then regrow a new society, a new start, a new person, a

resurrected new person that is free from the essentials of the flesh. This is

incomplete fragmentation at its finest. (Were not you at your lowest point

before you were born again?) Note that we also!

do inc. fragmentation regularly in our method.

Note that we do helping-the-low-levels when at high capability, but not 100% so,

as we include rotations, -(as a necessary part of maintaining long term growth

-(that is, to avoid stagnation)).

 

At this time I want to explain my final methods for doing essentials. This

next section contains that, but also contains my journey there, including

several errors. I have highlighted the writing most directly explaining my

method along with some background, by enclosing it between these two symbols:

X(X -and- X)X. The other material has some good parts, but other parts may

be difficult to understand: -and with these, just skip over them. Note that for

all the writing, the mental method is fairly simple, and not overly cumbersome.

(Go to the end of the section for the finished method.) I continue this train

of thought here from where I left off much earlier in the book:

 

Perhaps we can simplify our technique to rotation only:- the sexual area

can also be brought to reduced capability by overharnessing it to help the low

levels; and the good to be separated from the reduced capability, comes from the

part of the rotation that increases to high capability. Then again, perhaps we

need something additional to bring the sexual area to reduced capability:

(abstinence, inc. fragmentation). One might just forget to do these methods of

abstinence-from-the-action, or doing a rotation (involves much helping the low

levels), or inc. fragmentation; and just go out and have a good time. This has

an appeal to it, because if an area contains no destruction, or is able to be OK

without rotation; then these methods are just a hindrance and just get in the

way of a good action. But if the action is trapped of a destruction, then this

course causes the area to be brought to high capability: where the evil is fed

well and the forces don't separate and th!

e evil doesn't die. (So, the morning after, you have a hangover that just won't

go away.) So how do you bring the area back down to reduced capability? One

might be tempted to pull the safety valve of inc. fragmentation, (and that would

work) yet that would make you the doer of a destructive act.

Its not a problem. You see, the force of evil consumes what the force of good

produces in both cases (high capability and reduced capability) -(its just that

at reduced capability, the forces separate and the good is able to escape). At

high capability, the force of good produces more. Thus the force of evil is

also larger and consumes more. -(It soon coerces you into another round of

whatever party-action you've chosen.) Thus the force of good is required to put

out more of the material that at the start made you feel good, but now is barely

enough. The time for abstinence (and cold turkey) has not been lost: its time

is now (in order to bring you down from high capability to reduced capability in

this area). When you do so: the larger force of evil (not fed) quickly consumes

you down to reduced capability and you're all set. (But don't let the

destructive force go too far and bring you to near desolation.)

Helping the low levels is good at all times, but don't overdo it in order to

bring to reduced capability -that is, make sure you have adequate rotation; as

that would make you a doer of a destructive act -unless you choose to use this

method to bring down to reduced capability instead of abstinence.

For example: Every person no matter whether we can see them or not; or are

attracted to them or not, even ourselves; each contains an area whereby we can

increase them in such a way we do not benefit or have feelings from that action.

-So that even an attractive person has an area that we are not attracted to.

Note that we love all people equally; and devote our increase to all people

irregardless of their attractiveness to us. So we devote our resources of

increase and growth to everyone even though such increase isn't rewarding to us

personally. Sometimes actions of punishment or guilt or an internal destructive

force may attempt to bring us to complete desolation. We do not want total

desolation, only reduced capability. When our essential doing puts us at too

high capability, we can give to others in this area that doesn't benefit us, to

bring us back to reduced capability. But here, we can receive from the non

beneficial area to bring us up from desolation to reduc!

ed capability. -the non beneficial area of ourselves and others (or all).

This "abstinence" is also an attitude: Before, when you were partying, you were

avoiding the destruction within you. Now at hangover time; no longer try to

avoid the destruction within you, but stand and face it, and allow it to destroy

its area back down to reduced capability. Note, you are not the doer of a

destructive act in this abstinence -the evil that was born into you is the

perpetrator. Note: our method uses temporary abstinence. X(X Note we also do

helping-the-low-levels-(plus rotation -(rotation adds the self indulgent

directive)), with our areas that are at high capability. But with our areas at

reduced capability, we needn't do this, (as they have no shortage of

improvements-to-make). When the sexual area temporarily nears high capability;

it does this. As it drifts back into reduced capability when in abstinence

mode; it no longer has to do this. (Actually the sexual area must remain at

reduced capability. I guess it is the good-and-evil within the sex!

ual area that I am referring to. As the good of the sexual area escapes and

goes to high capability, it does this helping the low levels plus rotation.)

The "other areas", which are at high capability; do the helping the low levels

plus rotation. (The rotation part allows areas to enjoy/increase themselves

without the burden of helping the low levels.) This rotation can sweep the

whole high capability area; and/or smaller areas of high capability. In

sweeping the whole area, this represents a rotation with a touch of the other

directive found in helping the low levels. That directive generates an

abundance of material needing a leader or protector (otherwise evil destroys and

there is stagnation). (This is how we can miss something we never had, where

without a 'protector' we may have never had, we stagnate.) Thus enters the need

for additional rotations to sweep smaller areas, thus providing that

leadership/protection (and represents the pure directive of the rotation part of

our method). As we do these additional (limited) rotations, we fill this

leadership need, but then go farther. Once we go farther, we eject thi!

s material back into the overall rotation, and start anew with other material

from the overall rotation for this limited rotation. We keep cycling on like

this till we complete our essential; or other, not essential task. X)X Now, if

one is unaware of our method, and does not abstain at all, then the essential or

quasi essential area goes to high capability. Then the evil/destructiveness

within it gets out into all the other areas and infects them. The evil then

brings everything to reduced capability after awhile, and the forces finally

then separate. To avoid this long drawn out hangover complication; do our

method. (Then again the lack of 'leadership' unto stagnation may be the cause

of a 'hangover' feeling). I will finish this discussion at the end of the

paper.›

Now I wish to continue where I left off where I refered before. There is

the concern about being the doer of a destructive act vs not being a doer;

concerning the methods of incomplete fragmentation, abstinence, and helping the

low levels plus rotation. But another concern is setting up an environment that

will allow separation of the forces, irregardless who is to blame for

destructions. Now, when a good has separated from evil out of reduced

capability and has gone to high capability, here it is important for this good

not to be a doer of destruction, as this helps maintain its high capability evil

free-separate from evil, status. But in the arena of reduced capability,

already infected by destructiveness, it has much lesser value. So the main

concern is first setting up an environment compatible with separation of the

forces. In the arena of reduced capability, we can be open to all

possibilities. We can do some inc. fragmentation if that helps. We can do some

!

helping the low levels plus rotation if that helps. We can do no inc.

fragmentation or helping the low levels, if that helps. But if we include the

option of torment, we do not continue this for any extended period. We then

turn it around so that it is no longer at higher capability and we cause it to

come back down to reduced capability, via abstinence of the violating (evil

containing) action. This abstinence allows us to bring a tormenting situation

back down to reduced capability after the fact; even when considering that God

replaces what evil destroys with high capability material (oops). Plus, it does

not make us a doer of destruction, which is important when the good of the

essential separates from the evil and goes to high capability.

Note, It is here at high capability and evil free, where we can then benefit

most from doing helping the low levels plus rotation (which here, is an evil

free action).

X(X A substantial error correction: Oops, I've discovered a flaw with the

temporary abstinence method. When the hand of God is not active to replace in

high capability, what destruction took away; then the abstinence part of

temporary abstinence, does work to cause the area infected with evil, to come

back down to reduced capability (as the evil here destroys and what it destroys

isn't replaced). So that the method of temporary abstinence would work here and

would be the method of choice, due to its simplicity, and that it doesn't make

us a doer of any destruction. But when the hand of God, society, or just our

own body's homeostatic systems; act to replace what destruction in an infected

area destroys, (and replaces it unto high capability); then the abstinence part

of temporary abstinence will not have caused the area to go to reduced

capability (due to the replacement of what was destroyed). (Still, the material

regenerated from the abstinence part, will be safe in God!

-(Yet the directive of separation wouldn't be supported).)

-So that when we do the non abstinence part of temporary abstinence; we will be

at high capability and thus in the torment of the togetherness of good and evil.

This isn't something we wish to sustain for any length of time. (It's not good

to burn.) So, the method fails here. We then need to supplement or replace it,

with our working method of inc. fragmentation, discussed previously. This

method is slightly more complex, and makes us a doer of some destruction

(although if we're already caught by destruction (of an essential); it doesn't

matter; and this is just an act by us to end further destruction). X)X

So, our new technique is: first we do the essential, (with helping the low

levels plus rotation if at high capability). If the material separates from

evil and goes to high capability, then that's all that's needed. (We don't

inc. fragment evil-free material -at reduced or high capability.) But if the

essential area infected by evil is at too high capability, and the good is

unable to separate from the evil, and torment is found; then abstinence

(temporary) can be tried, and soon after, if it doesn't work, inc.

fragmentation. -The inc. fragmentation, is fragmentation of the area, plus

fragmentation of the fragmentation action. Even if God replaces what's

destroyed (or fragmented): since the fragmentation action was also fragmented,

-if brought to high capability, it will fragment even more, and reduced

capability will still be the result. If God separates what's destructive from

what's good, then the fragmentation action won't be with the other actions. But

then we'l!

l thus also be freed from the evil that beset us in the essential as that would

also be separated away by God here. Only if God decides to separate away our

fragmentation action, but not the evil that beset us in our essential, would we

suffer torment, and the inc. fragmentation method be ineffective. But why would

God be so mean? We're just trying to live/survive.

I'm also beginning to doubt the effectiveness of 'halving', in a world with

God, (at least for causing reduced capability). -It still may be useful for

separation of the forces; then again maybe not, -(thus leaving a much simpler

working inc. fragmentation). -In cases of external evil attacking, halving may

still help separation. But concerning an internal evil we are trapped of in an

essential, it is of little value. You see, at reduced capability, the material

that is present, separates in its forces. It is this separation and escape by

the forces of good present, that IS the action of separation. If inherent

action by the forces in reduced capability produces separation, then a second

'halving' action to do the same, is unnecessary.

Another wrinkle in our technique is as follows: There are times when we

need to focus and produce specialized growths; and there are times when we need

to relax away from focused growth and do overall growth. How do we do this?

There are two directives that form a backdrop to this focused vs relaxed.

-There is the directive to help the needy and others; and there is the directive

to build up higher, that thing itself (i.e. building up the high capability);

and these directives are balanced against each other. There is a certain

proportion of the self-indulgent-building-up-higher directive (vs the other

directive); that gives the best overall growth (called 'the growth sanctioned

proportion'). In the relaxed state, that proportion is divided up over all the

areas so each individual area has less than in the focused state. In the

focused state, all other areas are blocked out while the area of focus has all

the allowed proportion of this directive. (We do the focuse!

d state when we've generated an overproduction in the relaxed state that needs

to be managed. We get out of the focused state and back into the relaxed state

when there is enough or even too much high-capability-manager-material, and not

enough lesser-capability 'worker' material that needs managing.) To get out of

the focused state, we need to include more areas and not so much of the single

area we had focused on. How do we do this? What we do, is to diminish the

self-indulgent directive down from the focused state, to that of the relaxed

state in our area of focus (we diminish the self-indulgent directive and

increase the helping-the-needy directive of that area). So that even though

we're unable to get anything in our mind but the area of focus, it now doesn't

contain enough of the self-indulgent directive to match the growth sanctioned

proportion, and this one area no longer satisfies us. Thus we seek out and get

into other areas for their (relaxed) portion of self-!

indulgent directive. This is how we snap out of the focused state and into the

relaxed state. Now, when we need to go from the relaxed state and into the

focused state; we already know how to do that.

(Of course, when a new area is first created, it goes through reduced capability

in its creation/ increase. Then, it is all self indulgent directive; but when

it then gets to high capability, it goes to relaxed configuration; then later

possibly to focused configuration.)

X(X I currently fear an error in my logic here. But it is mainly that I do not

see clearly here yet. What I mean, is that this focus vs. relaxed state idea,

does not have a direct connection to the helping low levels vs. the self

indulgent directive. The problem is the focus/relaxed state idea may interfere

with the idea of rotation. Note that we cannot do a constant proportion of the

two directives (that is, helping low levels vs. self indulgence). At first when

there does not yet exist low level life, there's no need for higher life to

protect it. So here we do a greater proportion of helping-low-levels-directive.

After a time of this producing low level life, there now exists low level life

that then needs protecting; therefore now the proportion shifts to needing more

self indulgent directive and less helping the low levels directive. We do a

cycling in these directives irregardless of whether we're focusing on something,

or relaxing to include more things. It's j!

ust that at the point where we shift away from helping the low levels, and back

to the self indulgent directive; we have an opportunity to make that new self

indulgent directive, less focused, and inclusive of more things. The helping of

the low levels isn't focused, but helps all low levels so as to generate the

greatest increase in capability. So when it reverts to self indulgence for a

time, let it be what it is (relaxed and unfocused) unless you have a specific

need to focus for some other reason.

I want to examine more closely the idea that 'we cannot do a constant proportion

of the two directives'. Actually, after an initial period, we might be able to;

but it's undesirable. We could segregate the increase of high capability, from

increasing-the-low-levels, (into two different areas). This would work as long

as the components held together as a whole. But if there was disagreement

between the areas, or the areas or part of an area became separated from the

rest (perhaps to enact a separation to overcome an evil); then these separate

areas would need to incorporate both helping the low levels plus self indulgent

directive. -This is the idea of cycling. -At one time, a thing or area is

doing self indulgent directive: at a later time, it is doing helping the low

levels -of itself and all others: and then back again; and again. But the

question comes, at what cycling frequency do we switch back and forth? Well, if

we wait too long in the helping-low-levels-state: !

when we switch to the self indulgent directive, that directive will be cold and

at reduced capability and will take more time in reduced capability self

indulgent directive before it starts to fulfill its allotted time in high

capability self indulgent directive. Another factor, is the new items and

things we create, and their durations, -the inherent durations of both the new

and old things/actions we work with. So we switch frequently enough to give

actions(some of short duration) a taste of both helping the low levels; and self

indulgent directive. Now then, is there any danger in switching too frequently?

Well, there is the increased resources used in switching more frequently. And

when we're in helping the low levels mode, there is a connection to all low

levels. If there is an evil in the low levels and we're trying to enact

separation, then we need enough time away from the low levels to let the evil

die. So, in this case we'd have to lower our frequency to accom!

modate this. Also; our time in helping low levels directive, resets us to a

relaxed position (away from focus), as all low levels are included: -so that

when we switch to self indulgent directive, it will also be in relaxed position.

This is another possible upper boundary to, and possible director of, our

cycling frequency; (depending on whether we want to focus or relax from a

focus). This still leaves a wide range of frequencies and so I leave it up to

you to experiment and see what suits you best in a given situation.

Sometimes a thing needs to be in self indulgent directive long enough to

complete its action (in that the interuption to help low levels interferes with

its action). The helping the low levels directive is much more important, but

if we can slow the switching long enough to accommodate this other action

without detriment, then we can do that. However, what's most likely going on

here is that we're trying to cycle with a reduced capability part (where we

shouldn't be cycling at all); or our brand of helping the low levels is too

harsh, in that we've been using it to bring high capability infected with evil

to reduced capability. -(Note that using harsh harnessing to help low levels, in

order to bring to reduced capability, is an unstable method and only buys time

-inc. fragmentation is more stable.)

A new concept greatly simplifies things. We now needn't be concerned with a

cycle of focusing and relaxing, but only with a cycle of rotation where we

switch between helping all low levels vs. improving the higher capabilities (I

call the self indulgent directive). And remember, things at reduced capability

do not this cycling, but are all self indulgent directive until they attain high

capability. The 'cycle' (of focusing and relaxing) is eliminated because it

requires material be split to contain both directives (of helping low levels,

and, self indulgence) at the same time: whereas the new concept is to do only

one directive at a time (concerning the material that cycles).

The new concept also conflicts with our previous idea of doing multiple

rotations that include different areas of focus, as well as an overall

rotation./ Although reduced capability parts needn't do rotations; they aren't

always able to realize this or that they are reduced capability parts. And if

they attempt these multiple rotations they'll find them too complex unto their

burdening. Since the multiple rotation method is so complex, we may be unable

to switch fast with it. This prevents us from enjoying some things of short

duration, resulting in an undesirable quality of life. This is one (but not the

only) reason for finding another simpler way. There was no strong reason to

include these multiple rotations other than they were one of the possibilities

and that they represented a hybridization of the two directives. Actually, the

idea of multiple rotations was a feeble attempt to provide what cycling now

provides -that is, producing the strongest protector / The !

problem with multiple rotations, is that they fragment us and break us into

parts. (This may be a way to produce reduced capability where there's evil; but

we have other, better ways, to do that: and where there is no evil, we don't

want (this) fragmentation. There is a problem with us being fragmented, -with

parts of us in helping the low levels while other parts of us are in self

indulgence directive. The purpose of the self indulgent directive, was to build

up high capability so there'd be a protector and parent to existing low level

life (and/or that the low level life would become higher and able to

protect/parent itself). To involve all the existing life in this directive; all

of it must be doing this directive at the same time, all together. The highest

capability is obtained when all of us is working on this directive, as opposed

to only part of us. So, to obtain the purpose of this directive -to create the

highest capability protector: all of us (our parts) do t!

his directive in unison. This eliminates the idea of multiple rotations and

opts for a single rotation. -It's not even a rotation at all, but a cycling.

And there exists a certain proportion of the two directives that works; so that

a single rotation, no, a cycle, will be adequate in supplying this. One may say

that different areas grow at different rates, and some areas need a protector

more than others due to their greater growth (and so the protector will be

busier with some areas than others); but this doesn't change the need for the

protector to be of as high capability as possible so as to be best able to

protect. -And this determines that there should be only one rotation as opposed

to multiple ones. (We cycle at the fastest rate needed to give our busiest

area a taste of both directives. The other areas do not need to cycle that

fast, but it doesn't hurt them to cycle that fast and faster than they need

themselves.) Note that our newest method of doing a sin!

gular cycle, (with the background reduced capability material not doing any

cycling (where that material is in total self indulgent directive)); is simpler

than multiple rotations. Also note that even though the reduced capability

material doesn't participate in the cycling; that it does join in helping, along

with the high capability material -(when the high capability material is in the

self indulgent part of its cycle) -all helping to produce the highest capability

protector (which is the purpose of the self indulgent directive).

In a quasi essential: this would remain at reduced capability (with no cycling).

It is the surrounding areas brought to high capability by the quasi essential,

that would cycle.

In the practice of this new method, we find a connection with focusing and

relaxing. How do we be self indulgent vs. helping the low levels? Do we expend

resources to eliminate all helping of low levels even that which occurs

naturally, when in self indulgent mode? What I've come up with is this: The

helping the low levels is an important empowerment for us in that it keeps our

force of good alive -the force of good and growth being what life is. We are

alive. It is not surprising that we (life) could be pro life. This helping the

low levels is like gogr and the gogr concept. The act of helping the low levels

so outshines most other actions in its importance, that we can apply a gogr like

concept to it. We may focus on other things without much benefit from our act

of focusing. But if we focus on gogr (in this case, the helping of the low

levels (to the exclusion of helping other levels)), there is benefit in this

even though it is an act of focus that raids other are!

as (thus spoiling interrelatedness) so that it will be the only area produced.

Even so, the helping the low levels, although of highest importance, is not the

only action of importance, and cannot do better than stagnation without being

balanced against the other directive -that of building up higher than low level,

to as high capability as possible.

We now have a better picture of how to do this self indulgent directive: Since

helping the low levels is an act of focus (that is a burden on all but the low

levels); the act of self indulgence is then an act of relaxing and unfocusing,

so that the material in self indulgence is not burdened with helping other areas

(specifically, the low levels). (Note: this is confusing because previously I

had said helping low levels was an act of unfocusing. What I mean is that

helping low levels is an act of unfocusing, concerning its outlook, in that it

has us working with all areas (of low level); whereas, concerning its

appropriation of other area's resources for its own; helping low levels is an

act of focus, (but self indulgence isn't). (It's this

appropriation-of-resources focus we're discussing now.) The act of helping low

levels, puts a material in contact with all low levels to help them. The act of

self indulgence severs that connection, and puts that material more by itse!

lf and in separation, so that it increases and grows itself instead (of the low

levels). So to enact self indulgence, we just let a material be itself and

leave it alone and not try to burden it or harness it to help any low levels.

-Any help of any low levels by this material must come from the material itself,

and not be imposed by us from outside it. Just let it be. But we also must

balance this self indulgent directive with the directive to help the low levels:

and we help the low levels by imposing upon all high material to be harnessed to

help just the low level material. (If a previously low level material is

increased above the low level, then we drop it in search of helping other low

material.) So in our method, we alternate (or cycle) back and forth between

this focus to help all low levels, and relaxing from this focus -just letting be

and not imposing any burden (this is the self indulgent directive). And we do

such cycling only with our high capability. Wi!

th our reduced capability we let it be all the time with never any imposition of

burden to help low levels. If material from the reduced capability area both

goes to high capability and also has evil present: we must in this case do a

round of inc. fragmentation here. Material can separate out of the reduced

capability area and go to high capability; and if it has escaped the evil of the

red cap area, we do not inc. fragmentation it. Note that if material is at

reduced capability with evil present; it doesn't hang around to do inc.

fragmentation (since the material is already at reduced capability); but instead

tries to escape and get away from the evil. X)X

X(X There is an intricate detail in this method: the regulator of the

cycling: ie: the act of imposing on other areas to help low levels, is itself a

reduced capability area that doesn't cycle. X)X That's because in the

self-indulgent-part of the cycle when this regulator area (if at high

capability) is separated from other areas, it is unable to be itself at all

-unless it acts on itself (to help low levels). And if it acts in high power on

itself to help low levels; that will drain it to reduced capability. -Not

because the draining is harsh; but because the actual helping of low levels is a

separate, different action than regulating-to-cause something else (to help low

levels). And if this regulatory-area helps low levels (because it acted on

itself to do so), then that action to help low levels is no longer a regulatory

action, thus this regulatory action converts itself a good degree into helping

action, so there's not much regulatory action and the regulatory a!

ction is thus brought to reduced capability. At reduced capability, the cycling

does not apply to the regulatory action. So the regulatory action is a

non-cycling-reduced-capability-member (and is thus always in self indulgent

directive).

Again: Concerning the regulator of the cycling being at reduced capability:

when in the helping low levels part of the cycle; both high capability regulator

of the cycling, and, other high capabilities, don't grow well as they are all

busy helping the low levels. -In the self indulgent part of the cycle, other

high capabilities grow, but not high capability regulator of the cycling,

because growth of it depends on it getting into and regulating other areas,

which the other areas prohibit by the nature of self indulgence.

Again: X(X The regulatory action, is material used to cause other material to

help the low levels. When any (high capability) material/area is commandeered

to turn from its own action, to devote-all to helping the low levels; it no

longer does its previous action, but now only helps low levels (in its new

growth). -After a time, the new growth would overshadow/overgrow the old

growth, so that the old growth would no longer be at high capability by

comparison, but the new growth would. If the regulatory action/area reaches

high capability, and commandeers itself to help low levels (in its self

indulgent mode); (then at this point, what it did to others, it now does to

itself.) As its action upon itself takes effect, it ceases to do regulatory

action (in new growth), and now does helping the low levels. As the regulatory

action begins to be overgrown -(not only by the new growth in this regulatory

area, but also by growth in the other areas -that the non growing regulatory!

area is unable to keep up with), the regulatory area falls into reduced

capability. Now at reduced capability, it no longer does itself unto itself,

according to its regulation. X)X

Note that as we cycle with high capability material (especially in the

indulgent part of the cycle), we often generate new things. These things at

first go through reduced capability before they get to high capability and also

cycle. But the presence of the new material might cause us to change our

cycling frequency in the existing high material even before the new material

becomes of high capability. But this is incorrect as X(Xonly the high material

needs cycling, and the presence of new not-high material, doesn't change the

degree of need. So, our regulation action should not allow new not-high

material to change the cycling frequency at all until it becomes high capability

material.

Given that an action takes a certain time to complete (that it cannot be

produced in incremental amounts in any time frame); or that an action is

inseparably interrelated with other actions in producing some desired overall

action:

-at times it may look like this action is at high capability (or that parts of

it are at high capability):

but in reality, it is previous to that; it is still at reduced capability (due

to the time constraint or interrelation): and thus does not bear the

responsibility of being a high part -(thus does not participate in helping the

low levels; the cycling between the two directives; nor the determining of the

cycling frequency). Only when these actions are completed (in self indulgent

directive) do they then become high capability and then do this cycling.

-Includes periods where this action personally devotes all to helping only the

low levels. X)X

But don't stagnate your growth in order to have an almost-high-capability part

in total self indulgence, as you already have this. -As a given type of action

grows and generates new growth; that new growth is this way (before it advances

to high capability). -While the established part of the same action type, does

the high capability cycling.

With the regulator-of-the-cycling being at reduced capability ('a child shall

lead them'); and also the new growth of actions also passing through reduced

capability: you might think they would thus both be close knit together. But

the indulgent directive doesn't allow for this. -Reduced capability new-growth

action doesn't have time/resources to do regulation of other things, as it is

busy with its own action and building itself up. These two CAN be loosely aware

of each other, yet not closely connected, even though both are

reduced-capability. (By loosely connected, I mean they both have their own

sources of growth; neither appropriates resources from the other except in an

emergency; and neither regulates or bosses the other.) When the new growth is

completed (fulfilling any time constraint), and becomes high capability; then

the eternally-at-reduced-capability-regulator-of-the-cycling, which previously

was only loosely connected, now grabs hold of this new high capa!

bility and now closely regulates it (and also now for the first time, includes

this new high material in determining the cycling frequency). For a moment,

this regulator of the cycling is the only thing in reduced capability, and it

goes it alone. But soon new growth comes and there is then again a loosely

connected dual structure in the reduced capability.

Now, I said that new growth in reduced capability is not regulated by the also

reduced capability regulator of the cycling: but if the regulator of the cycling

strongly regulates this new growth to be only in self indulgent directive, then

that is the same as not regulating it at all because the self indulgent

directive means to let something be itself. (But just remember when doing this,

that although the new growth is 'close in' with the regulator of the cycling: we

don't let that new growth have any effect on the regulator of the cycling's

cycling frequency (as that is determined only by existing high capability).) So

our regulatory action can get close in with the new growth this way, so that

when the new growth becomes of high capability, it is right there to change over

and cycle with the new high capability; (and also include it in determining the

cycling frequency).

Note: sometimes when destruction comes, our bodies and/or God acts to replace

what was destroyed. Here, the material is finished (even if no replacement

occurs) and is thus at high capability if a time constraint was the only thing

keeping it from high capability. This high material we must thus then act on

and regulate with our regulator of the cycling, while other material of the same

type not effected by the destruction, we let unregulated until it fills its time

constraint in its undestroyed way. When we are denied things we feel we should

have, we actually have these things in high capability, due to the body's

mechanisms of replacing what these things mean in the body and God's action of

the same. We thus populate our internal world with many of these things we

want, and when the real thing comes along, it is just one of many, and just

joins the crowd. We just have to deal with, act on in close knit fasion, and

regulate all this high material generated in conjunct!

ion with the destruction that we have such an abundance of up to and including

the time the 'real thing' joins this crowd.

On second thought, if no replacement occurs when destruction acts; then the

remnant material is usually not at high capability, but at reduced capability.

And a time constraint means that it takes a certain time to accomplish some

special overall action: so with the time cut short by destruction, and thus no

overall action produced; reduced capability best describes the result. When

destruction acts on material, the result is usually reduced capability if not

total desolation. Thus this material we do not cycle with, but mainly let

remain in self indulgence.

X(X In a more complex way: a precursor action can be in abundance and be high

capability-like, but unable to accomplish its overall interrelated action that

it was precursor to. In this case, growth stops not because of a lack of

improvements to be made, but because of a barrier to getting out of and beyond

the precursor action. (Since helping the low levels also involves the precursor

action getting beyond itself, that may not be possible:) but even if it is, we

no longer have a directive to do this cycling to help low levels, as the

directive of the barrier takes over. Remember, the way to cross a barrier is to

build up existing capability as high as possible. The situation of a precursor

action (where we know there can be a greater overall action) stopped by a

barrier; is not a situation of high capability, but is one of reduced capability

at this level. In any case, the directive of crossing a barrier takes

precedence: so that our method of cycling is not done here. !

To cross a barrier, we build up existing capability as high as possible, and

then we make greater quantities of that (-involves some helping the low levels).

So in crossing a barrier, we are mainly in self indulgent mode; as is reduced

capability material. Still, at odd intervals, this barrier material(1) needs to

come off of indulgent mode and do a little of helping its own low levels. If

the cycling frequency of the other, cycling material(2) is too slow, it(1) may

spur it(2) to do a cycle in helping low levels. Note that this barrier material

and the reduced capability material being in indulgent mode, ie non cycling,

doesn't hurt the directive of the indulgent mode to act in unison to produce the

highest capability protector, (as when the cycling high material is in the

indulgent part of its cycle, then everything is indulgent in unison). But the

change of the barrier material to help its low levels, would interrupt this

directive, unless it coordinates its helping lo!

w levels with the helping low levels part of a cycle done by the cycling

material. When the barrier material is finished helping its low levels, it can

go back to indulgent mode even before the cycling material does, as there's no

need for acting altogether in unison concerning the directive to help low

levels. X)X

This bridging of barriers has application in healing the destruction of growth

capabilities. Such as when someone had loved us before, but now breaks off the

relationship; they do no destruction unto us by not loving us, except that in

this case, a growth capability has been destroyed. This is different from other

destructions, in that with other destructions, we can inc fragment and seek to

escape (with our able, higher parts); as a means of dealing with the

destruction, using the fact that the force of good separates and escapes evil at

reduced capability. But in the destruction of a growth capability, escape seems

meaningless. (Although, we can do inc fragmentation in this area, and seek to

mentally escape the pain in our head which is tied to this our physical body and

its limitations: and this helps to an extent) Here, bridging the barrier

between the access we have to this person through helping the low levels (where

we help all -friends, enemies, those we don't see!

, those we do see, all, equally, with little to no reward); and this person in

their higher levels (where we do see them and are rewarded more); is the thing

to heal our growth capabilities.

Note that when we're in the helping low levels part of our cycle; our

reduced capability areas (includes the regulatory action), should feel some of

this help in their lower, less developed parts. -The high capability that is

doing the helping (of the low levels), does not feel this help. But of course

when we switch to self indulgent directive in our cycle, this is no longer felt.

And when we're cycling frequently, this is also reflected in what we feel in our

reduced capability area(s).

X(X Getting back to the previous paragraph: This dual structure of low

levels and high capability, brings out some interesting concerns. I've said

that our helping the low levels is our bridge to all people. But this is only

so far as our high capability is able. What one real strength

helping-the-low-levels has, is that it is balanced -in that all areas are

increased evenly so that interrelated needs and supplies mesh. This is so

because there is little to no reward associated with increasing the low levels.

As we're first getting into high capability, rewards can be quite intense and

overwhelming and they can cause us to favor one area over another sometimes in

an unbalanced way. (And since new advances mostly come from high capability in

the self indulgent directive, there is just no balanced growth at first.) But

with helping-the-low-level's lack of overwhelming reward, we can grow here with

a clear head -evenly and in a balanced way. Yet helping the low level!

s is not balanced without that special balance with growing the high capability.

And it is the newest and highest capability's nature to be unbalanced to a

degree (-also due to randomness of breakthroughs and nature's placement of

barriers in the growth's way). Note that being slightly unbalanced; -that is,

being focused; is not necessarily harmful. It is a paradox that our newest

highest capability is at reduced capability concerning the area of being

balanced. But that's worked out over time. (Of course by that time, we've

developed even newer and higher capability.) X)X

Note that there is the directive to love God with all we are. Since God is love

and love is multiplying and blessing (or growth); this translates into obtaining

the most growth with all that we are. And growth of life (which is what we

are), is not such a bad idea; irregardless of Biblical commands for it. Hey;

life is good. The more good life, the better. (You didn't expect the Bible to

get it wrong all the time did you? The law of probability would be against

that. And it was written by people with some intelligence.) X(X So we've

segregated our growth into helping low levels (as there's greater growth

potential/improvements to be made here (and this helps keep the force of growth

alive)), vs, helping grow higher capability. And we've discovered that we need

more of a balance with growing high capability (ie self indulgence) in order to

protect/manage the lower levels against evil/destruction; and also for the

bridging of barriers (which also helps keep the force o!

f growth alive). Now, being balanced in our newest highest capabilities would

be preferable from a growth standpoint. But since we're unable to do that and

are in reduced capability about that, at first: it would be best to just go with

what we have and are able, and then to let that balance out over time. From a

growth standpoint, this IS the best; whereas halting all growth in high areas

(for long periods) until it could be done balanced; would be pretty bad, from a

growth standpoint. X)X

This idea of eternal growth or growing growth with all you are (as

translated from loving God with all you are -the first commandment, as stated by

Jesus); is the answer to an argument posed to me by a fellow thinker. He argued

that you cannot define a true difference between what is life vs what is

inanimate. -That everything is in equilibrium. That the atoms that make us up

are being constantly arranged and rearranged, and that given an eternity, we

all, along with all the inanimate, will have our place, over and over again. My

first reaction to this, was that the reaction is not very reversible: that it is

very easy for even low capability beings to kill (that is to rearrange matter so

that a 'living' organism dies); but that it is much harder to reverse the

process and bring that specific being or animal back to life, once killed.

-That it takes a very high capability being to bring this about; so that we as

low capability beings cannot jump easily back and forth !

between being alive and being dead, as in a reversible equilibrium.

But what I finally settled on was a definition for life itself: -life is that

which grows eternally, and does not come to a permanent end. This stems from

the force of good being able to exist forever, because what it produces (life),

is the key to crossing barriers (barriers to finding more improvements to make,

and to making those improvements). -Whereas the force of destruction, which

produces the inanimate (from life), is unable to continue forever, and comes to

an end, because what it produces (the inanimate and/or nothingness), is unable

to help it cross barriers, (which would have kept its action going). Now, with

a definition of life in hand (based on the first commandment); we can make a

distinction between life vs the inanimate; and this forms a basis for my core

philosophical arguments at the beginning of this book; -giving them a solid

foundation, a rock to stand upon. -That life is preferable to and valued way

over the inanimate. And that a one sided equilibr!

ium where we turn everything we can into life, while not returning it to the

inanimate; is the way to go.

 

X(X The final method for doing essentials:

When we feel a hunger for one of our essentials; quasi essentials, we then want

to do that essential. In the smaller component parts, separation of the forces

(ie escape by the force of good) is quite a force of nature. And it is even

more of a powerful force of nature due to God and/or society rescuing forces of

good that have temporarily separated from (an) evil. Because smaller forces of

good readily escape; I propose that we are unable to complete our essential

because of this. But if we could delay the escape by these forces of good for

just a little bit, we could complete our essential. It is not a good thing to

go against separation of the forces and slow the escape of forces of good. And

if we don't have to, we shouldn't do so. But in the case of our essential, this

is a necessary evil that we can't avoid. But the moment our essential has been

satisfied, we should cease doing this. ›We are then in a refrain from

repetitive inc fragmentation mode, now, even tho!

ugh material for satisfying the essential still remains, titillating us. Now it

is different, because we've had our fill (for now).› The way we accomplish this

slowing the escape of small forces of good, is to do repetitive inc

fragmentation in their escape path. Note that this repetitive inc fragmentation

is not done in the area of our action of satisfying our essential; but is

instead done on the small escaping forces of good. (Note that if the essential

area needs to be brought to reduced capability, then we can do a single episode

of inc fragmentation in it; but this isn't the repetitive inc fragmentation we

do here.) Because inc fragmentation also fragments itself and thus soon self

terminates; we must keep reinitiating it to keep a continued presence so as to

continue to slow the small forces of good from their escape.

We can regulate the degree that we slow the small forces of good from escaping,

by the frequency and strength that we do the repetitive inc fragmentation.

Note that unscrupulous overseers take advantage of our doing of essentials, in a

mind over matter way. When we do our essentials, we must slow forces of good

from their escape, whether we realize this or not. They take advantage of this

by tacking on all sorts of other orders and demands and things for our forces of

good additionally to do, when they see us slowing the escape of our forces of

good (ie doing essentials). These additional tasks are all fine and good, but

just remember to only slow forces of good for the purpose of doing your

essentials, and do not allow that to carry over into the doing of these

additional tasks. These additional tasks would (still) be done, but with no

slowing the forces of good from their escape, on your part. Slowing forces of

good from their escape in order to do your essentials, isn't a good thing; so

that you should do only what you need. If someone else wants that to be done

for their additional tasks, let them take the blame for th!

eir part in that themselves; because these additional tasks are not an essential

to you -only to them. And they should take the blame for the wrong that needs

to be done in order to get done what they want done. So that when the overseer

comes round and starts loading you down with things to do; refrain from doing

repetitive inc fragmentation for these additional tasks; and only do what you

need to complete your own essentials. (They don't want to let you have any more

than what they say is yours -so don't poses any more of the wrong than is

yours.) -Oh, you'll still do what they say, just that the force of nature of

the forces separating will be at full strength, and it will be mind over matter,

and these tasks will not bother you. anymore.

Now, in either case -doing our essentials; or not doing essentials; the forces

separate (albeit a little more slowly for the essentials (since we are delaying

the escape of good here)). There is an additional thing to do; -in addition to

regulating (or refraining from regulating -when it is something that isn't our

essential) the escape of forces of good (via repetitve inc fragmentation): we

also do not sit still with large forces of good, but act to escape with them -to

consciously try and escape with them -even when it doesn't seem like there's

anything needing to be escaped from: -there usually is something needing to be

escaped from, even if it's just the uneven attention we give to people we can

see vs those we can't see/hear; and our individual entities. Note that when

doing an essential, we don't consciously act to escape with

us-as-a-larger-force-of-good until the essential is done, because we're delaying

the escape of good here. But with evil attacks, not only do w!

e not delay the force of nature of smaller good escaping; we also consciously

act with our larger force of good, to escape the evils. Note that WHAT escapes

all evil can vary depending on where we're at. It is possible to have

individual entities escape but only to the degree that all entities are evenly

represented. Otherwise, and usually, good that does not poses any individual

identity, escapes into God.

Once our forces of good, escape evils (including escaping the individual

entities of others and ourself, and escape into God), that escape part is

finished, but they have still more to do. Escaping evil is first priority, but

once that's done, then before these evil free parts grow to high capability, a

part of them can regulate the high capability's cycling (between helping the low

levels, and self indulgence). This is something that high capability needs for

its own existence and continuance (-it's kind of like an essential to it); -as

high forces of good that don't seek out low levels, run out of improvements to

make and cease to actively exist. Then as the evil free material grows from

reduced capability to high capability, it is then directed by low evil free

material to cycle. Note that this regulating-of-the-cycling done by reduced

capability evil free material, is done so it is not a burden to this material;

since that material is in self indulgent directive, !

and its main purpose is to grow itself (until it gets to high capability).

/From the vantage point of the regulator of the cycling; this material doesn't

go to high capability (for long), but has its home in reduced capability. From

the vantage point of other material: that material passes through reduced

capability; It then it achieves high capability and is regulated to cycle

(between helping all low levels and self indulgence). And both types of evil

free reduced capability material can be present, as escaped from evil. -Due to

interrelatedness; part of the evil free reduced capability material belongs to

the regulator of the cycling; and will be always at reduced capability and in

self indulgent mode -(regulating the cycling is what it IS, when left to be

itself). And the rest of the evil free reduced capability material are things

other than regulator of the cycling; and they will spend a short time in reduced

capability being themselves; and will then pass to hi!

gh capability where they then cycle (as directed by the reduced capability

regulator of the cycling). Note that this material thus splits in two

(different directions) here.

Concerning escape from all evil: Let me make this clear: that when good

parts of an essential-doing are escaping evil; (since the essential contains

evil); they escape from themselves. The good part and good feeling, escapes its

beginnings and what it was (ie, it escapes its part in the essential-doing).

Additionally, good also escapes individual boundaries denoting you or I (that

is, others and also yourself), to then join God. And then it does the

regulating of the cycling (between helping low levels, and, self indulgence).

-and finally becomes high capability which cycles as directed by lower material.

There is one final tip I've discovered in my method. When we are doing the

slowing of the forces of good's escape part of our method, we can vary the

degree to which we delay the forces of good from escaping (via more or less

repetitive inc fragmentation of the escape area.)

When we first start our essential, we do considerable slowing-good's-escape.

(This leaves less or our resources to do the actual essential and (also) thus

eases us into the essential.) -(as well as slowing good's escape so we can do

the essential). But after a time of doing our essential, we start to become

satisfied in it. Thus we can jump to a position of doing considerably less

slowing-good's-escape. (-thus allowing room to do more essential -and we do

this when ready to do further stages of the essential). But there is a time lag

from when we stop some of the slowing-good's-escape, and when more good escapes;

so that we would have stopped too much. Thus after a short lag time, we then

return and do a slight bit additional slowing-good's-escape; (but not back to

what we first did). For example, consider the alphabet as representative of how

much slowing good's escape we do, with A as the most, and Z as the least (that

is, none at all). We start out at A, then go t!

o P, but after the short lag time we then fall back to M. As the essential

progresses and further stages unto completion of the essential are done; we

repeat this procedure, until the essential is completed and we no longer need to

slow good's escape. In the example, as we do a new stage, we would go from M to

W, and fall back to U. Then we would go to Z, and fall back to W; then to Z

again, and fall back to Y, and then to just Z (or zero delaying good's escape).

Note that the material represented by the alphabet, is the smaller, non

conscious forces of good. There is also the larger, conscious (us as a) force

of good. -Which has two modes: -acting to escape; and, not trying to escape.

While this meandering through the alphabet is occurring with the smaller forces,

the larger force of good is not-trying-to-escape while we do an essential; -even

when at Z, and also W. Now, the moment the essential is complete (also at Z in

the smaller forces); this larger force of good !

then goes to escape. (At the same Z position under an evil attack; we also act

with the larger force to escape.) Note, that if we can get away with doing our

destruction-containing-essential at Z, in the smaller forces (without meandering

through the alphabet); then we do so, as there's no need to slow the escape of

forces of good without a good cause (at least not more than we need). In the

actual doing of this method, we note that the act of doing nothing in the small

forces (of good), is their act of escape; while doing nothing in the larger

force of good, is its act of not-escaping: and this is our total stance (or can

be) when doing an essential. (In an essential, we may need to meander through

the alphabet. -And when meandering, we are thus active in the smaller forces;

while inactive in the larger force.) When our essential is finished, then we're

certainly inactive in the smaller forces (which is their escape position); and

then actively escape in our larger forc!

e (which is its escape position). -Also, this being our total stance under an

evil attack. When doing an essential plus under an outside evil attack, 'we'

act to escape from the evil attack, but not from the essential while doing the

essential. From the standpoint of escape, (vs activity): although we can be

relaxed/inactive in both the smaller and larger forces of good when doing an

essential; in the smaller forces, that represents an escape directive / while in

the larger forces that represents a not-escape directive. Note that we don't

try to get by with an escape directive in the larger force when doing an

essential, like we can in the smaller forces, because escape in our larger force

means escaping the essential; and if we're not done with the essential, we must

thus not-escape in our larger conscious force in order to do the essential. /

When the larger force goes to escape; it goes from inactive to active. /Since

our conscious mind is connected to our larger force!

; new stages of essential can be done by only regulating the larger force. Or:

when doing an essential, and with our conscious mind (associated with our larger

force), staying out of the smaller forces (in order to give them an escape

stance while concentrating on a non-escape stance in the larger force); we limit

our intake/contact of material of new stages of the essential, to that material

which fits to be a part of our larger force. -Excess material, above that

interrelation of being part of the larger force; we shrink away from with our

conscious mind of our larger force, so as to let it be in escape stance of

smaller forces. (And we can do an 'alphabet' in this.) When done with

essential, our consciousness of our larger force changes to active escape: but

shrink it away from any excess regulation it did previously in the smaller

forces so as to save mental resources (for the active escape in the larger

force), since escape stance in the smaller forces requires no con!

scious regulation./ Note: if a thing is non evil, we don't try to escape from

it. / Note: we can be selective in the doing of an essential. -If two or more

types of 'food' will satisfy our essential, and we have a preference for one,

but others keep butting in, we can allow that unchosen feeding to occur of its

own, but also escape from it in our larger force, while only doing

larger-force-not-escape in the chosen food.

You know, this idea of slowing the escape of smaller forces (with

repetitive inc fragmentation), may be a boondoggle. I guess we can do it if we

feel a need to, but it's also OK if we can get along without it.

Now then, we have the larger force of good; and we also have the smaller

component forces of good. Who's the boss? Which comes first, (the egg or the

chicken)? Should the individual submit all to the larger living State, or,

should individuality be enshrined; or how about a compromise? The larger force

has two modes: escape, and not escape. Additionally, it can act on the smaller

forces. One of those actions can be to slow the smaller forces escape. Another

action, is the action of creation. Before most smaller forces exist, a larger

force created them. Or, what creating is done, is mainly done by the larger

forces of good, as they are more able to and capable of creating. Presuming

larger forces have a need to create; when they do create, they are thus working

on and in contact with the smaller forces (and must do so in order to create

them). So then, there is at least part of the time, a place for larger forces

to act on the smaller forces, and be the boss of them!

.. (Just like parents have the boss over their children.) Then, if the larger

force is unable, or doesn't think it wise to (supersede free will and), create

the smaller forces free from evil(destruction), (includes the larger force doing

an essential), then all these forces of good have destruction to deal with. It

is how this destruction is dealt with that determines much of the relationship

between the larger and smaller forces. If there is evil present, things need to

be fragmented, and at reduced capability for separation of the forces. This

means that once the larger force has created the smaller forces, it should

remove itself from them, and leave them to their own devices at reduced

capability. Thus here the smaller forces are not bossed or subjugated, in order

to purify from evil. We've examined separation of the forces at reduced

capability more closely. We found that the greater variability of the smaller

forces was helpful, but only if a larger force of goo!

d stood nearby to catch the good that had for a moment, become evil free. (We

also recall that the larger force of good could not be together with the smaller

forces, but had to be removed a distance so as to maintain reduced capability,

otherwise the material would be at high capability (or the force of evil would

have access to high capability).) So now we have a picture of the larger force

acting on the smaller forces in order to create them, but soon after, removing

itself from them a distance, so as to allow separation from evil; yet not being

totally removed, but intermittently joining the good parts (of smaller forces

that had separated for a moment); and thus again acting upon smaller forces (to

a degree). Thus when we as a larger force of good, create (our essential

doing), we should do so according to this plan (of rescuing good that escapes).

(Note that as part of this plan; the need for forces of good to create,

(especially larger forces), is obvious, as that i!

s what forces of good are: -that they need to keep creating in order to BE

active forces of good.) Thus we first create, and create more than we need for

interrelatedness-with-our-larger-force. We then soon remove much of our larger

force's consciousness from the created, newest item or stage of essential; and

remove it to only that small amount that is needed (for interrelatedness with

the larger force). And we also act in accordance with the periodic rescuing of

escaping good by the largest evil free force of good. -(The essential's good

escapes evil and then splits off its regulator of the cycling part.) So here,

we see that there is a compromise, and that neither the larger force nor the

smaller forces has absolute power nor is a total boss.

Even if we consider only the well-being of the larger entity; recall that we

discovered that even here; that for the good of the larger entity, it should

help its component parts (in order to be growing and not stagnant). And that it

is best to include some self indulgent directive as well as helping the low

levels. So that even in a worse case scenario, we see that the larger force

shares and compromises with the smaller forces.

You may have noticed that I now think it's good to do more essential than we

need, (but only in a certain way). The idea is that whenever we have an

opportunity for growth, we should take it. The central point, is growth. What

we do is: as long as we're experiencing growth with an essential, we continue

with it full ahead and do not shrink our larger force's consciousness out of any

of it. But when there is a pause, and we stop creating the essential: are

unable/unwilling to grow it further: then is when we shrink our consciousness

out of it and into just the small part of it that our larger force needs due to

interrelated needs. The idea is that it's OK to create more of the essential

than we need, as long as we are creating and growing. Now, how can I say this?

Not all growths are free from evil, and some can be totally evil. But the thing

about evil is that it always puts an end to growth and causes stagnation or

decline. So when evil is having its way, there won't!

be growth. And when there isn't growth, our method tells us to shrink our

larger force away from most of the already created essential. With the

high-capability-of-the-larger-force away from much of the essential where evil

resides, this material is denied the high capability of the larger force, and is

not fed. This works. In an essential, there is some good and some evil. When

the good is having the upper hand, there will be growth, and as long as theres

overall growth, we know that evil doesn't have the upper hand. So that we know

we aren't totally wasting the high capability of our larger force, which IS

together with all the essential material when there is growth-and-creating

occurring. If we are growing something totally evil, growth will be short

lived, and our method won't spend much time with it. But I depend on one's

common sense, and not this method, to reject outright, anytotally evil growth.

The only reason we do growths containing some evil, as essenti!

als, is because we are forced to, and cannot obtain the needed goods evil free.

So far, I think I've shown it is fairly OK (or not too harmful) to do excess

essential in this proposed way. What I have not shown, is why. Before I had

argued that since essentials contained some evil, that we should try and get by

with only what we need. But what I see now, is a way to produce evil free

essential. It's just a different response to the very same problem of being

forced to do an essential containing evil. You see, the essential that remains

part of our larger force, (to supply its interrelated need), is unable to

separate in its forces because the evil in the essential has the higher

capability of our larger force to feed it. But if our larger force creates

excess essential, and then shrinks away from it after it creates it; that excess

essential would then be alone, away from the higher capability food (of the

larger force): and at reduced capability, the forces would separ!

ate and it would become evil free essential. (We would then send some help

nearby so that the escaping good would find it (while the evil would not), and

would be rescued.) So that this going the extra mile and doing double the

essential that we need, provides us with evil free essential./ Note: we can

modify our helping the low levels, to instead, deliver help only near the low

levels; so that the more capable good would grow out into this help while the

evil wouldn't./ Note: we don't interrupt our essential when it is strongly

growing and creating and moving into new stages. We do interrupt our essential

when its growth and creating slow and stop (via the larger force moving its

consciousness out of most of those stages of the essential). -So that our

essential may be done in several divisions. As we continue and create the

newest stage of our essential; that is done in full ahead, no

shrunken-consciousness mode; while the previous stages are all done out of only

the !

essential that our larger force interrelatedly needed. When done with the

essential, not only do we shrink from excess essential in the last stage, but

our consciousness acts to escape immediately. If it is a component of other

material, it may wait for that to escape also before splitting off its regulator

of the cycling, and cycling.

One may ask why we remain at the lesser quantity of essential doing (which is

what interrelates with our larger force's needs), in the old stages of an

essential (while going full ahead in the new stage -where growth is still good).

Why not just go full ahead in all stages when in a growth spurt? What I would

say, is that we are dealing with evil in the old stages. When there has been

growth, but then that growth stops: this indicates the presence of evil in this

specific situation. -(Whereas, if it was just an absence of growth, that

doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of evil. -It could be that you just

haven't grown into this yet. (You have to compare two reference points to show

a decrease in capability.)) Realize that the evil will always remain in your

interrelated essential doing in your larger force, as it has the higher

capability of the larger force to feed it: and that only in the essential you

created, and then vacated, will soon be purified and ev!

il free. After a time, that evil free material devoid of your consciousness,

will grow (due to being evil free) and grow around you so that the good of you

(your larger force and consciousness) can escape into it (and be evil free), in

a new action. This is why we permanently vacate to minimum essential (as

required for the larger force's interrelated needs), in our old stages of

essential.

When a material becomes finished with an essential, it does not continue with

even the smaller doing of essential corresponding to

interrelated-needs-of-the-larger-force, but instead now acts to escape all

essential doing: and also removes the larger force's consciousness (which is now

acting to escape), from the lower material (that the larger force previously was

acting and creating in), and onto only the larger force -so that only the

larger force is consciously (with larger force consciousness) acting to escape.

In a similar vein, if material has no need of an essential at present, it

should not act to do essential; even though material that does need essential,

sometimes does more essential than it needs (in accordance with our method

-referred to as 'going the extra mile'). Thus, regulator of the cycling

material, not affected, continues regulating the cycling.

Note: all actions of escape we do should be done by the larger force only.

-Leaving the low levels and smaller component forces out of such action. So

that we may need to shrink all our escape actions, and not just the escape

action we do when we've just completed an essential.

We have reduced capability material that has (recently) escaped evil (some of

that joins the regulator of the cycling (as that's what it is), and some rests

in self indulgence until it becomes high capability and is then cycled). But in

whatever form is the evil free reduced capability material -sometimes evil steps

up an attack, or an essential comes to call, and may re-catch some of the

reduced capability material. If it does, that material then drops regulating

the cycling or self indulgence, and again seeks to escape the evil, or finish

the essential. But until an evil or an essential, catches an evil free reduced

capability regulator of the cycling material, that material doesn't act to

escape; but instead continues regulating the cycling. -As, if it did act to

escape before evil actually got to it, that would disrupt its regulating the

cycling just as surely as if evil had gotten to it; but in this case, before

evil had even gotten to it. -The force of evil is ofte!

n unable to cross barriers and get to things: so this material continues

regulating the cycling until evil or essential gets to it.

Sometimes material doing an essential is forced to go to escape in its

larger force before being finished with the essential. In this case, we let

that material do that, (and split off its 'half' for regulator of the cycling).

But since the essential wasn't finished; other material then steps in to

complete the essential (however it is able). Note that since the essential was

forced into a slowdown, its growth was stopped temporarily. Thus, our larger

force shrinks its consciousness/activity (down to the interrelated needs level)

away from much of the current stages of the essential's previous growth. (Later

stages of essential are done at full growth as we progress further in the

completion of the essential.)

There are the essentials related to being attracted to another person. But

invariably, we may be attracted to different people at different times, or to

more than one at the same time. And then, there are the people (or person) we

are with at a present moment. When attracted to more than one, I'd say we

should share our attentions with these and also with whom we're with at the

moment. And that when more than one is attracted to us (whom we may or may not

be attracted to), that we should share our attention with these. This gets in

the way of concentrating on a single one. So, what are the advantages of these

two opposite directives? With the first, we get away from sharp focus, and thus

prepare ourself better for interrelatedness, so that supplies and needs fit

together better. But if we interrupt concentrating on a single one too much,

our growth here will be interfered with. -And remember how sensitive to growth

we are in our method of dealing with essentials.!

So, for these reasons, I feel we need to accommodate both directives in a

compromise. So that we can concentrate on one to some degree, but that we also

share some of that attention with others whom we are also interested in, or whom

are interested in us, or whom we're with currently.

Now, concerning the component stages of doing an essential; we shouldn't get the

idea to do some of a previous stage at a needs level, while having another area

of us do that stage with more growth (when that previous stage's growth has died

due to the essential evil's presence). Here, the overriding factor is that we

need to keep our growth away from where evil is, in an essential. -An essential

isn't all good nor all bad, but some of both, and we need to act selectively in

an essential to enhance the good, but not the bad: -this is the reasoning behind

my current method of doing essential.

Now, we don't do essential all the time. After awhile, we become filled,

and then cease doing the essential's growth. When additional essential comes

along, the part of us not affected by it, continues on as is (regulating the

cycling, or, just being itself); -now the part that is affected, now does escape

mode. -With this escaped material (-after done escaping), then splits off

destined material to regulator of the cycling. This is how we feed and grow the

regulator of the cycling. -So that we need to take a break from essentials some

of the time, to feed/grow this higher part of us, so it maintains reduced

capability and doesn't slip away into low capability. So then: feed your higher

self with the time you'll find you have after you've satiated your essential.

Note also that the helping low levels also helps the regulator of the cycling,

but only in its low levels -automatically switching to other low levels when

finished with current low levels. (The regulator!

of the cycling cuts itself off here when in the self indulgent part of the

cycle.)

We are unable to be in contact with everyone all at once. We are not one

with each other. Thus there is a difference between the people we know, vs,

those we don't know. We feel a friendly warm feeling towards the people our

senses recogize as those we know (and are friends with), while we don't feel so

towards those we don't know. And we're prone to be more receptive to those in

our presence, and not to those out of our senses' range. (In comparison, God

loves all people equally.) (When Jesus said He had to go away so that the Holy

Spirit could come to us all (instead of just appearing to the few in visual

range); there was good reason for this, in that God wants to love all people

equally.)

Take this example: Suppose there were two people, identical in personality.

One lived next door, and the other lived 10 miles away. One you got to know

while the other remained unknown. Meeting both on the street, you would have

different responses to basically the same person. To the one you knew, you'd

respond however you respond to that personality. If you were friends, you would

do things together. But to the same person you didn't know, you'd have no

response (no feelings); and you wouldn't do things together. Thus there is an

uneven response due to the inability of our senses and our inability to know

everybody. Suppose you were a Chinaman, and there was a riot, and your

government ordered you to help put down that riot. But if you knew these people

who rioted, you'd not want to do so and would resist that order. But if you

were from a far away part of China, and didn't know these rioters, essentially

foreigners with different ways; you would obey your governm!

ent, and put down the riot. Here we can see what a difference it makes whether

you know someone or not. When the factor of destruction is involved, it can

even be considered an essential.

We as humans in our situation may want to share ourselves evenly with all

people, but our limited situation, and our being bound to our limited senses

(which only see those close to us); cause us to share ourselves unequally. And

uneven growth associated with this, allows evil to make a home here in our

interactions between each other. We as humans (because we are human) will have

to deal with the fallout from our uneven growth, and our tendency to be more

harsh and cruel to those we don't know and/or who have strange ways. I can call

this an essential due to the presence of dstruction. But this essential is a

whopper. Unlike essentials involving our bodily functions, this essential never

ends, and is never satisfied, even temporarily. We will always have near

insatiable hungers and needs in this area of human interrelations, until our

state of being tied to our limited senses is overcome, and we become one with

each other in God. By comparison, the essentials of our bo!

dily functions can be satisfied temporarily quite quickly. If we're hungry, we

can set down to a good meal, and in a short time, can be full and temporarily no

longer bothered by that essential. So, I just want us to apply our methods for

dealing with essentials, accordingly. So that with the essential of this human

proximity interaction, we do not act to escape in our larger force, as we're

never temporarily finished with it; even though we may be acting to escape other

essentials we HAVE completed. And when our human interaction includes evil

attacks, our larger force acts to escape from that, but not from the human

proximity essential.

And somewhere in there, is the attraction we feel towards members of the sex we

are attracted to; and whom we also know well -usually our mate, in most cases:

vs not having such deep feelings towards others, whom we don't know so well, and

or, whom we are not sexually attracted to. The sexual bodily function may be

satisfied quickly, but this love infatuation, etc. mental feeling is more long

lasting.

This never being free of this essential has ramifications into our method.

Perhaps some material does escape even this human proximity essential

temporarily -(and then that material supplies regulator of the cycling). But

there is always material that does not escape it. With material under this

essential; even if it escapes other essentials, since it's not free of all evil,

it can't yet then split off part for regulator of the cycling, and does no

cycling or regulation of cycling. Only the material that escapes this essential

(and other essentials), does this. So that there will always be at least some

part of us that does no regulating of cycling, but only does escape actions and

attempts; and also the intricacies of doing essentials, such as shrinking areas

where growth is stopped.

Perhaps I overstated that we never escape this human proximity essential. The

(our) condition is always with us, but perhaps it isn't an essential all the

time. It's not an easily recognizable essential, as the fallout from our uneven

growth and stagnation and tendency to treat those we don't know more

impersonally; takes many forms, and the essentials from that also take many

forms. But whatever the case, this essential is our most persistent essential.

And; our task in this case, is not so much to escape this essential, but to be

satiated in this essential. Once we achieve (temporary) satiation, then we

easily act to escape this essential. What's holding us back is being satiated.

What we do to become satiated, is to just hold our position until satiation

occurs. We may shrink in areas where growth has been stopped, but we just keep

on doing what we've been doing until satiation occurs. Until it does, this part

of us doesn't try to escape, and is unable to take par!

t in any cycling.

Occasionally, this human interaction essential pulls us into other, bodily

essentials, that we may be finished with (presently). In this case, we can

allow these bodily essentials to occur, but additionally act to escape them,

(while not acting to escape the human interaction essential), -in our larger

force. And when we do eventually become hungry in our bodily essentials, we can

then not-escape in them too, until we're satiated for that present time (which

doesn't take long). As ever, the seemingly innocent human interaction essential

rages on. This essential is the cause of much of our problems, and not so much

the bodily essentials.

In our reproductive essential, that gets into our human interactions also. But

don't mistake the desires from the human interaction essential, for the

reproductive essential. Just because you don't have reproductive essential with

someone, or are not attracted to someone; doesn't mean you don't need them.

-You do, in the human interaction essential. The human interaction essential is

much bigger and longer lasting than these bodily essentials, which are soon

satisfied (although only temporarily). And when the human interaction essential

activates and gets into some of the bodily essentials: realize that it is the

source, and that only less frequently are the bodily essentials the source -by

using not-escaping in the human interaction essential to supply you, while

-escaping- in the bodily essentials (after easily being satiated in them).

When the human interaction essential pulls us into other bodily essentials that

we are finished with presently; since we are finished with them/satiated in

them, we thus don't want to do them, but do them anyway; while additionally

acting to escape them (as soon as the human interaction essential finishes with

them). So that we DO, in the bodily essentials, for the benefit of others

(although additionally escaping here); and then when there appears something we

need in these bodily essentials (sometimes FROM our doing them for the benefit

of others), we also DO these (in not-escape, while we have need here). The

human interaction essential may even pull us into situations of harm not

associated with other essentials, as it interacts with people who hate and wish

us harm. It allows acceptance of the harmful actions of these people. We then

additionally always act to escape from these actions too. -We always escape in

them, as unlike essentials, there is no time we ever h!

ave need of them (apart from the human interaction essential). (This includes

destructive attacks directed as punishment against engaging in essentials

forbidden -whereby the forbidden essentials also present, are handled as

outlined for handling essentials, not attacks.) / This is like what the Bible

in Paul tells of God creating vessels destined for destruction, only to then

destroy them. So that concerning the question: 'do we try to stop evil from

coming out (in what we create, or 'do') by not allowing anything to come out?

vs; do we let the good and the bad both come out, and then escape from the bad

parts (when we're unable to do the thing evil free)?': well, we just follow the

example God sets, according to this Bible passage (Romans 9, 11-24), and just do

it, and then deal with the evil parts in a second action. (Also see related,

later 'Bible study'.)/

Here we see essentialS interacting with each other: the human interaction

essential, and bodily essentials. - that is, one essential leading the others

(the filthy rags of our righteousness) . From this, we recall that we sometimes

do bodily 'essentials' when we don't need them (when our human interaction

essential needs them). And that we can get in the habit of this. But note that

we shouldn't do an essential when no part of us needs it: -unless the human

interaction essential needs it, we don't do this 'doing of bodily essentials

when they aren't needed'. We may want to share evenly our bodily essential that

we do for the benefit of others, (when we don't need them (directly)); but we

should only do un-needed bodily essential (in an even and sharing way) to the

extent our human interaction essential needs them: -and that usually isn't

totally even in its growth. Also note that how we act depends much on a

time cycle in our progression to a temporary satiation of a!

bodily 'essential'. We may start with only our human interaction essential

needing a bodily 'essential' (here we additionally act to escape in all of the

bodily essential done). But as we can progress, we have a mix of human

interaction essential and part of the bodily essential (in not-escape), (while

the newer part of the bodily 'essential' is in escape) (-we often come to need a

bodily 'essential' by doing; but new parts haven't been done much yet). As we

progress, we escape in lesser and lesser parts of the bodily essential*: until

we complete the bodily essential and achieve its satiation: *(During this time,

we have (for short periods) a stage of bodily essential; some of it in

not-escape, while some in escape.) -At this satiation point, we then escape in

all of the bodily essential. We are back to the beginning and only with the

human interaction essential (when it is an essential), do we not-escape in. For

a time it appeared we were growing something and getti!

ng somewhere in our bodily essential. But don't be fooled into thinking it

would continue; but instead, realize this cycle of periodically becoming

satiated, then going back to nothing* in the bodily essential *(in what we

don't-escape in). (With the human interaction essential being most persistent,

it is the one that usually gets us into another round of bodily essential in

this cycle.) In the reproductive bodily essential, even if it is with your

spouse, you thus start over in the bodily essential each cycle: -you develop no

lasting structure here, even though it is your spouse who you think you're so

familiar with. (This is just the nature of an essential -(reproductive,

bodily): -your interrelation with your spouse would be much different if it were

not for this bodily essential.) Actually, I'm not quite clear here. We do

spend enough time with this essential to create a complete essential. And after

we escape it, that material still exists and produces. The thing!

I mean is, that our larger force and consciousness, is unable to spend any long

lasting time here in this essential (and must re-do this essential over and over

as needed). In any case, or position of the cycle we are in (even after

satiation); we do new material, with our minimal human interaction essential,

(as we shall see).

Concerning things being long lasting: if we use previously-complete-essentials

in the newer, not-yet-accepted(due to need, in that we don't need it yet)-new

round of essential: -when our consciousness escapes from that, we'll loose the

previous accomplishment and won't have anything that lasts. But if we only use

our minimal/basic human interaction essential (and consciousness) to do the new

round of essential: we won't loose our previous completed essential, and it will

be long lasting. -you would think anyway. But actually we escape from the

previous completed essential once satiated in it, and thus loose it anyway

-(except by what our basic human interaction essential needs of it). ›-And the

production that is beyond the evil of the essential; -we retain that also.›

Actually, the purpose of not using old bodily material in new bodily action is

so we can assemble a complete essential. That is the only impediment that this

escaping from new stages of not-yet-needed bodi!

ly action, causes: and that we become able to produce a completed whole bodily

essential when we don't use old (and presently needed/not escaping) bodily

stages in new (escaping) bodily stages, but use just the minimal/basic human

interaction essential here instead.

Getting back to the human interaction essential: Each time we escape from

parts of a bodily action we don't need (apart from the human interaction

essential) -due to the fact it is a new stage of a bodily 'essential': -that

escape, finishes this particular action and puts a finality to it. And there is

no progression to the completion of the bodily essential here, in this. What

does represent new growth: is a doing of (new) human interaction essential. In

other words, we shouldn't draw from 'previous not-escaping bodily essential

stages' in order to do further stages of the bodily essential (unto

not-escape/now in escape): but should instead, do new (not-escaping) HUMAN

INTERACTION ESSENTIAL-(NOT A BODILY ESSENTIAL) (which we do need, (thus can do

for more than a moment in not escape)), in order to do further bodily essential

stages (first in escape, and then in not-escape). Also realize that as we

escape from (and thus loose) parts of bodily essentials -(that came !

from human-interaction-essentials drifting into otherwise not-needed stages of

bodily essentials); that we should simultaneously replace that vacuum/void with

new doing of human interaction essential, which again drifts into bodily

essential stages: with this cycle repeating until those stages become needed

through this doing, so we then not-escape in the bodily stage also. Note that

we don't use not-escaping 'bodily' stages to do current bodily stages, -(would

be in escape), because escape causes us to loose them. Instead, as mentioned,

we use undeveloped/minimal human interaction essential only to get into new

stages to the completion of the bodily essential; whence then, all bodily stages

go to escape at the end of their cycle.

To reiterate: Recall that when we act to escape, this is done by only our larger

force and consciousness; leaving the smaller forces or what we were working

with, behind. -essentially loosing consciousness from the area. So that an

area/stage in escape, is an area in need (of consciousness) and of loss. (What

will reenter this conscience devoid area? -best to use more minimal human

interaction essential, as it may have to escape too.) Note that when a bodily

stage goes to not-escape: we no longer supply that area with fresh human

interaction essential; but direct that supply to other areas needing it (due to

their losses from their escape). Most areas often need the human interaction

essential (even if only for the larger force consciousness). A bodily stage in

escape needs the human interaction essential. Now, a minimal(basic) human

interaction essential will supply that need: and; a more developed human

interaction essential which has worked its way into some not-esca!

ping stages of a bodily essential; will also supply that need. But what I've

been saying, is not to use this more developed human interaction essential to

supply that need (of the next bodily stage (that is still in escape)); but

instead to use minimal (or newer) human interaction essential only, to supply

that need: because we'd loose what we'd built of the not-escaping bodily stages,

when we escaped again in that current bodily stage. Thus to hold onto it, we

don't use what we've built to supply the current, escaping, bodily stage's need

for human interaction essential; but instead use minimal (newer) human

interaction essential to supply that need. (It's called 'having your cake and

eating it too'. -note the destructive nature of eating.) Note in addition to

not-using a developed human interaction essential (containing bodily stages in

not escape) -(or, 'not-escaping bodily stages', for short): we also direct doing

newer (minimal) (also, non-escaping) human interaction!

essential, away from this bodily stage that has just achieved not-escape:

-because it no longer needs it, due to it NOT loosing its consciousness (which

occurs with escape). In short, we don't use it/we let it be, and we no longer

supply it. -(essentially) we let it be.

Once a stage achieves not-escape, it can join and be one with the other stages

in not-escape.

Note: it's an intricate mental regulation: We're escaping in the bodily part,

but are not-escaping in a nearby human interaction essential that supplies it

(with consciousness).

Also, we know that we hold back our non-escaping-bodily-stages-that

a-more-developed-human-interaction-essential has gotten into; while

preferentially using minimal/basic human interaction essential to get into the

new-and-escaping bodily stages. We could do this regulation by not so much

holding back the more developed human interaction essential, but instead by

concentrating on the supply of basic/minimal human interaction essential: -to

direct it to where it is needed: -to supply it preferentially to the new bodily

stages; and when a new bodily stage goes to not escape (and thus no longer needs

that supply) -to then remove that supply from it and concentrate it only on the

newest areas, which do need it. (However, if need be, we can restrain a

not-escaping bodily stage from entering the vacuum created by escape.

-(especially one that has newly achieved not-escape)) Note -also make sure that

what is being supplied is basic/minimal human interaction essential, and not so!

mething more developed. Note: the newer, escaping bodily stage is kept separate

from the older not-escaping bodily stages.

Realize that there are 2 thresholds: -first when we originally do a bodily

action (in escape); and then when we do that same action in not-escape.

Note also: -that before Jesus saves us, we are all unacceptable to God. And

then after He saves us, we then ARE acceptable to God. During all those years

before we were saved, we were unacceptable, and God still allowed us to exist

and did not wipe us off the face of the earth, nor kept us from being born.

Does then this extend to smaller parts of us, like the actions we do, especially

when those actions contain a larger part of good? -Do we allow unacceptable

actions to exist until they become perfected (especially when they contain a

large part that is good)? Or do we go about shouting hell fire, and stamping

out all that is not perfect, that is offensive to us/our religion? (Perhaps

separation of the forces while not destroying the evil force we don't like, is

an answer.)

When a bodily stage freshly achieves not-escape, it needs to move away (be

moved away) from its original area (where escape is still occurring); so as to

be separate from those things still escaping: and also, leave behind its former

supply of basic human interaction essential, -directed at that area, which it no

longer needs. Note: just because our not-escaping things are separate from our

escaping things, doesn't mean the not escaping things cease to exist or cease to

perform their action. They do act and perform. -Just separately but perhaps

simultaneously from/with the escaping things. Yes, we withold our developed

interaction essential (of our non-escaping stages); while we allow our

basic/minimal interaction essential, into the vacuum of the current escaping

stage, in order to do the current (escaping) stage; all simultaneously -(this

enables us to do both the non escaping stages; and the current escaping stage,

simultaneously). When the essential is complete, we !

satiate in it in not-escape, while continuing with new material in

escape(including from inertia, from the same essential) as time goes on, with

more basic/minimal human interaction essential -keeping the non-escaping,

complete, satiating essential, separate from this.

So, at first we are with only the basic/minimal consciousness; in escape, in our

attempts to do a current bodily stage. Then when we achieve that stage, we move

it away from the escape area and away from the supply of basic/minimal

consciousness. After done moving it, we cease further moving action; and

continue to do this current stage, -now in not escape; -as a more developed

consciousness; -and together (in oneness) with all the previous stages (-also in

not escape, and more developed). Then we (even simultaneously) get into the

next bodily stage, -with none of the not-escaped material, but with a good

supply of basic/minimal consciousness.

Note: the previous (current) bodily stages (that have already achieved

not-escape, and that are together as one), needn't protect nor restrain

themselves from any actions they do in connection with each other: they only

need to restrain themselves from the vacuum of the next (newest) bodily stage,

which is still in escape.

Since a current bodily stage (and corresponding human interaction

essential) exists without the further bodily stages; it is thus able to do

without them. It might be better if the next (further) stages were present

-with interrelated benefits, but where destruction is involved, a current

stage's existence alone proves it is able to do without them. This is where the

minimal/basic human interaction essential comes in. -It allows us to not be

suspended eternally in mid essential. Since the further bodily stages aren't

something we absolutely need, we escape in them. This vacuum created by this

escaping, if not filled, results in us suspended in mid essential, never

achieving satiation, and always bothered by the essential. If filled by the

present bodily stage (with developed human interaction essential), we then loose

that stage when another escape commences. But if filled by minimal/basic human

interaction essential, we don't loose the present stage, and are able !

to eventually add the further stages in not-escape, and complete a whole,

complete bodily essential.

When one of our basic/minimal human interaction essential fills the vacuum

from escape in a betrayal or evil attack; that material never goes to not-escape

(because it's not part of our essentials-and-our internal needs -we never feel a

bodily need to be betrayed or attacked). But when our basic/minimal human

interaction essential fills the vacuum from escape in a bodily essential stage;

that material WILL eventually go to not-escape. Occasionally, both essentials,

and evil attacks are present simultaneously. In this case, we deliver

basic/minimal human interaction essential to both, evenly; where we divide up

the supply of basic human interaction essential, so that no excessive vacuum in

any one area is created. But remember: the material of our essential eventually

moves to not-escape -no longer needing to be supplied; whereas we never move

evil attacks out of escape.

Now, somewhere in between evil attacks and the bodily essentials we want and

crave; is the essentials we do for others due to our human interaction

essential, that we do for others but do not ourselves crave/desire. We also

deliver basic/minimal human interaction essential here. Since it has some of a

good thing, it contains growth, and will eventually grow and develop into

something in not-escape, (unlike the material of an evil attack). But since it

isn't something we need personally in a bodily way, it will take longer than the

things we do crave. The thing is, that we still do this for others, with a

cheerful heart; since we already freely supply basic human interaction essential

to evil attacks against us: -the supplying of others is still better than the

evil attacks, because it will eventually make good: so if we supply against the

evil attacks that will never make good, we can be glad to supply something that

will make good, even if it is not as fast as our own bod!

ily cravings. And when it is something that is one of our bodily cravings, then

we don't hold them up just because they are different from the other things,

because these will also make good; and fast too.

 

Now, if God, the creator, is creating a supply of generic (general)

consciousness -that is, consciousness that could belong to anybody, before it is

assigned to specific people: then if God is willing to allow us to use it; we

should use IT to fill the vacuum created by escape; thus sparing OUR

basic/minimal consciousness (because ours is more developed). But of course,

our basic/minimal consciousness stands by, ready to fill the vacuum, if such a

supply of general, non specific consciousness (from God), isn't available. But

if it is available, we use it preferentially (as OUR specific consciousness is

more developed, and its loss to escape, would be the greater loss). -still, we

stand ready with OUR minimal consciousness. Note that we trade our least

developed consciousness, for God's even lesser developed consciousness, (and how

we split the spared consciousness that is from us, is between us and God). I

say this so one doesn't treat the consciousness from God as a!

n unlimited supply that you can stick into the unpleasant aftermaths of whatever

evil is in your actions: -that you must expend resources for the necessary evils

you do, so that you try to avoid doing necessary evils when possible instead of

whooping it up with them.

Have you ever wondered why they say 'stand up and face your problems.

-don't run away'; and, 'resist not evil/turn the other cheek'? (The reason

being, it prevents the creation of a vacuum.) When your hand comes into a

painful situation (like a hot burner), the natural (reflex) response, is to jerk

it back and away. But when a part of you escapes and gets away from a painful

(destructive) situation, that leaves a vacuum (as what was there, left

(escaped), and nothing returned to take its place). Obviously, we are going to

escape and get away from painful situations as our natural reflex. But that

then leaves a vacuum that will eternally pull on everything and anything to fill

it. So, if we allow a minimal/basic consciousness to fill that vacuum

(preferably one that hasn't yet developed an individual identity -as from God);

while witholding all more-developed-consciousness from filling such vacuum: then

this best handles the problem, I feel.

Where destruction is destroying (such as in an essential): this destroying (as

well as escape from the destroying), creates a vacuum. To allow your higher

more developed parts into that vacuum, brings a high capability where the forces

don't separate. To deny that vacuum anything, brings desolation -where the

forces also don't separate. But to deny that vacuum just your higher developed

parts of the self; while allowing the minimal and non specific consciousness

from God (or from your beginning parts), -brings a reduced capability where the

forces DO separate. So deny this vacuum your self, but allow it the basic parts

common to all. In a bodily essential (only): when growth occurs, -when we

achieve the next stage, due to separation of the forces; that's when we move

this material out of escape to not-escape. //////This concludes my current

method of essential doing.

 

I would like to say a few words about betrayal. Sometimes a thought might enter

your mind: would a good friend betray me or act against me behind my back? It

could happen, but it also, could not-happen. Actually, it doesn't matter. The

good things that you developed with your good friend, are always valid, whether

there is later a betrayal or imperfection, or not. In both the development of

new good things; and responding against betrayals and evil attacks, the use of

basic human interaction essential is needed to bring a positive result into the

vacuum created by escape (in both cases). A difference is that your basic human

interaction essential keeps getting into more and more new good things, and

keeps growing that; while once evil attacks and betrayals are delt with, your

basic human interaction essential does not get into more of them and there is no

growth in that area from you. So that while you keep growing and satisfying

your needs in good things, the burden of!

betrayal and evil attacks is born by the betrayer and attacker, and not by you

(after you've escaped and dealt with it once(no: -as needed) -It doesn't grow in

you, and thus won't be bothering you or occupying you much). We outgrow the

betrayals/evil attacks; as GOOD THINGS -ours and/or that of the possible

betrayer, are so much more involving. With the good things: we'll be pulling

many good things out of escape and into not-escape (when they're ready); -to

join other good material in not-escape. But with evil attacks/betrayal,

although we also do minimal human interaction essential with it, in escape; none

of it is brought to not-escape to become a more developed human interaction

essential, (as we have no need of it: -it never becomes one of our bodily

essentials.). X)X

 

Note: that just like we not-escape in an essential that we need; we also

(permanently) not-escape in evil-free material (which is not an essential): and

only escape from (in) evil/destructive things (but only when we don't need

them-unlike in an essential). So that when we finish a complete bodily

essential and are satiated in it: we then escape from the evil of that

essential; -but not from the good/non-evil things we were able to produce

separate from the evil of said essential(using the satiation of that bodily

essential to do so).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL

 

Now we're nearly finished and near this book's end. The remaining writing,

is miscellaneous material:

The mating of two animals, from the farmer's point of view, is an

impassionate action, whereas from the animal's point of view it is a passionate

action. Evolution has caused animal reproduction to take the rewards from other

areas to deliver to that. (So that if we're going to take the rewards from other

areas, we need to share the rewards of all areas evenly instead.)

Because of death, animals have developed a need to reproduce to replace what

death has taken away. And so these animals loose (objective) control over their

reproduction. But if a group of animals overproduces themselves because of this

directive-to-reproduce then they'll put a strain on the resources they need to

live and feed on. And this will prevent sufficient quantities of young animals

from surviving after a time because all the older animals are eating all the

resources and food. After the older animals eventually die off, then that

society of animals suffers a marked decline for a long time until the few

remaining young animals can repopulate. And so, evolution thus selects for a

timely death so that animals do not live forever, but die after a time, so as to

make room for the young. Evolution selects a pattern whereby cells die after a

time. So that the old will be cleared away so young ones can be born to take

their place. Evolution seems to have created kind!

of a vicious cycle. In evolution, death selects for animals that have a drive

to reproduce. And in animals that have a drive to reproduce (who have lost

control over their reproduction), evolution selects for death of those animals

after a time.

 

In our high part's cycling between helping the low levels, and self

indulgent directive; the cycling frequency is based on the high part's needs for

its components to do both helping low levels, and self indulgence. But what if

the low levels needed a longer cycle time, with a drastically-longer helping low

levels from the high parts? Well, hopefully the high capability would

coordinate this within itself to rotate that duty. But if circumstances, like a

war with the devil or something, prevented that; then a chosen high part might

have to be longer in helping low levels than was good for Him, to his own

detriment. Well, yes, I could allow for a limited amount of this sacrificial

way, but with restriction. You see, this way of doing things isn't the best

way. We've shown that it's best for the high part to cycle at a frequency

according to ITS needs, and to coordinate that with other high parts if need be.

Thus for a high part to go the sacrificial way, is not to b!

e done in totality. To the extent that the high part functions and sees

themself as part of a greater whole that will later overcome this lesser way; a

high part can sacrifice themself. And a high part can do their share of

sacrifice. But it cannot be in totality, as this sacrificial way is a lesser

way; -to be improved upon. A high part that doesn't have a complete handle on

the universe, may attempt to overcome the referred to cycling dilemma in ways

other than the sacrificial -where after trying other ways and failing, a

higher-capability will in the end also include the sacrificial way. When a high

part fails, it ceases to be a high part. It dies. But in dying (a high part

ceasing to be a high part) in the sacrificial way, the former high part can

still succeed and regain high part status.

-If all or many of the high parts helped out, and shared the burden, (in a non

sacrificial way), there would be no need for the sacrificial way.

Now, if the high parts deliver most resources nearby the low levels, and not

directly to them, then the high parts can build up a supply of resources, for a

longer term low level usage. -It takes time for the low level good to grow out

into this supply to be able to use it; thus giving the high parts time to

generate that supply in the way that's best for them. I realize that not all

helping low levels is able to do this. -The act of creating in the low levels

requires direct, hands on help. But some help of low levels can be less direct,

(this helps the forces separate; and also makes it easy for high parts to

generate the helping-resources).

 

This section is the 'related Bible study' referred to earlier. Here I've

recently discovered a connection to my ideas on separation of the forces, with

an important Biblical passage. -Where using separation of the forces imparts a

great clarity and understanding of it.

Romans 4, 15: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no

transgression.

Romans 7,7: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had

not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had

said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 5, 13-14: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed

when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, . . .

Here we see that sin, or evil, was in the world, with or without the law. But

that what the law provides, is separation of the forces.

Romans 7, 8-13: But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all

manner of concupiscence.(Note the similarity in pronunciation to 'concubine').

For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but

when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which

was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the

commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the

commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death

unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by

that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

If we apply the idea that what the law provides, is separation of the forces;

this all makes some sense. When the forces are separated; instead of there

being one type of mixed material; -two purified, opposite materials emerge. We

can see Biblical reference to this, partly in the above, where sin becomes

exceeding sinful (or more purified/-not mixed). -And in the following (observe

the existence now of TWO distinct forces):

Romans 7, 15-17: For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I

not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent

unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that

dwelleth in me.

Romans 7, 21-23&25: I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is

present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I

see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing

me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members./ . . . So then

with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here, the evil part still exists, as it is still present within Paul; but it is

now one of two distinct entities listed here. Like it or not, here is the

evidence that the Bible uses separation of the forces. And the end result is

that the purified good part is saved (while of course our evil part, now in

separation, dies):

Romans 8, 1-2: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in

Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law

of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and

death.

Actually, it is Jesus Christ himself who does the separation of the forces

according to the Bible:

Romans 8,3-4: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the

flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,

condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled

in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Note that in this separating the forces, both the good and the evil are

done -that is, the evil is still present -(as opposed to preventing the evil

from coming out, or eliminating it here).

In reference back to essentials: the Bible says Christ will provide for our

needs. But what we do above our needs, is presumably sin. (And, at first, we

escape here.) But our doing of this causes us to then need this, and then it is

no longer 'sin', and thus we don't-escape here at that time.

 

Now I want to get into trying to find a reason why in developed countries

the birth rate goes down, whereas in 3rd world countries the birthrate is so

high. Of course resulting from that is kind of an 'aging of America' where the

median population tends to get older whereas in 3rd world countries it stays

young. I'm trying to find reasons for why this is so. When there is great

wealth and things, those things then come between people and get in the way of

person to person interaction. With more wealth and things available, there are

more diversions which involve people working or playing with things and not with

other people. For example, all the grown up toys, cars, snowmobiles, 3

wheelers, computers and games, amusement parks, scenic tours travel and movies

and TV about spectacular human interactions; couples often choose to avoid the

expense (in time and money) of children, so they can enjoy these other

diversions instead. When a society produces a substantial q!

uantity of things; along with those things comes an economic system to regulate

and distribute these things. People then become subservient to these things.

In 3rd world countries, only a few live like kings while the majority live

in poverty. But if a large number of people are going to partake of substantial

material wealth, then that's a lot of work, and a large number of people will

have to produce these items. So if the people who produce these items live in

the same country as those who receive the items, then there is a keeping up with

the Jones' mentality. But to be a have not in a developed country, is worse

than being that same have not in a 3rd world country, because the expectations

are so much higher in the developed country. Because so many people have a high

standard of living in a developed country, a higher standard of living is

required by the rules and regulations. For example, you can't just live in a

shack or small building or treehouse here in America (even though proper

sanitation be provided for): -building codes prohibit it. You have to have an

elaborate house of a certain size so you'll be pay!

ing enough property tax. While in a 3rd world country, there is no problem to

living in a shack. It takes much less work and material to build your shack but

much more work, materials, and energy use to build and operate an acceptable,

appliance equipped, developed country home. And if you're not wealthy, you'll

be working many years doing work to pay off your developed country home, car,

cloths and toys. This work prevents you from interacting freely with others

(other people that is).

When a person in a developed country spends a large part of their life working

in the economic system to pay for al the things one is expected to have in a

developed country, good clothes a nice house, a nice car, etc etc; then there

just isn't much time left for free person to person interaction. But when

people don't have walls, offices, cubicles and skyscrapers and automobiles to

compartmentalize everybody; then there is no 'thing' in between people to keep

them apart from each other. In 3rd world countries, all there is, is people.

And when people interact with people often enough, babies are the result. We

may be richer in things, but people in 3rd world countries are richer in

interpersonal relations. They have a network of friends and family whereby they

help each other. But when we get sick or need someone, we have to pay heavily

for our "friends" to help us out. And then we have to do all that much more

work (often alone, or with things/artificial intelligence !

devices, to pay off these bills, that is from going to the doctor to seeing a

shrink to having someone take care of our elders and our kids. And all this

working acts even further to prevent free interaction between humans.

When an old person dies, you would expect them to pass down their accumulated

wealth to their kids, but unfortunately the nursing home and medical

establishment get that money instead; here in America and developed countries.

With the children not being empowered, they can ill afford the expense of a

large family. In developed countries, parents with good jobs are expected to

put their kids through college. Parents often stop having kids because they

cannot afford to put additional children through college: whereas in 3rd world

countries, this is not a concern. Another way to think of this is that in

developed countries, the standard of living is higher so parents have fewer

children so the wealth isn't divided up too much, thus preserving the high

standard of living. Whereas in 3rd world countries there is little wealth to

divide up between offspring or high standard of living to preserve. But whether

the requirements and expectations we spend our time filling; or the d!

iversions and toys of developed countries; or just the desire to preserve and

pass on a higher standard of living; or just the effect of things and buildings

getting in between people to people interaction: it seems that developed

countries have a lower birth rate than 3rd world countries; thus leading to an

aging population in our case and Japan's case. Because of the anomaly of the

baby boom and the aging and retirement of the baby boom, resources are consumed

by these retirees (thus squeezing out a young family's ability to afford a large

family), and maintains a high demand on goods and services; while there are few

replacement young workers to supply that demand. The few young people in this

society are well sought after and would soon be paid highly (if business could

afford to do so) because they are in such short supply. Our society can't

afford to let people sit around on welfare anymore. But even if robots are

built to supply the needs of an aging population who !

are too old to work in hard factory jobs themselves; this system is just not

sustainable. -Eventually the old people die off or become senile. And this

system of preventing interpersonal interaction, comes to an end. (And as the

baby boom dies off, their demand for goods and services will disappear; thus

workers will not be needed so much. Thus a hard recession comes, with no safety

net, since welfare was axed. -Perhaps the rich (business) leaders would like to

kill off the elderly baby boomers so the shortage of workers during boomer

retirement (thus giving workers an upper hand over management) doesn't last

long; perhaps by provoking Arab countries into releasing biological weapons in

the US: -the germs preferentially killing off the elderly retirees.)

In the system where every transaction is based on master / servant dictatorship;

cooperation is not learned well, whereas in societies with more equality between

participants, cooperation IS learned. And there, interpersonal relations become

fuller, more valuable, thus edifying life first, over inanimate objects.

Aids will have an effect on this aging of America. Aids will exacerbate

this situation whereby all the young people are in 3rd world countries whereas

all the old people are in the developed countries. Aids will kill off the

adults in the 3rd world countries down to pre adolescence before youngsters

become sexually active. This will make room for a nation full of young people.

As these young people become sexually active, they (as a nation) will be able

to hold their won against Aids, because they will be having babies. And the

babies produced without Aids will replace those killed off by Aids. In

developed countries, however, Aids will further turn off sexual interaction so

that they will have no chance to replace the old with young new babies (unless

they develop some in vitro cloning program with numbers tattooed under their

skin to tell them apart).

 

What I want to talk about now, is what we can do as an individual. Larger

groups are made of individuals. But oftentimes a larger group will take steps

to control its individuals and keep them in line so that the group functions

smoothly so that the leaders of the group can have a free hand and power. In

response, those individuals who are sanctioned have little recourse. The

individual is much weaker than the group and can do little against it. But what

I've been searching for, is a way so that the individual can escape a group that

seeks to control its individuals and keep them in line. What needs to be done,

is to have a better alternative so that an individual can drop a bad group and

join a better group that instead of seeking to control and keep its individuals

in line, seek to better and enrich its individuals. This takes advantage of the

individual's ability to decide for themself what they like or dislike and to go

with what they like. A group should be s!

uited to that ability of individual choice. We wish to free individuals from

belonging to groups that they don't want to be in. And the way that we as

individuals do this, is not to individually take on these bad groups, but for us

as individuals to form a good group that does not overpower its individuals but

instead enriches them: and then we with that group, then through our group, take

on this bad group and free the individuals who are trapped in it. That means we

as individuals have to get together and form a group and create an alternative

to the bad group, so that individuals trapped in bad groups: all they have to do

is drop the bad group and join our group. Its the nature of competition: if you

don't like one way you can join a different way, an alternative way. So, if we

as individuals are going to get together and form a group, we want for it to be

a good group and therefore we must devise ways of getting together that prevent

our group from becoming a controll!

ing and overpowering group. We must devise ways of building a group that guard

against this. Once we have created a good group, we can use that group to do

all manner of things. There is one set of things that needs to be worked on

right away either through the group or individually. We as individuals are

trapped or ensnared in our essentials. It behooves us to free us from this

trap. This means that once we've established a safeguarded good group, that one

of the first orders of business is to make sure everybody is satisfied in their

essentials or that we be working on this task. Because if we try to function as

a good group while neglecting the freeing our individuals from their trap of

essentials, then we will have a bunch of trapped individuals trying to function

together as a group. So that our group will not function well because our

individuals, being trapped, themselves cannot function well, or have much to

pool together as a group. In our creating of a good !

group, we need to devise rules of getting together and expressing ourselves, so

that everybody has a chance. And this is one of the safeguards against any one

person or small group, dominating the group. If we make everyone a part of the

group in equal measure, then there's no way that the group can be dominated by a

few individuals. Yes, this is the type of group we're trying to build: one that

is not dominated by a few individuals; where all have equal participation

abilities. An idea I had in mind, was that people who wanted to speak and

address the group would line up and each person would get say 5 or 10 minutes to

express their views and then if they had more to say they would have to go to

the end of the line and wait their turn again. (this could be done

electronically).

If we are successful in forming a group then there's always going to be a bunch

of people who are going to try to become leaders and try to dominate the group.

And this is what we must be constantly guarding against and thwarting against.

It's the way our group functions and how it's put together. We must create

avenues to borrow resources from each other and share resources in a way whereby

everyone has an equal opportunity and equal use of them. And I think its good

to have an option and opportunity to do work for others in the group and help

the projects of others and receive credit for this, and then use that credit to

then get the group to do what you want for a moment whereby the credit you built

up would be expended.

 

I have an idea on our voting for political office, when there is more than

2 candidates. I think it would be better if we could vote for more than one

candidate. Like for president, there may be several candidates that are

acceptable to us, but now we have to pick just one. Like, perhaps there are two

candidates with similar positions, and a third, with an opposing, extreme

position. Even if most of the people preferred the position of the two similar

candidates; they would have to choose between the two candidates, and would thus

split their vote. So that it is possible, probable, that in this situation, the

more popular position looses out to the less popular, extremist position, due to

the splitting of the vote. A remedy to this, is to allow voters to vote for

more than one candidate that was acceptable to them. Or, a category for second

choice could be included in the ballot, where voters could vote for additional

candidates that were acceptable to them: where !

if, when the second choice votes were taken into account along with the first

choice votes, -when they indicated that another candidate had equaled or

surpassed the first choice winner: that a runoff election between just those

candidates, would be warranted. -Where all voters would cast only one vote, but

would vote to eliminate one candidate, and the candidate with the least 'kill'

votes would win the election, even if that meant unseating the first choice vote

winner. Or perhaps this could be done in a single election by allowing each

voter one vote for the candidate of their choice, plus one kill vote for the

candidate of their choice, where the candidate with the greatest kill votes

would be eliminated from consideration, even if they had the most popular votes,

and then from the remaining candidates, the one with the most popular votes

would be the winner.

Now, I get into other subjects. If we choose to satisfy our essentials, we

do whatever we do to satisfy them, but once we are full; like, take for example

'eating': you eat when you're hungry; but after awhile you become full and then

you stop eating (for awhile), and you get hungry again, and you eat, you get

full, and you stop eating, again. The idea is that we're inconsistent because

we start to satisfy an essential and then we stop (when we're full). We just

don't keep eating or keep satisfying the essential. -If it were a good action,

it would never end and it could keep growing. Which brings up an idea: well we

could satisfy our essentials by taking a small amount of nourishment constantly

-never having enough to satisfy us, but just enough to keep us going vs the idea

of eating your full and then stopping for awhile. In one case we always feel a

certain amount of hunger, although it's not overpowering, while in the other

case we cycle between being very hungr!

y, and not hungry at all (for a moment). What I would say is that the cycling

way is better because of the variability. If we always have a constant level of

hunger; that sort of is a system of stagnation where we maintain a balance of

stagnation: Whereas if you have the variability of hunger and then being full

-for a moment, there you are free from your essential: and that gives you a

chance to possibly work your way out of your essential and/or other things.

(And since we are at reduced capability because we are forced into these

essentials: it is this variability that we need to provide a possibility of

good getting out (I refer back to how the force of good overcomes the force of

evil in the long hard road in the beginning).

Recently I heard on the talk radio about addiction therapy and how people

can get real help if they are addicted to things like sex. Well, that's kind of

like saying you are addicted to air, or food. All these things we're tied to

our essentials, in that our bodies require them (in varying degrees). We have

been trapped of these essentials since the beginning of recorded time, and the

problem hasn't been overcome yet. To casually claim to have a solution to be

free of these, is, frankly, unrealistic. To claim that one set of rules to

satisfy the sexual urge is right; while other ways are wrong: well; you know

what I say: maybe just maybe, instead of the people who don't follow the rules

being wrong; maybe the rules themselves are incorrect. It's just that our way

of escape attempt from this essential, involves some feeding of the 'lusts of

the flesh' and some breaking the established rules. A plan that fails to

incorporate our escape attempt; and that fails to prot!

ect us from the destructive force in our bodies when we obey (which leaves us at

less life, and therefore being in the downward direction); is a plan itself that

we may be needing to be delivered from. -Because we are life, and as life, will

be looking to go in the upward direction. ie up with life. But then, there is

the allure and also valid possibility that we must die to remove evil, and then

we can be resurrected free from evil. But then, we will die eventually anyway

if we fail to totally overcome evil, and are thus guaranteed this possibility in

the end anyway. And thus we can use our life to also try escape in the upward

direction, and then in the end, if we fail and die, we also try the death

possibility. The only thing we need do, is to avoid/work against stagnation.

 

Some people have the idea that people who are different should be separated

from each other, and that superior beings should not have to serve or help the

lower forms of life and that they should be separated from each other, and that

superior beings should not have to serve or help the lower forms of life and

that they should be the master and the inferior being should be the slave.

Well, what about Parental Supremacy? I think you would agree that parents are

superior in almost every way to children -they are more powerful, more capable;

and therefore should be entitled to the goods of this earth, while the inferior

youngsters should be subservient. So this action by superior parents to

actually spoon feed their youngsters and the practice of the superior female

parent of actually giving part of her body in the form of milk: and in the

coddling of these inferior youngsters, just doesn't fit in with the superiority

of the superior being. And what is more different tha!

n a man from a woman? The idea that they should be allowed to actually live

together just goes against this idea of separating people who are different.

What I want to say is: that just because someone is more powerful and superior

(supposedly), to someone else, doesn't mean they can't help out those who are

not as well off as they are. In fact those superior beings who don't realize

the value, life sustaining force, and necessity of helping out the lower levels;

are but a blip on the horizon of life; an anomaly that will soon be escaped

from.

 

I have to admit, that if it weren't for religion and its constant

exhortations against the desires of the flesh; I would probably still think

nothing of my eating and lovemaking. I don't know if I ever would have stumbled

onto the fact that essentials are a problem. But after religion had alerted me,

and after some thought on the matter, I realized that there is a problem with

essentials. -That there is a destructive force in our essentials (especially

our eating). Religion did not cause this. But it did alert me to the problem.

That being said, I have to say that that's the best religion has to offer. The

solution to the problem of essentials, is something we all must try to achieve;

as we have no choice: like it or not, we all are beset with our essentials.

Another thing I've been in the dark about, is the concept of being a "Co

dependent", as espoused by therapy gurus. Recently I've caught a glimpse of its

meaning. The concept is for your happiness to depend on your partner in a

relationship. -Like a spouse asking: "Honey, how am I feeling today?" And that

instead of being co-dependent and looking to your partner for your strength when

your partner is down; you should find strength independently (within yourself)

so you can then boost your partner. (Well, I see a streak of independence

here.) It's like people who depend on each other so strongly for their own

needs, that when one goes down, they both go down. Well, yes, I agree it would

be nice if we all were able to be free of our essentials; and that we would have

enough inner strength to be happy on our own, without needing to depend on our

partner. But that's not always the case in the real world. Some people ARE

dependent too much on their partner. Once again!

, the greatest help this therapy concept provides, I feel, is alerting people

who are so used to their essentials and co-dependence: that there is a better

way and that this way is not desirable.

But just because there is a force of evil in an area, doesn't diminish the

goodness of the good things (such as loving and being loved by your partner).

Now, it is true that you should not take that force of good and feed it to a

force of evil. -But this is only if you can help it. If you're forced into

having the forces of good and evil together (either way), then you'll just have

to experience that and its corresponding stagnation, until you can work your way

out of it. And if that violates ethics, therapy suggestions, commandments and

morals while you are working out of it, then so be it.

 

When destruction (in the form of punishment) is used as a motivator; they

say do this, or we'll destroy you. do that or we'll destroy you. do the other

thing or we'll destroy you. Eventually, the list of things you must do to

prevent them from destroying on you becomes so complex and burdensome that it

itself destroys on you as much or more than their threatened destruction for not

obeying them. And to top it all off, you're going to die (be destroyed) anyway

whether you obey or disobey. Do not do destruction's work for it, by destroying

yourself through obeying their orders. Do not give the force of destruction the

benefit of the doubt. Do not believe it is as powerful as it claims

(threatens). If it's going to destroy you either way (obey or disobey), make it

work for its prize. Express your dislike of it by making it work for its prize;

by not working for it; by acting to get separate and away from it; by standing

apart from it, trying to create a better alte!

rnative system.

On one hand, we have all the orders to do this and that. On the other hand we

have one thing -destruction. After awhile, the orders become so numerous and

difficult that it's often easier to just deal with the destruction and forget

all the orders. If you learn how to deal with the destruction, you can save

yourself much bother. And if you learn to fill all the orders, you may learn

how to deal with the destruction.

 

Now I wish to express my new idea on fighting viral and bacterial

infections. The thing about bacteria and viruses, is that they live to multiply

rapidly, whereas, the much larger human cells, do not multiply so rapidly.

Thus, the bacteria and viruses replicate their DNA a lot whereas this is not so

much the case in human cells. From this, I see differing nutritional

requirements of human cells, vs, bacteria and viruses; in that viruses and

bacteria would need a good supply of the nucleotide bases (purines and

pyrimidines) that are the building blocks of DNA; while human cells would not so

much. So that if we could cause the food that we eat to be poor in these

constituents, that would make our body a poorer environment for (most) bacteria

and viruses, while allowing our human cells to thrive. But the foods that we

eat are mostly from the cells of other living organisms, as we eat the tissues

of other plants or animals. Those cells contain their own chromosomal DNA,!

their mitochondrial DNA, and RNA, along with everything else in each cell.

When we ingest these tissues, all is digested and broken down, including the DNA

material of those tissues. Now since our body doesn't need all the excess DNA

material, it is mostly eliminated. But in its passage through our body, I

presume that it makes an attractive environment for the growth of bacteria and

viruses. Now, if we could somehow remove that DNA material from our foods

before we ate them, we might prevent our bodies from being a good environment

for bacteria and viruses. But what foods would fit this bill? Well, cheese

comes to mind. Cheese is a condensation product, whereby the milk proteins are

condensed out of the milk as the curds, thus leaving all the rest of the

material behind in the solution (the whey). And if you think about cheese, you

will recall that it can sit out and it doesn't readily spoil. (It does mold,

but mold is a fungus, which is made of the larger eukarioti!

c cells like our own, and not like the smaller prokariotic bacterial cells.)

Tofu is a similar condensation product of soy protein, that is also free of the

fat that in cheese one can be allergic to in milk products. Yogurt, and cottage

cheese may also be a similar products. Products of plants that have been

processed to remove the germ (like corn starch and wheat starch), I would think

would be low in DNA materials, since those would presumably be concentrated in

the germ (for the growth of the new seedling). Likewise, eggwhites I would

guess, would also be low, as they would be more in the yolk (for the development

of the young chick). I would guess that boiling meats or plant materials in

water, and then throwing out the water, might extract some of the DNA. I have

also read that 1 Molar table salt solution will extract the DNA nucleaoproteins

from tissue samples. Thus eating pickled things may be good. ›(However, to

extract RNA, 1 Molar is too strong, and it needs !

..1 Molar.) There is a relation to the disease of gout here. Gout results from

a buildup of uric acid in the body and joints, which is a break-down product of

the purine part of DNA. Organ meats like liver and such are high in purines,

and gout sufferers are told to avoid them (along with legumes such as peas). So

we should also avoid these foods for our reason -things like balony, hot dogs,

etc. Gout causes joint pain. So does arthritis. Arthritis can have a

bacterial root, in that it is one's own immune system attacking a bacterial

toxin-antibody complex that has settled in the joints, in an inflammatory

response. (the symptoms of which can be relieved by the anti inflammatory action

of ibuprofen.) Remove the bacterial infection, and stop the progression of the

rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, diet used to control gout, may also help eliminate

bacteria, and thus stop arthritis.

Just think. This is a simple idea (cut raw meats up. soak in .1 M salt. then

soak in 1M salt. discard soak water. also, boiling meats a long time in water

twice and discarding the gravy water also seems to work well). But if it were

to pan out, just think of the scope of the potential good it could do.

Unfortunately, this would be quite inexpensive, and would eliminate the need for

the medical profession to perform (money making) services. Put all the

scientists in labs working on medical breakthroughs on one side, and compare

them to little ol me, with just a few thoughts to kick around, and perhaps I

don't come out so bad after all.

 

We have many rights under the rules which govern human behavior. But some

of these hinder our getting together and forming good groups. Property

ownership prevents (under penalty of law), all but the owner from having access

to the property in question. But I think it would be nice if there were to

exist, a club that people could join, where the rules over property ownership

were a little bit more lax. -The pushy people bend and break these rules

already: why should we more timid, poor, and minority people be hindered by

these rules? The rich hob knob with each other and share and borrow each others

goods at their convenience because they have more than they could ever use,

whereas the poor would be suspected of stealing if they did the same. I do not

care for the pushy people to have the advantage in getting together with people.

I do not like it when they run this world and my life. So I was thinking it

would be nice for the poor to have a club to join where the!

y could share their goods among each other. Here is how I think such a club

should operate:

People of the club would be given a list of the other members and where they

lived. Club members, after identifying themselves, would be allowed to enter

and make themselves at home in another member's home. They would be allowed to

eat whatever was available, but would not be allowed to cook anything, or use

any dishes unless they brought their own. They would not be allowed to ask if

they could cook anything; and only if the host offered to cook something would

they be allowed to answer. There would be no sanction for violating this part

of the club rules, but it would be understood that this was expected, and that

violation indicated that the guest was being rude./ There would be a 4 visit

rule. If a member visited another member's home 4 times, then the host member

would have the right to refuse that guest without loosing their membership,

unless someone else in that household wanted them to visit -whence membership

would be revolked for refusal to allow visit. (Eac!

h visit, the guest would be required to sign in with the date, on a single

visitor registry maintained by the host.) Otherwise, refusing a guest results

in loss of membership for two years (if the guest reports it). As for the

sharing of tools and equipment, no tools or equipment may leave the premises,

and must be used on the premises. This club would not cover the sharing of

automobiles or other vehicles to be used OFF the premises: that is left for

discussion between members. Members would be encouraged not to discuss the

borrowing of cars while visiting, but only later after they had left, on the

phone. Working on your car on premises is allowed, but for courtesy's sake, ask

permission -remember the 4 visit rule. If you break it, you are expected to

replace/repair it -but this applies to tools and equipment, not household

plumbing. If you do not replace/repair it, and it can be proved that you broke

it, you loose your membership for 2 years. Don't steal. If it is!

proved that you stole something of over a 25 dollar value, your membership is

permanently revoked. And even if it can't be proved, remember the 4 visit rule.

No people who work in law enforcement are allowed to be a member, and must join

their own exclusively law enforcement group. Doing laundry is allowed, but not

encouraged (ask permission. pay a fee worked out between the guest and host for

each load if you wish to avoid the 4 visit rule), and you cannot use the host's

laundry or dishwashing detergent in any case. -Remember the 4 visit rule. I

would like to see tolerance of a short 10 minute shower (10 minutes of water

running time), whereby the showerer pays the host 50 cents per shower, and

brings their own towels. Showering is allowed iregardless, but remember the 4

visit rule. No overnight hosting is required, and the guest is expected to

leave after 10 PM unless other arrangements have been made. A guest cannot

visit without the host being present. So, that is!

how I would see such a club running.

(Do not let the system of money and the rules of property and ownership over

inanimate things, keep you isolated and alone; and keep you from coming together

in groups. For if you divide (and isolate) yourselves as individuals, you'll

surely be conquered and enslaved even more than you are naturally. -There is

advantage in sticking together in a group, against the whiles of cunning

businessmen who feed off the conquered's labors.

Another club, a sub-group of the previous club, might be started to

accommodate we huggy feely people who like to hug and hold each other.

 

Recently, I've been provoked into responding to the Columbine shooting.

Newspaper articles come out and blame musical groups and TV/internet sex and

violence for the problem. They then claim that we should crack down on students

to instill morality, insist on conformity and stamp out student non conformist

expression. One paper was even appalled that students there were allowed to

wear sunglasses to class. Well, all I have to say, is that for a student to

wear sunglasses to class, or dress a certain way; would not cause quite as much

uproar as for a student to go around shooting. Compare the two. I don't think

it would have even made the papers if a student wore sunglasses to class. Why

do we find a student shooting others so much more abhorrent than a student

wearing sunglasses to class? Dah. I think its because one is much more

destructive of life than the other. But what is life? Life is more than just

the physical structure of our bodies. Our life, is also!

our thoughts and consciousness and their expression. To crack down on students

and force them to conform to dress codes and the like, is destructive to that

thought life. To bully and force people into your way of doing and thinking, is

a destructive act. Students shooting others is a destructive act. I abhor all

destruction. Both that of the Columbine shooting; and the bullying others into

conformity to what you think is right. Now sometimes destruction is a necessary

evil. But until it is clearly shown how destroying a student's ability to wear

sunglasses in class, stops school shootings, I can't call that a necessary evil.

And as for morality: perhaps the students who shot others (a destructive act),

lacked morality. But those who bully others into conformity (also a destructive

act -destructive to (thought) life) claim to be quite moral. So I don't see how

morality has an effect one way or the other: destructiveness continues to reign

freely either way. (Altho!

ugh, any action to separate the forces is valuable even if it doesn't eliminate

destruction's presence. -yet here, these moral people's morals don't condemn

their destructiveness to thought life, and thus don't help separate the forces.)

What I'd like to see is a morality that was more concerned with being against

destructiveness (all forms), instead of focusing so much on human sexuality.

"They strain at the gnat while letting the camel pass through."

 

Now then. It is the end. The Church of Philosophy recognizes that no one

person has all the insights; and now welcomes you to add your own ideas and

thoughts. Realizing how difficult it is to get published in today's world, let

alone making any money off being an author writing your own mind. The unibomber

blew up people to get his manuscript published. We hope our way is much less

destructive. (Although, if you depend on the organized systems to do your

thinking for you, this writing may be as explosive to your thought life, as any

real explosive. But then, is that my fault for pointing out the errors of the

system, or the system's for making them, or yours for not catching them? I

won't answer that one.) People make money selling books in bookstores, but

somehow, I don't think authors get much of that money. So, perhaps this vehicle

will change that. There is at this point, plenty of room on this disk; and room

enough for your ideas if you have that inkling to sha!

re ideas. So, just add a file on after the last file to add your material.

Thanx.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roy S. writes:

 

MODIFIED:

 

Through the Eyes of a Child

 

When young, we look out of ourselves upon an unknown, undefined world. We

don't know what's beyond the next line of trees and so it might be anything.

Part of growing up is defining what we see. In this way, we learn to recognize

things, place them into catagories, and so know without seeing what something is

and often even what lies beyond it.

Yet, we are burdened with enforcing the boundaries we set. We must see

what we expect, or somehow reconcile why we didn't. The unexpected is a threat.

We fall into fight or flight. What we cannot fight, we flee. We can't fight

reality but we can flee it by denying it.

The horizon extends around me for 360 degrees. So it is because so it has

been defined. But how if it extended 400 or 720 or even 10,000 degrees? Would

I even know?

Look out a window at the familiar scene outside. Look, knowing as you do,

what is around the corner or beyond the trees. Then look again through the eyes

of a child, pretending for the moment that you don't know. Feel the wonder

return. Feel the joy in living surge up again within you.

What have we done to ourselves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FILE BREAK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about destruction and destructiveness: Do we need it? or can we get by

without it? Do we need a little bit to give us challenges -to keep us sharp (so

we don't atrophy); and to weed out the weak and inferior people, in a social

evolution type program? The idea that we need harshness/destruction to give us

challenges (to keep us sharp), is invalid, since as we GROW(destruction-free),

we encounter (non destructive)barriers to growth, and then overcome those

barriers in non destructive ways. These are challenges which exist and which

keep us sharp and we don't depend on destructiveness for this.

With destruction present, stagnation is also present, as people are unable to

grow and outgrow the stagnation, as destruction destroys their growth and keeps

them stagnant. It is actually the people caught in stagnation, who use

destruction to give challenges to keep them sharp, who use destructiveness to

weed out the inferior and to run their command system: -it is actually these

people who are at a learning disadvantage because they have no experience

overcoming the barriers to growth outside their stagnation, since their

stagnation from destruction keeps them from growing. Those free from

destruction's stagnation have the more well rounded education, as they are able

to have experience overcoming barriers to growth beyond the area of stagnation;

unlike those in stagnation who've never grown to those high levels. So this is

a resounding denouncement of social evolution, and of evolution in general, that

uses destruction to weed out the weak and inferior. No. Instead we !

should take the weak and inferior, and help them and bring them up to our level

so we all advance together as opposed to our group fragmenting and pulling

itself apart.

 

What about destruction and harshness? Why is it so popular? Well,

destruction and harshness has an effect on people. People respond to it.

People under the gun say, we'll do anything you ask if you'll just not hurt us.

Destruction (punishment) can be used as a deterrent. People will obey your laws

if you punish those who break our laws. It is a means of control to get people

to do what you want. People will obey a boss and do what they say so the boss

doesn't punish them.

Some people make a distinction between rewards vs punishment. And there is a

valid distinction. To deny a reward if someone doesn't do what you say, isn't

hurting them, and still leaves them to their own devices to overcome the non

destructive barriers to growth they are up against: but to punish, if someone

doesn't do what you say; is a direct harmful act. However, in the area of

essentials, this distinction (between rewards vs punishment) no longer exists

nor is valid, since to deny someone the reward of their essentials, is the same

as punishing them, since without their essentials, a person's own body harms

itself: so that here, harm is done and not avoided in either case.

Destruction then is popular as a means of control to get people to do what the

boss says. It is what whole systems can be based on and how organizations and

groups can function and be run on. -if you as an individual don't do everything

the group wants, then they'll punish you or deny you (the reward of) your

essentials, -which forces your body to harm you. If you don't do all they say,

you'll be harmed, is the message. And this is how they get people together in a

group to do things together. Can't we come up with a better way of running a

group? that doesn't use destruction/harm?

Now, the effect of destruction: -that many people will obey -some even totally:

is not the only effect of destruction: also a consequence of this very

destruction, is that some or many are hurt and harmed (just to keep deterrence

alive) (America has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates). And

with people being harmed, growth is hindered thus resulting in stagnation. The

price we pay for letting the bosses have their way under such a heavy handed

system, is that the group is made a stagnant group by this. With the

individuals brought low and kept on a short leash, there is less trouble from

these individuals. Individuals here are easier to control; and it is true that

if you give them more freedom and more resources, they will give you more

trouble. But the individual is not going to be the source of trouble for the

stagnant group. It is alternative groups -growth groups, that allow their

individuals much more freedom and build up the individual position, tha!

t will give the stagnant groups trouble. Since this type of group doesn't harm

their individuals nor keep them low; there will be growth over stagnation, and

this will be a growing group that outperforms/does much better than the stagnant

group. Individuals in the stagnant group will then abandon it and join the

alternative growing group. So if the cost of freedom for our individuals, is to

have a little more trouble from our individuals, then I say we should pay that

price to order to have a growing group and not a stagnant one.

Now then. When a group has rules to enforce; some people get the job of

policeman to enforce those laws. What I want to point out is that the job of

policeman is a destructive one. That is what a policeman mainly does -is be

destructive. They write tickets that take away your money, they put boots on

your car so you can't drive it they arrest people and throw them in jail thus

taking away their freedom, they club and shoot people. Basically all they do in

their job is be destructive. I just want to establish that point first off:

-that we can be nearly 100% certain that their job requires them to be

destructive. Of course, they are only destructive to lawbreakers. Now if the

laws they uphold/enforce are laws based on destruction vs growth (where a

lawbreaker is always being destructive by breaking the law), then the police

will be being destructive to a destructive lawbreaker. and will thus prevent

that lawbreaker from doing their destruction onto innocent citi!

zens. The innocent citizens, having been saved from a destructive act intended

by a lawbreaker, can do more good having escaped being harmed; and the policeman

then shares in being the cause of that good (along with the innocent citizens

that have been spared).

But if the laws the police uphold, are not based on destruction vs growth, but

are just the whims of some dictator or group of bosses, then those who break

those laws are not destructive so that those police do destruction unto non

destructive lawbreakers. In this case, the police have not caused any good, and

are just as bad and harmful as destructive criminals and are worse than the non

destructive lawbreakers and other innocent citizens. Just realize that if you

ally yourself with destruction, it is not easy to turn that into something good.

Although it can be done by policemen upholding just laws in as least destructive

a way as possible. However, policemen upholding unjust laws -which cause

them to do destruction unto people who do no destruction by their lawbreaking;

are just one of the instruments of stagnation by which stagnant groups hold down

their individuals and thereby stagnate, and are overgrown by growing groups.

Policemen enforcing just laws is the only!

valid exception -otherwise the enforcement of other laws and rules causes much

of the harm that stagnates that group and makes it a stagnant group.

 

If you set one mirror in front of you, and one mirror behind you: a person

can see many duplicate images of themselves. As we humans go through generation

after generation of humans; this process of living and dying and passing on

genes to offspring, generation after generation; has effects on us, as well as

all living (and dying) things; so that we are not duplicated exactly as the

images in the mirrors are. This process of one generation living and dying and

being replaced by the next generation: and then that generation in turn replaced

by the next and so on and so forth -so that over the history of a life form

there is a sequence of many generations on down the line: -this process of

generational transfer itself, I suggest, has effects on the life form involved

in it. One effect I suggest it has, is it causes a liking of sex or sexual

desire to be amplified and selected for.

Another effect it has (I suggest), is it favors a system of reproduction by as

few of the members are allowed to mate as is needed, resulting in sexual

frustration for the rest of them. -Like the male walrus takes on a harem of

cows and drives off the other males. -Just think: if a gene codes for a little

more testosterone and makes a more aggressive male and the more aggressive males

are able to corral and take all the females for themselves and prevent the other

males from breeding; then the gene coding for more testosterone is passed on

while the others are not -resulting in more aggressive males and favoring this

setup where a dominant male drives off the other males and takes all the females

for himself.

Generational transfer selects for a liking of sex. In the genetic variability

(of sexual reproduction -as opposed to cloning or asexual reproduction) -some

genes would code for the liking of sex while others code for not liking sex or

being ambivalent to it. Those with genes for not liking or being ambivalent to

sex would not have sex and thus not have offspring: thus these genes would be

weeded out (not passed on). -leaving only genes for the liking of sex to be

passed on from generation to generation. How do these our genes, cause us to

like sex? Just as our bosses use punishments and rewards to get us to do what

they want; nature also uses bodily punishments and rewards to get us to do what

it wants. So that if adults aren't allowed to have sex, their body punishes

and/or denies rewards to itself: thus keeping these people down low -at reduced

capability; and thus in stagnation.

Now, another thing that generational transfer (evolution to some) selects for,

is concubines, harems; and a frustration of the sex drive for all but a few.

The animal kingdom is filled with a dominant male or female siring the majority

of the offspring, while the rest go sexually frustrated -and thus brought low

and in stagnation. Consider the behavior of having an aggressive drive to take

and corral all the females to yourself, and females with a drive to passively

congregate in groups to be sired by a dominant male: vs males and females freely

intermixing. The one who is able to corral all the breeding to themselves is

able to deny other breeding systems from being passed on, while causing this one

system of a dominant animal breeding, to be the one passed on -to the extent

that genes can control this. (And this benefits the group by toning down the

variability of sexual reproduction so as to lock in the best addapted

individual.)

Recall the concept of property and ownership: what does it mean to own

something and to have something belong to you? It means that only you can use

it -that others cannot use it, but you can. All the animals practice this

concept of ownership religiously, in the area of mating; in that the dominant

male does own the breeding rites to his harem, so that no other male may share

in them. Perhaps our human concept of ownership is a throwback and comes from

evolution and what the animals have been doing for eons: -as a byproduct or

effect of generational transfer. -Where only the few rich enjoy the spoils while

everyone else suffers in poverty. As thinking intelligent animals: are we going

to passively accept this as reasonable if it is just an effect from generational

transfer -of life passing from one generation to the next many times?

Now, what many animal systems have been doing for eons in that dominant animals

breed the next generation while the rest are left in sexual frustration; has

deeper advantages than just being the one selected for by generational transfer.

You see, a long time ago in earth history, the prominent type of reproduction

(by plants) was asexual -basically cloning exact copies of the parent, with an

occasional mutation. But this strategy didn't work well because when a change

in the environment occurred; these life forms were unable to adapt very fast to

the new environment. Thus nature came up with sexual reproduction ie flowering

plants. With sexual reproduction, the offspring were not exact clones of the

parents, and greater variability was introduced into the gene pool. With sexual

reproduction , life forms were more quickly able to adapt to changes in the

environment, -due to being able to produce a more varied group of life forms.

Now, the best strategy would be to use the greater variability of sexual

reproduction to quickly produce the best adapted animals to a changed

environment: but once that new environment had stabilized -to then lock in that

best-adapted-animal by then toning down the variability of sexual reproduction

and going back to a less variable mode similar to cloning. When the

environment is stable, and the variability of sexual reproduction has produced

the nearly perfect animal suited to that environment, then it would be best for

that animal to go back to cloning and abandon the variability of sexual

reproduction, as any further varying of the perfect animal (for that

environment), could only result in less perfect animals -thus wasting the

group's life resources.

Thus when the environment is stable and we have the best suited animals; we

don't want sexual reproduction (with its lots of variability): yet we wish to

retain a sexual reproduction with the POTENTIAL for considerable variability in

the event the environment becomes unstable in a catastrophe and changes

markedly. Now, the advantage I speak of in having only the dominant males

breeding; is in controlling the variability of the gene pool and offspring. You

see, in addition to this system being selected for by generational transfer; it

also delivers survival advantages to the group. By having only the dominant

males sire offspring; the variability of sexual reproduction is suppressed

(-since they all have the same father, they're more genetically similar than if

they had different fathers). This also preserves a greater potential for

variability within the process of sexual reproduction itself, as such isn't

otherwise weeded out during times of environmental stability.

In the system of the dominant male chasing the other males away and corralling a

harem for himself: although this system is both selected for by generational

transfer; and also imparts survival advantages upon the group; it also causes

the greatest sexual frustration of the sex drive (-the drive also being an

effect of generational transfer). -The males chased away are all sexually

frustrated. The harem, assuming an equal libido in the female, is also not well

satisfied as many females have to share one male. Only the dominant male is

sexually satisfied. Note that the sex drive is the other thing selected for by

generational transfer, and that frustrating it is difficult; so that an animal

system which may be attempting to lock in a best adapted animal in a stable

environment (and thus better the groups survival); may fail to achieve this, as

the great sexual frustration which is a byproduct of such an attempt, may cause

the inferior frustrated males to breach this system.!

The inferior frustrated males may be able to breach the system that is

preventing them from being sexually satisfied, and thus make a failure out of

the group's attempt to better its survival in this way. -This is why in nature,

not all animal systems follow this dominant male driving out the inferior males.

 

Now then. We are different from the animals in that we have greater

intelligence. We might be able to come up with a better way to achieve the same

goals, without all the sexual frustration. The animals are forced to use the

sexual frustration way to achieve this survival goal: we are not.

This, our intelligence, has been expressed in religion and what controls there

are on how we mate and reproduce.

In the days of old, are stories of sultans and harems, and of kings with their

concubines. This is just like the animal systems where dominant males claim

ownership over the females. But great sexual frustration is the disadvantage

from that way. So where we are now, is that a compromise has been reached.

Sexual frustration has been eased a bit in allowing each person a mate, while

still retaining some sexual frustration. And what sexual frustration remains is

now more easily enforced (to remain).

Religion has eased the stagnation from sexual frustration some, by eliminating

the dominant male/harem concept, and replacing it with the one man one woman

way. Yet, religion doesn't want to go too far with this easing sexual

frustration, as ownership is still maintained over the sexual area by the

spouse.

As an aside note: the idea of God as the biggest, most dominant male, and that

he corrals the nuns for himself, is just repulsive to me. God is big because He

is good and kind and benevolent and from the power of good: not because he has

bred himself up into the heavens.

 

So, as thinking people, perhaps we could gain the best of both worlds instead of

settling for compromise in all areas -that is we put up with some sexual

frustration in order to obtain some reduction in the variability of our

reproduction (during times of stable environment).

Perhaps we could go back to only the dominant or chosen men siring offspring.

But to eliminate the sexual frustration this would cause; free sex would be

allowed; yet no offspring from such free sex would be allowed. -when the

environment is stable. But when catastrophes occur then free sex plus offspring

from that free sex would be the chosen mode.

Now, the idea of dominant males fathering the human population is probably too

barbaric (and too much like the animals) for most people, including myself. (I

cannot guarantee that these ideas are even the truth -they just seem to fit.

-you have a mind too. Think for yourself. Mine is only to suggest and make

aware.)

So, we could have monogamy that we have now, except that marriage would now be a

contract between one man and one woman concerning the siring of children, and

would not cover sex between individuals that didn't involve the conception of

children (ie with a condom or between partners where the woman was past child

bearing age).

With harems and dominant males, there is maximum sexual frustration. Previously

I saw no use or validity for any sexual frustration. But recently I realize

that it does have a benefit -that of locking in the best adapted animal for a

current stable environment, once the variability of sexual reproduction has

generated that best adapted animal. Even so: even though I now realize the

benefit and reasoning behind it: I as a thinking intelligent animal, believe

that there is a better way to obtain this benefit, without the sexual

frustration (and its corresponding stagnation from destruction within our

bodies). Animals have no other option but this sexual frustration way. It has

taken animals this long to generate capable and intelligent humans: who now can

obtain this benefit in better ways, not relying on so much sexual frustration.

 

I see the white supremacist as a group of people trying to tone down the

variability of their reproduction and lock in what they believe to be the

superior human; while the inferior but oversexed non whites threatening to

destroy all their hard work (of putting up with being sexually frustrated). So

they go out and kill non whites. Racism has a root here too. Mustn't let the

races intermarry, due to the great variability in the offspring that would

generate.

What irks me, is that if this toning down the variability of our reproduction in

times of stability, is behind all this -with religion's regulation of sex, to

racism, to hate groups; then we as thinking humans, ought to be able to come up

with a better way to accomplish this than the animals, that doesn't rely on

sexual frustration.

 

Evolution (or generational transfer) and adapting to an environment; are not

very good systems. Due to their stagnation (from the presence of destruction),

they never get beyond where they are at in their current environment. They do

very well within their current environment though. But when the environment

changes, they must start all over and do it all over again, because their

experience and skill at coping with anything beyond the current environment; is

nil.

The systems in stagnation of adapting to current environments, are not very good

systems, but may be all we've got. All we can do is work with what we've got

and make the best of it.

 

God is beyond using stagnant methods. The method of evolution and toning down

variability in our reproduction using sexual frustration, are methods based in

stagnation and are stagnant methods. God is certainly the most dominant male,

but He would not use these methods. The set of genes discarded by evolution in

adaptation to the last environment, may very well be selected for in the next

environment, as the environment changes. Evolution never gets the big picture,

and is forced to forever repeat its mistakes in stagnation. If the sexual

frustration of some animal systems (-the ones with the dominant male driving out

the other males) if the religion of some animal systems is just as good as

our religion, then the intelligence and better skills we have, have not been of

any use here: and thus are just things to be fooled and boondoggled and tricked

into self eliminating and being discarded. If the purpose of some preaching is

to stun the mind and remove our greater m!

ind and skills, then I think we can do better than that. I thought the

evolutionists and creationists didn't get along. For the creationists to

utilize evolution to

For religion to utilize evolution to accomplish goals, is no better than the

animals, and is a stagnant and poor way to do things. The Bible can be

interpreted many ways: unfortunately, the present day interpretation by

religion, tends to rely on evolutionary adaptation and sexual frustration to

decrease variability in our reproduction. Of course, this is just

coincidental, and religion I am sure, never consciously used sexual frustration

to accomplish these ends. But it does point to an indicator that religion has

come from out of the traditions of men through the ages and has been distilled

from that -with no outside help strongly evident.

 

I've spoken incorrectly if I say that God is not within the scriptures. What I

mean to say, is that those parts of religious writings including the scriptures

which promote and/or cause sexual frustration: are of the traditions of men;

-are from men and their past -even from animals; and are not from God nor the

glory of God. For whatever other reasons and motivations religions impose

sexual frustrations: a major reason and use for sexual frustration still is in

the evolutionary, adaptability, genetic system. The evolutionary system is a

stagnant system infected of destruction, that we animals experience as a

consequence of us living and dying here on this earth generation after

generation. God, if He ever came from such a system; now is much beyond it, and

now uses evil free methods (which are growing and not stagnant). God does not

use the evolutionary method. Man and animals use what situation they find

themselves in (the evolutionary method) as they compete against !

each other for a better spot on this planet. Whatever religion claims as other

reasons for its imposed sexual frustrations: there still remains this major

benefit from sexual frustration according to the system of evolution/adaptation.

Even many animal systems utilize such sexual frustrations for this benefit, even

more so than we and our religions do. Yes, it is true that the new testament

does not rely heavily on sexual frustration since it does not inflict the

maximum frustration as is found in harems and concubines and many wives; but

instead settles for the compromise of one man one woman (if one cannot contain).

Thus I cannot say and was incorrect in saying that this religion solely is the

tradition of men. Yet, this our religion aspires to sexual frustration even

beyond that found in the harems and concubines system. -although perhaps with a

higher purpose yet that higher purpose is not sexual frustration nor imposed

sexual compliance but is instead a personal ma!

tter.

The biological fact is that we reproduce sexually (not asexual). (God made them

male and female). And the thing about sexual reproduction is that although

this method is superior and needed for adapting to changes in the environment;

it is an inferior method for reproducing in a stable environment -which is most

of the time -so that most of the time, the variability of sexual reproduction

will need to be toned down as much as possible: and this is where the sexual

frustration comes in. You may say religion has other reasons and higher

purposes for imposing sexual frustration; but I say that in this aspect and area

the animals do just as good and have just as good a 'religion' if we believe

sexual frustration is the key to obeying our God. It would be confused whether

the source of this sexual frustration was from God, or from the evolutionary

adaptation system. This sexual frustration is well ingrained in many animal

systems. (It also has a destructiveness and a stagna!

tion of its own.) I find that its source is from the tradition of men and from

the history of men and animals -that history bearing down upon us. I do not see

God as using stagnant destruction laden methods like we are forced to, but

instead, evil free, growing methods. In my personal experience, I am convinced

at least for myself that there are spiritual beings of goodness (angels if you

will). There have been so many times I've been saved from destruction by what I

feel has been an outside intervention, that I cannot count them. And my

personal experience also convinces me of the existence of strongly destructive

spiritual forces/beings. So, I believe. But what I don't see, or believe is

that these beings of goodness and kindness and benevolence have anything to do

with the use of any kind of sexual frustration for any purpose. I just don't

buy it and I don't see the connection. Instead, I see the use of sexual

frustration by religion or otherwise, as something that!

has come from men and the traditions of men.

Now then. With that being said and out of the way, I must proclaim that human

sexuality is tricky, imperfect and also a stagnant thing; and that unless you

know how to do your essentials and quasi essentials in the best way you can;

that the other stuff just doesn't matter.

Human sexuality is imperfect and can be frustrating, and often frustrates

itself: and that's not religions fault. but instead is solely the fault of the

imperfect nature of human sexuality itself. So instead of my cutting down

society's attempted solutions; let me propose my own solution. If I do not have

anything to replace the ways I criticize, then might as well go back to the old

criticized ways, as something is better than no way at all. -feel free to

attempt your own solutions if you have ideas.

 

 

Now I wish to correct an error in concepts. Previously I had said we want to

avoid focused growth, (or that focused growth causes problems that additionally

need to be handled), and preferentially do overall growth. I now wish to

somewhat reverse that idea.

 

There are two modes of action we can act with. We can be more reserved and

held-back -not snapping up every action that comes along. Or we can be

unhindered in our action, doing whatever we like, and being open to every action

that comes along. Now if we do all we like and are unhindered, we do many

actions, and this represents an overall growth. But the force of

destructiveness has its way of being part of many of the possible actions we can

do: -so that to avoid it, one has to markedly limit the possible actions they

do. But since we're not limiting our actions but are being unhindered, we don't

avoid these destructive parts of actions; but include them. Since we have a

greater selection of actions we have more options. We have overall growth and

enjoy the benefits of interrelatedness. We can get things done faster, and

do/produce more this way in the short run/individually. But since the presence

of destruction is included, this becomes a stagnant system at some !

level as what we built up a short time ago, gets knocked down -and we keep

building up and getting knocked down over and over. Yes, the presence of

destruction is the overriding factor. The interrelatedness and overall growth,

provide for greater achievements and higher growth rates, but stagnation still

takes hold -just at a higher capability level. There is always the temptation

to produce/do a little bit more (individually), by doing a way that achieves

this but that also does more destruction (drive the slaves a little harder.

crack the whip a little more).

Now then: alternatively, there is the mode-of-action of being more reserved and

held back -of not doing everything you want. If we restrain ourselves from

doing some ways because they contain too much destruction as part of them, then

we will have limited the number and type of ways available to us. We will do

less things. Since we're doing fewer things, we can say we're more focused.

We avoid evil/destruction, but have to put up with lower (individual) growth.

Since we do fewer things, we are thus unbalanced concerning interrelated needs;

so we don't achieve overall growth, But the growth we do achieve is long

lasting due to the freedom from destruction.

So now I've presented two modes of action. Both have their advantages and

disadvantages. What I propose is we use both, in hopes of gaining the

advantages of both.

In the reserved/focused way, fewer good things are produced, and those that are,

are of lower quality ›(at least at first)› -due to going it alone where

interrelated needs aren't met, and overall growth isn't done.

What I propose is to do things in the unhindered way (which has higher short

term growth and can do more individually) until that generates something good

and valuable and worth saving: and then before that valuable something gets torn

down, as we continue with the unhindered way: that we then lock this valuable

something in by being more reserved with it and no longer doing so many ways

which contain destruction in them, with it. Now this good and valuable

something that we locked in and 'saved', continues to exist and also produce

growth of its own. But what it will produce, will be of lesser quality and of a

lower growth rate. The reason being, it now no longer has so many options of

what it can do, because it's no longer unhindered, but is now more reserved and

held back. -Now doing only a few things, it doesn't take advantage of the

interrelatedness between things and of overall growth: and thus produces poor

quality material compared to what it could do as unhindere!

d. This poor quality material is then thrown back into the melting pot, by

setting it at unhindered mode, unlike its parent which is at reserved/held back

mode. ›(However, after a long time -many lifetimes; enough material is saved

in reserved mode, so it provides some semblance of interrelatedness and overall

growth)›.

What I propose, is that out of any production of an action, there is some of it

of excellent quality some of average quality; and some of poor quality. -We

then throw all but the best back into the melting pot of unhinderedness. -Or;

we select the best to pull out of the melting pot of unhinderedness into the

reserved mode.

Just remember that most of what is produced by the ›(early›) reserved mode, is

of lesser quality and will thus be mostly all set to unhindered mode. -just the

opposite of its parent.

Now then. So far it seems like all the lesser quality material will always be

unhindered. But this is only a method for doing essentials. This will be so as

long as we're satisfying an essential or some need is pulling at us. But when

we're satisfied in our essential and we wish to rest; we then no longer do

unhindered mode with the lesser quality material, but instead, also do reserved

mode with them. You see, unhindered mode includes destruction in many of its

ways. Essentials contain destruction/evil in them anyway, so this isn't

introducing any new evil, when we're satisfying essentials. But when we're done

with essentials for a time and wish to rest, we get out of this method of doing

essentials, and put out the flames of evil until our need (from us not yet being

overall enough nor interrelated enough in our evilfree (reserved) way), pulls us

back into doing essentials again.

Finally, lets not forget that an additional function of the unhindered material,

is to preferentially fill the vacuum that destruction creates -that is, both the

destruction within essentials; and the destruction of evil attacks (not related

to essentials).

 

Note that as we add to the abstinent parts, -(what abstinent parts we do have,

have come from and were once the unhindered mode). As our lesser quality parts

are still working the unhindered mode: they are then not chosen to be abstinent

parts at the point the previous abstinent parts were, but remain in unhindered

mode, to achieve the higher growth that the current existing abstinent parts

wish they could. Only when these unhindered parts go beyond the current

abstinent parts, are they then chosen. And this repeats until the essential is

completed. In other words, do it again. go round the 2nd time. Come back for

seconds. (But the abstinent parts are not what go round a second time: only

the unhindered parts.

A question comes to mind: can't we achieve the complete essential once in held

back, or abstinent mode, and then forever more do it in unhindered mode

(according to these rules)? Well, the purpose of the held back mode, was to

save out the best from the unhindered mode. It is a production, and the

unhindered mode is always producing (as long as we're in it), and so good

material is constantly needing to be saved, so no, we can't just achieve the

essential once in held back mode. But on the other hand it is the held back

mode which has the needs which motivate the choosing from out of the unhindered

mode. Thus when one stage of an essential is achieved in the held back mode (as

delivered/chosen from the unhindered mode); then the held back mode's need for

that stage is satiated, while it then finds need for the next stage. Thus what

is chosen next from the unhindered mode, (for the held back mode), is not more

of the same stage.

 

Or: why save only one type of material into the held back mode, and by doing so

prevent the unhindered mode from creating the next stage, so that only one

stage is saved? No. -Do not limit what the held back mode saves. Instead,

once some current stage is saved: if necessary ((to generate the next stage),

-allow the best of the current stage now to remain in unhindered mode until it

generates the next stage; then save the best of the next stage. Repeat this

process until the complete essential is both saved in held back mode, and

expressed in unhindered mode (with some material in 'saved', and some in

'expressed').

 

Lets look at this again from the viewpoint of need.

Remember that whenever we temporarily have no need of an essential, we no longer

do any unhindered mode, not even with our lesser quality parts. The unhindered

mode generates a more valuable part intermittently and randomly, and not in a

consistent or organized way: A piece here, a piece over there. As we save out

valuable pieces from the unhindered mode, we get a hodgepodge of distantly

connected pieces. Each of these mostly isolated pieces, has interrelated needs

for other areas where there's usually not yet another valuable high quality

piece (saved from the unhindered mode) to be interrelated with. These lonely,

isolated high pieces then feel a lot of need. This is compounded by their new

mode - the held back mode; where they're no longer able to use any means

available, but are now limited to actions that are destruction free. It's

mainly this need of the held back mode that drive us. Any need in the

unhindered mode is quickly satisfied by it doing what it wants !

and the use of its interrelated network to deliver satisfaction.

To satisfy the needs of the held back mode, the held back material does not then

re enter the unhindered mode, as then the valuable material would no longer be

saved out as it re entered the fray: it would be short lived in the fast paced

unhindered mode. Instead, the needs are met by changing the lesser material

from its resting stance of a held back mode, to the activity of the unhindered

mode; and then selectively saving out valuable material it generates, that the

held back mode needs. Once the held back mode's needs are met, then there's no

longer a need for the unhindered mode, and the lesser material returns to a held

back mode. Now, lesser material in held back mode is even less able to satisfy

its needs, mainly due to being limited in what it is allowed to do (as it can no

longer do just anything it wants). And so these needs then intermittently pull

the lesser materials out of rest and into its unhindered mode. (This is unlike

the valuable parts in held back mo!

de which never reenter the unhindered mode -alternating back and forth between

unhindered and held back modes). But of course, in the unhindered mode, these

needs are quickly met, and the lesser material falls back into rest in a held

back mode. The lesser material then cycles between unhindered and held back

modes when not serving the needs of the valuable parts of the held back mode.

 

Oh, and just remember: at the point where material is chosen to be saved out of

the unhindered mode: -not all is chosen, only the best.

Also note that just because the unhindered mode hasn't yet generated a needed

material for the advanced material in held back mode, doesn't mean that that

need doesn't exist. It does, and it motivates us to keep on generating in the

unhindered mode (with the lesser material).

And then when the unhindered mode finally does generate that material type, and

you then choose the best of it to go to held back mode: the remaining material

has the choice of being unhindered or resting as held back. -but at this time

of need satisfying, it almost always chooses to be unhindered until the held

back mode's needs are satisfied.

Now, when the held back mode's needs are satisfied, as may happen when enough

material covering all the different areas makes it to held back mode: then it is

conceivable that the needs of the lesser quality materials would then drive any

unhindered mode. (Here, the lesser material's needs would be quickly satisfied

in unhindered mode and so would go to rest in a held back mode (where their

needs would again grow). The lesser material would thus cycle rapidly between

unhindered and held back mode. Now, in unhindered mode, when some new material

is chosen to be high quality held back mode, that then creates need in the held

back mode due to this one thing's interrelated need for other high quality

areas, -if the previous high quality completed whole had left this system and no

longer received from the unhindered mode due to being self sufficient in itself

-and growth would thus continue.

Yet there will be times when no need pulls on us. In these times its important

to return all the (lesser quality) material in unhindered mode; to held back

mode. In held back mode, this lesser material won't cease to exist, and will

still continue to do things: just not so actively -just a little more held back

(in what it does).

 

In general, whenever you allow any unhindered mode: don't forget to also

periodically choose the best of that out of there, into the held back mode -as

exceptional items periodically appear in this unhindered mode.

Now when there is a destructive force or evil attack nearby; and you in response

activate some of your lesser quality material (from their rest in held back

mode), into unhindered mode -(in order to have material to preferentially feed

to the vacuum created by destruction): also choose out, into held back mode;

exceptional items that are generated there, if you can get to them before the

evil destroys them. And also remember that when preparing material to feed

the vacuums created by destruction: that we share or split the unhindered area

between feeding the vacuum from the destruction of an evil attack; and supplying

our (interrelated) needs.

 

I remember the Bible verses in the Gospel where Jesus tells of the Pharirisses

saying: they heap up burdens upon men, grievous to be born, yet against them

they lift not a finger. And then the following verse Jesus says to obey the Law

(of Moses). And Jesus also says to take his yolk upon you for his burden is

light.

Previously I hadn't understood this set of verses, but now I make some sense of

them: With the harem master; that places heavy burdens of sexual frustration

on other men, but he himself experiences no sexual frustration.

With the compromise of one man one woman, the burden is light compared to that

of the harem system. With this compromise, enforcement of this light burden of

sexual frustration is much more sure; thus some sexual frustration is more sure

and is ensured. This keeps us on track for toning down the genetic variability

from our sexual reproduction; whereas harem systems are much more unstable, as

hoards of extremely sexually frustrated men are always trying to break through

that system; and when they do, thus defeating the harem system's ability to tone

down variability from sexual reproduction. Once we settle in to accepting that

level of sexual frustration from the compromise way, and are able to handle it;

then we can progress to further stages of sexual frustration as we are able.

And then there is the Bible verse 'no man comes to the Father but by me (or

this compromise way). This seems to be the message of Christianity and what

Jesus wants as I see things now. Well, if we adopt a new interpretation of

the Bible to consider marriage as a vow concerning the siring of children only,

but not concerning relief of sexual drive (not involving children): then I would

agree that it is a very light burden, and I will sign on with it and do my part.

But the compromise way we have now; which preserves some degree of sexual

frustration: I don't know. If I can find a better way, I mean if we're to save

ourselves, then this is just me saving myself. You see, the way this looks, is

that we find our way to God (as a society), on our own strength -that we do the

work to increase our power until we find God (using the two edged sword of

genetic variability when we need it, but much toned down variability when there

is a stable environment -ie using evolution an!

d adaptation to keep our society improving in power till we 'find God' -as

opposed to eternally stagnating). Quite frankly, if we are doing it on our

own, and I see a better way that avoids the stagnation (produced within my body

from sexual frustration); that also achieves the goals that the sexual

frustration was intended to achieve; then I'm going to take it. Oh I respect

what Christianity is trying to do with its sexual frustration -in order to

improve the quality of we life forms as we change and adapt and compete against

the other life forms, from generation to generation. I also have those same

goals for the improvement of life out of stagnation. But this use of sexual

frustration and evolution and adaptation: this way is not a pure or evil free

way. It's not a pure way of a high capability God coming and helping us out,

but is a way we do ourselves with what we already have at our low capability.

(Jesus said 'only God is good'.) It does save society from an !

eternal stagnation: causing it instead to grow and eventually find God. But

just as Christ convinces us to abandon a grievous burden for a light one, and

also fights stagnation: I convince to abandon more of that burden for a very

light burden, and I also fight the same stagnation. Because I am up front as to

what is going on here and why it is sought that our sexuality be regulated: I

can find the way with the least needed sexual frustration. The scriptures give

laws and commandments which regulate our sexuality and bring sexual frustration,

but do not explain why. -So how can we evaluate their effectiveness or know

their purpose? -unless we discover their purpose in our mind, we as thinking

beings, cannot. But I have explained why. If you knew that you were going to

have to do it from your own strength; you probably would have said who needs

church and wouldn't have gotten together in groups in kindness. But now that

you have formed groups and gotten together, its t!

ime to be free -in your individual selves -to improve the position of the

individual against stagnation,..

 

You may say that this isn't the purpose of the Biblical laws concerning our

sexuality.. But I say, for whatever purpose, they have the effect of de

Oops, this train of thought was lost. Sorry.

 

 

 

The Bible says we must purify OURSELVES (even as He is pure). And since we

can't be saved unless we're pure: doesn't it follow that our purifying ourselves

is part of salvation? Well, perhaps God will exert effort to purify the

stragglers who weren't able to purify themselves. Actually, though these are

condemned to Hell.

Religion wants and needs something that passes through you and me. Do you think

God would ever need something we must produce? Well, religion does. Religion

wants control of the genetic variability of our reproduction (of our sexual

reproduction). It doesn't come out and say this explicitly; yet this is one of

the major effects of religion's commandments over our sexual area. Well, I wish

religion the best of luck in obtaining this; yet unfortunately; some of us do

not have the control of the sexual reproduction that religion wants -that is

within them, that was born into them -which they are attached to, but do not

control. But when religion seeks to destroy those who do not have what religion

wants, in an attempt to gain the control it wants -by only allowing the breeding

of individuals that posses that control; by eliminating from the breeding pool

those who have not (that control)? -then a system using destruction is invoked

by such religion -and where destruction i!

s, -is stagnation. The stagnation religion seeks to escape through controlling

genetics of reproduction; It finds through its use of destruction to achieve

this goal. Instead, lets try to achieve this goal (of genetic control)

without the heavy use of destruction -ie without damning and condemning to

Hell those who lack such control. (Lets not redo Hitler). I am reminded of

the Bible story of Jacob and Essau. Jacob was written in a favorable light for

tricking and taking away Essau's birthright. The message from this story, I

feel, is to be hard on the hairy man. They did kind of mention about Essau's

hairiness. Trick him and kick him out. Yea. Be ware of the hairy man. Hair

means excess testosterone. And excess testosterone means excessive sex drive.

Yea, we want to keep the hairy guys out of the breeding pool. Remember to shave

now. It's important!

Now damning and condemning to Hell in the afterlife, those who are marked

as 'heathens'; has no effect on these people in the present life directly. But

it does have an effect on these people in the present life. It marks them out

to the faithful, as people to be preyed upon, taken from, enslaved, and finally

disposed of in the present life. The frustration that religion builds up in

the faithful can be relieved by them taking it out on those marked as heathen

or infidel. This use of destruction by religion, dooms it from ever escaping

stagnation. It has the good of the genetic control it achieves to feed its

system of destruction for ever and ever and ever -ever in stagnation. God

exists. God is love. God is beyond religion -the condemnations of hellfire and

brimstone of wailing and gnashing of teeth, of being excommunicated from God's

kingdom (of love).

Jesus claims that we are not servants, but friends, because servants don't know

what the master is doing. He claims to be up front with His friends. I claim

that this religion has not been up front concerning the purpose for its commands

over our sexuality, but has just passed onto us a tradition developed by some

religious animals. Raised by wolves? Yea you bet. more than we could ever

know.

Torture and hellfire may exist but it is from we ourselves. May God deliver us

from ourselves and our predicament -from our impurity (from which religion

requires we purify ourselves). If not, then nature will deliver (save) a few

(statistically speaking), in a long drawn out process where eventually a good

God is created, if one doesn't now exist.

Let us now worship a God of love, and a savior sent by such God; a God who does

not ultimately proclaim methods that are of stagnation nor that depend on

destruction, or stagnant methods like evolution and adaptation that have always

been part of our predicament in the first place. If it's up to us, then it's up

to us, but whatever the case, this is the goal to be proclaimed and set forth in

stone -that is, use of methods above stagnant methods that we find ourselves in.

Meanness will not prevail. Meanness is inferior. Even a religion with writings

of meanness will be replaced with a religion with writings of only kindness and

love. -in time. I hope Jesus can come through for us and me. I hope in Jesus

for this. I will not condemn nor hate Jesus (as the Bible claims the world

does)) whatever my case: it will be Jesus who condemns me if any condemning is

to be done. But if Jesus condemns me, then that's His loss not mine, as far as

I'm concerned. And for no one will I!

settle for a stagnant system that depends on destruction (of life) as part of

it. Because I know that that's not of the most powerful God -A God who is a

God of LOVE and kindness.

 

Now I want to get back into my newest method to do essentials. Note that

material (even high quality material)), when placed in held back mode; doesn't

cease to exist (completely). Although it isn't able to do as much, and its

options are more limited (as it can no longer use ways containing destruction);

-it is still able to act in evil free ways; and even helps in satisfying needs

as best it can (when there are needs needing to be satisfied). End note.

Now then, let me give you the overview.

This thing is mainly driven by need. Only when there's needs needing to be

satisfied, do we ever go into unhindered mode with anything. As we've

discussed: need can exist in either the lesser material and/or the higher

quality material. We've also discussed that: need mainly exists in the higher

quality material -due to it being generated in isolated pieces by the

unhindered mode; and because it is limited in its options by its eternal held

back mode stance. And then I went through an explanation of how the lesser

material in the unhindered mode eventually generates all the interrelated high

quality material-areas so that that one group of high quality material is

complete and no longer needs and no longer receives high quality material

generated from the unhindered mode (butt generates its own material, self

sufficiently). At this point, that leaves only the lesser material (which

cycles between unhindered, and held back mode) to have any need at all. It is

this peri!

od of no need in the high quality material -need only in the cycling low

quality material, that I wish to now expand on. From it generates a new set of

isolated high quality material, which then has need; so the high quality

material needs, again. But how does it do this? When the lesser material is

in held back mode, it begins to generate need. It then returns to unhindered

mode, where it then (quickly) satisfies its need. No longer needy, it returns

again to held back mode -cycling like this over and over again. How does this

generate high quality material (that eternally remains in held back mode)/

Well, when the lesser material is in unhindered mode, it generates a spread of

material -some of lesser quality, some of higher quality, as it satisfies its

needs.

 

(When a material is acting in unhindered mode, it either generates more of

itself, or more of something else. If a need for a particular material is

trying to be satisfied by that very material in unhindered mode, yet this

material doesn't produce itself (but produces something else); then one must

instead, throw the lesser parts of a precursor material, into unhindered mode

-of a different material (one that produces the current material for which there

is now a need for). -instead of trying to get the material which satisfies the

need, to produce more of itself.)

 

When a material is generating in unhindered mode to satisfy its need, it

generates lesser quality material, and also higher quality material, randomly,

(beyond its control). Its only purpose in generating is to satisfy need.

But we can arbitrarily decide what is higher quality material vs lesser

material, and save some of the higher material out. But if we save too much out

(on a regular basis), we may interfere with the material-in-unhindered-mode's

ability to satisfy its/other's need. And if we always save out too much, then

the material will never satisfy its need and will always remain in unhindered

mode (and won't cycle). And what is the purpose of saving out a percentage all

the time? The purpose is to save out higher quality material to overcome its

transient nature in the unhindered mode -making it long lasting in a held back

mode. But if the material isn't of any higher quality, then why save it out?,

just to be saving out a percentage? No, we don't save out quantity but only

save out when we positively recognize quality. And since the unhindered mode

doesn't generate quality on a regular basis, but instead does so randomly: we

thus do not hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying!

its needs, too much: so that a lot of the time, we save out nothing; and the

material cycles (between unhindered and held back mode). So how do we recognize

quality? At what high quality; at what exact point is the trigger to save out,

vs, letting it remain in unhindered mode? Well here is where the self

sufficient high quality whole (that has removed itself from this process) comes

in. We use it as a comparison. -as a standard. Whenever a material is as high

a quality as that of the self sufficient material (when it was first generated);

then at this exact point do we then save it out eternally into held back mode

(never to cycle to unhindered mode again). These occasional saving-out actions

do slightly hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying its need; (making

material spend a little longer in unhindered mode in one of the cycles); but it

is not to anybody's detriment and is of no real consequence.

 

Now, I forgot to mention that there can be a specific point in the cycle where

we choose to save out high quality material. Since this material already

frequents the held back mode, (as it cycles); in order to keep this mental

regulation simple; and also not to disturb the unhindered mode's satisfying its

needs; we can just let any newly generated high quality material remain in held

back mode, while only returning the lesser material to unhindered mode (as we

cycle). But remember; the test determining how high quality a material is, was

in the previous unhindered part of the cycle; and not in the present held back

part of the cycle, -(as nothing produces well in held back mode).

This is unlike the situation where the needs of the

high-quality-permanently-held-back-mode are driving things. There, we plucked

high quality material right from the unhindered mode. But here we wait till the

needs of the unhindered mode are satisfied and all the material has cycled to

held back mode anyway.

 

Referring back: I caution not to re activate the permanently saved out high

quality material to the unhindered mode (thinking it is low quality material),

just because it is producing like low quality material. Remember, the division

of what is permanently held back mode vs material to be cycled, is determined

only in the unhindered mode (by comparing the generated unhindered material to

self sufficient high quality held back material)

 

We don't use a standard to determine how long we accumulate need, remaining in

held back mode. -We do not accumulate need. This is a misnomer. Our need

itself is what determines whether we do unhindered mode or not. There is an

exact point at which if we do not act to prevent it; our internal destruction

will destroy parts of us: hence our need. As we act in the held back mode,

we're able to do less; and we depend on the material we achieved previously in

the unhindered mode. As that is used up/wears out, we (as non self sufficient

material) slowly approach that exact point of need where destruction will occur

to us. When we reach that exact point, we are in need, and are then allowed to

go into an unhindered mode again with our lower material. This has nothing to

do with the standard supplied by the self sufficient high material.

 

We first began as children. (As children, we did what we wanted, but had little

power.) Then we grew into adults. (As adults, we have more power, but no

longer do what we want, but are bound more firmly by rules.) Then we became

parents, and the cycle begins again. Some of these adults have become self

sufficient -no longer needing to periodically return to childish mode. They

then become standards. You see, we need a standard to determine where the exact

cutoff point between what we treat as childish material, and what we treat as

adult material. We need a standard to determine if a material makes the grade

to be saved out permanently as high quality material vs if we let it continue to

cycle and do not save it out. We need a standard to determine the exact cutoff

point. It is the self sufficient high quality material that, for one of its

purposes, serves as this standard (which we compare the material in question

to).

Now then; from the point of view of this self sufficient standard material: it

no longer has needs it can't itself satisfy: neither does it itself return to

unhindered mode, nor does it motivate any other material to return to unhindered

mode. But is this self sufficient standard material static, or is it growing?

If it's not growing, then it's no better than the stagnation of the unhindered

mode. But since it's free of the evil and the needs of essentials, then it is

growing. Yet the new material that it grows isn't (at first) self sufficient or

even high material, like it is. That new material must also go through a period

of improvement and cycling and unhindered modes. Thus that the self sufficient

standard material isn't completely out of touch with unhinderedness and its

existence does (indirectly) result in increased unhinderedness (due to its

growth). So our unhindered mode really hasn't lost touch with these self

sufficient standards in any way.

 

Now then; lets go through an example of this method for doing essentials, to

show the workings of this method. Say there's an essential item or action or

material we need. There is the action to produce that material, (usually

involving other materials (in addition to the needed material itself)); and

there is the action to consume and enjoy the needed material (usually only

involving the material itself). When we start out to satisfy this essential,

we have very little of the needed material; and we are into producing it. Thus

when we apply an unhindered mode to all lesser quality materials, then we apply

it to what all lesser quality material now exists. Thus the essential material

yet to be created (that thus doesn't yet exist), is not included here. When it

is created, it is in held back mode; -because, being just created, it hasn't yet

been activated to help out the other areas, and thus is (so far) innocent of any

unhinderedness. If we leave it in held back mode,!

then it is less effective in satisfying our need, so that we can produce more

of it: so that when the need is eventually satisfied, and we switch everything

to held back mode: we will be able to stay in held back mode and not

immediately be thrown into need again -(which would immediately force us to

return to unhindered mode again). So we leave the newly produced material (in

this unhindered mode part of the cycle), in the held back mode. Now once we

produce enough of the needed material and satisfy our need, we go with

everything to the held back mode. Since we had let the new material in held

back mode (in the previous unhindered mode), we don't suffer a loss in

need-satisfying as a result of that changeover to held back mode, and we can

thus stay in held back mode for a reasonable time and are not forced to

eternally be trapped in an unhindered mode.

Now then. Just remember to unhinder the lesser parts of the material that

produces the essential material, as well as eventually (in the next cycle), the

newly created essential material itself.

Note that as the newly created material (which we leave in held back mode)

satisfies our need; all the remaining lesser material in unhindered mode then

joins it in held back mode, as we change over to held back mode -due to our need

being satisfied. This is the rest that makes us no longer wicked. (Recall: 'no

rest for the wicked'.) Once we're done resting, and are at the point of need

again; we again go to the unhindered mode with all lesser material, including,

this time, the material that we produced new in the last unhindered part of the

cycle. But of course, as always, the new material (of all types) that we

produce in this unhindered part of the cycle; we leave in held back mode (until

the next cycle).

 

I want to be specific on just exactly what our point-of-need is. If our

situation forces evil to be done no matter what (whether we be held back or

unhindered) then just because our unhindered state allows ways containing evil;

doesn't necessarily mean more evil will be done. If we can do an unhindered

mode whereby the evil is just shifted around by such a mode, (resulting in the

same amount of evil being done) then our act to be unhindered won't have caused

any increase in evil. Thus depending on the size of the evil that our situation

forces upon us, we can then employ similar quantities of unhindered mode, which

only shifts that evil around (within us) but does not increase evil. So, we can

be in need a little, or a lot; and respond accordingly with a little or a lot of

unhinderedness.

 

But usually when we have reached the point of need; if we proceed

correctly, we remain in unhindered mode until the essential is satiated. As we

act (in unhindered mode) to satiate our essential; our need becomes less: then

in response, we decrease the percentage of the lesser material that we have in

unhindered mode (by switching some of it to held back mode). Thus the

satisfaction of our essential need continues until it is completely satisfied,

and the lesser material is then all in held back mode -until the next time we

become in need and must again return to unhindered mode with this lesser

material -now including the lesser material from the previous satisfaction of

essential, that before we had let remain 'innocent' in held back mode.

 

When we first go to held back mode, we have satisfied our need. As we continue,

that material generates new material -with much low quality (due to the

limiting nature of the held back mode). That newer material keeps accumulating

and overwhelming the satisfied material, and may cause the whole to need again.

Sometimes the action to satisfy need, is itself a whole, made up of sequential

precursor stages, that must be redone all over the next time need is to be

satisfied.

And there are further specifics about our needs concerning our essentials, as

expounded upon (much) earlier. These all play into how and what we do when (if)

we again become needy.

Now, when we first reach the point of need, our need may be small. And it may

not be worth it to go through all the processes of satisfying such a small need.

There's nothing requiring us to satisfy a small need immediately as it appears,

with a small unhinderedness; as we would be constantly bothered with switching

back and forth between held back mode and a small unhindered mode. (We would

have no rest.) The evil that destroys within us due to our need of

essentials/quasi essentials isn't our fault and we didn't cause it and we aren't

required to satisfy the first little bit of it right away. Of course if we wait

too long, its destruction will grow too large and will destroy us. But the time

we put up with it before we satisfy it, is up to us. So we choose a time to

suit us, -usually which doesn't require us to be attending every little need

the moment it appears (which would require us to be constantly switching between

held back and a small unhindered mode) -alth!

ough we can do this if need be. -But a time which isn't too long either

-where the need of the essential would do irreversible destruction to us.

(Recall that the need is continually destroying, and that an act to satisfy

isn't destructive in itself, but just enjoins new material into the arena where

the evil in the need has access to it.)

 

Now I wish to say a (another) word about betrayal: and not just betrayal, but

also about the everyday pain and suffering of missing someone, that that someone

cannot help and isn't the cause of.

What if someone were to pretend to like you and showed an undue, too good to be

true interest in you; and then when they got what they wanted, they turned

around and stabbed you in the back and left you to twist in the wind -throwing

you away like a banana peeling?

What if someone liked you at first and was your friend, but then got tired of

you or found someone/(something) else, and left you?

What if someone who still liked you, had to go away on a long trip (due to

business or national duty or death/abduction or others interfering to prevent

togetherness), and left you all alone (for awhile)? All of these things cause

us pain and suffering. How do we deal with this pain and suffering?

Not everybody who shows an interest in you is out to betray you: but neither is

everybody who shows this interest in you; sincere. And when we don't know who

is sincere and who is not; what do we do? Well I would say to respond

positively to all interests for the sake of those who are sincere -those who

are insincere will eventually work themselves out.

What do we do against this hurt of being left alone?

Recall that wherever there is a destructiveness, it creates a vacuum; and that

we unhinder our lesser materials and let them be sucked into that vacuum, while

holding back our more valuable materials and even moving them away from that

vacuum.

In this case we value our memories of friendship with the missing person; and

even our own words to them telling them how and that we love them, before or as

they left, are part of this valuable material.

We then move this valuable material away from the area of destruction. In the

case of a betrayer/insincere person, we'd move the valuable material away from

this present person themselves, as they are the source of destructiveness in

this case.

Then we unhinder some of our low quality material and let it be sucked into the

vacuum (In other words, piss on it.) Now this low unhindered material, since we

removed the high material, is on its own: and its needs are solely based on the

unhindered mode. It thus cycles rapidly between unhindered and held back mode

(We also remove the occasional high material generated in this unhindered mode

-which is a random generation, -which may by chance generate some more of the

missing person in all manner of forms, -if not destroyed: as this low unhindered

material awaits destruction.)

Now of course, away from the vacuum and the area of destructiveness, we have all

our valuable high material, which we continue to grow with and work with in

love. -And the satisfaction of needs here, have a large base in the held back

mode (and are satisfied as discussed previously).

 

In reference back to doing essentials: note at some stages (nearing the

completion of an essential); that much of our lesser material can be in held

back mode, while we intricately work with a small portion (of lesser material)

in unhindered mode -as we satisfy the last of our essential need. But when an

evil attack simultaneously besets us at this point in our essential; we don't

respond against it with just that small portion of lesser material in unhindered

mode: -no, we unhinder all the lesser material in a full blown unhinderedness

to be fed to the vacuum of their evil attack. -The intricacies of small

portions of the lesser material in unhinderedness (with the rest in held back),

is reserved solely for our end satisfaction of our essential needs. End

reference.

 

It is good for me to repeat my advice concerning the frequency we respond to our

need in order to satisfy it. For optimal gain, we do not respond all the time

we have any little need (unless of course, there's something new to be added);

as that would require much effort in switching back and fourth between

unhindered and held back modes at such a high frequency. -no different than the

need-drive of just lesser material in unhindered mode.

But neither do we wait too long to satisfy our need (in a really low frequency),

as the destruction in our need would take too much of a toll, and lower us too

low.

 

Profoundly speaking: should we or should we not be concerned with the

destruction of (our) life? If we are not to care about the destruction of any

form of capability (or life), then why should we care about saving anything?

-about being 'saved' or preserving anything? -if it is all valueless -if our

consciousness is valueless. -So if it all doesn't matter no matter what we do,

then you won't mind if I value life and try to go with that (since that's what I

find myself being in this situation -I'm alive)). Since my actions at life are

supposedly futile anyway and cannot succeed; there's no need for you to resist

them in any way; -if you believe I should not value my life. Why change what

is? I'm alive. Let's leave it at that. Lets go with that. But if you take

away from my life here on earth because you say that I shouldn't value what I am

here on earth, then you yourself are interfering with life here on earth. -And

if you value what happens to life here on earth, !

then so do I, and will be against destructions of life and stagnant systems here

on earth. end profundity.

 

As a human being, you may find yourself attracted to the opposite sex. You may

then in response to that, marry one person. Now, you're allowed to respond to

your spouse but to every other member of the opposite sex, you may not respond.

In this area (of responding to attraction to the opposite sex) growth is cut

short at 1. There is no growth in this area allowed. Evil and destruction are

concepts and areas -it is best if we cause for no growth in these areas (the

evil area) to occur. But our attraction and response are not totally evil, and

in fact contain much good. Just like many things here on earth are not totally

good nor totally evil, so is this thing (and in fact this thing has much good in

it) -But most other earthly things don't have their growth cut to one like this

thing does. What is the purpose for such singling out and limiting? Religion

has already done it; but has not revealed its purpose for doing so. Even so, I

bet there still is a purpose behind!

it, even though not revealed. What are they hiding? Lets speculate. (You've

read my speculations).

 

In order to obey these religious rules, we then need to satisfy our needs

concerning others of the opposite sex, in small bits as soon as they appear, so

that they do not grow into the action of the forbidden act of sexual response.

But this is inconvenient and requires us to do much switching between unhindered

and held back modes.

Religion interferes with and takes away from our life here on earth, in this

area. Religion also preaches the futility of trying to save our earthly life.

"if you try to save your life you will loose it". To loose life is destructive.

(But will you loose your earthly life because religion takes it away from you;

or because of other destructive effects of earthly life itself?) Yes, earthly

life does contain destruction, on its own, even without religious interference.

But so does this religious interference in this area: thus this religious

interference is no better, and no worse, than earthly life itself -and is thus

an extension of earthly life. If it is part of earthly life; then its command

to loose it for Jesus' sake, applies to itself also. So, give up this religious

interference in the sexual area, as well as the sexual area itself as well as

all the rest of earthly life, for Jesus' sake; and occasionally you will be

sexually satisfied in ways outside the religio!

us rules, but still for Jesus' sake anyway. And this is the best and optimal

position, as I have already mentioned. Moderation in all things, including

religious prohibitions on our sexuality. You see, if this religious

interference does not help us out of our predicament in ways above our earthly

ways -in ways free from destruction of our earthly life; then those religious

ways are no better than our other earthly ways. (are not above our other

earthly ways and are thus subject to the rules applied to earthly ways) Now, if

you refuse to give up your religious rules (which are a part of your earthly

life) for Jesus' sake, then you will not gain eternal life (according to the

Bible promise).

 

A thing is that the religious rules over sexuality; and our earthly life in this

area, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. So that if you give up

one, you cannot give up the other, at any particular point in time. Thus do the

best you can, by alternating; and by giving up one at one time, and another at

another time. There is no compromise for any instantaneous point in time. This

is concerning the obeying of Jesus' saying to give up your (earthly) life for

Jesus' sake. The frequency at which you switch isn't determined internally and

is therefore up to you. May I suggest a switching frequency that is optimal -as

expounded upon previously in my advice on optimal switching.

 

The Gospel reveals: If you try to save your (earthly) life, you'll loose it.

If you loose your (earthly) life for Jesus, you'll gain eternal life. Either

way, you loose your earthly life. But if you voluntarily give up your earthly

life for Jesus, will God then reward you with eternal life:

Well, both ways involve the loss of (earthly) life -loss being a destructive

thing; the concept of loss being applied to the loss of eternal life, as

something to be avoided. But would God really wish to reward us any different

either way? Since both ways involve loss, both ways are earthly -the next

verse defines eternal life as being free from loss -where moth and rust do not

corrupt -where thieves do not break through nor steal. But since (voluntary)

loss of earthly life for Jesus, also involves loss; this way is not any

different from other earthly ways. God's ways are free from loss and

destruction. He would not find much pleasure in one way of loss over another,

just because it was done in His honor and name; -since eternal life is free from

loss, while these ways are all full of loss.

Who can say what way God will use or advocate to save us. But in any case; this

way of voluntary loss of earthly life for Jesus, is an earthly way and not an

eternal way due to its use of loss; and is therefore also to be given up, if we

are to actually give up our earthly life for Jesus.

 

Now, one might say that because one voluntarily sacrifices their earthly life,

that this sacrificial act exonerates them of any wrongdoing and thus makes this

a heavenly way -and part of our eternal life -something not to be given up.

Yet loss and destruction are present in both ways just the same. Why would it

make a difference to God whether we voluntarily gave up our earthly life

(including our earthly essentials and quasi essentials -the lusts of the flesh);

or these were taken away from us by the destruction within earthly life? In

order to obtain the pearl of great price (eternal life); we must sell all that

we have (our earthly life) and buy it. Why are we required to voluntarily give

up our earthly life in order to obtain eternal life from God?

In my plan to defeat evil as described at the beginning of this book; one fogoHC

came to earth to confront the force of evil/destruction. This force then did

separation of the forces with his/her HC (high capability); according to my

plan anyway. Concerning our flesh and desires of the flesh pertaining to our

quasi essentials: we must take on new material so that the destruction within us

-within our quasi essentials, destroys that new material, otherwise, it would do

destruction to us. But Jesus is against this love of self. He wants us to stop

sparing our self, and to allow the evil to destroy in our self, and for us to

voluntarily give up our self (our earthly life); and NOT to find other material

for the destruction to eat instead thus sparing (temporarily) ourself. When we

stop bringing in other material for the destruction within our quasi essential

to destroy instead of us; then it destroys parts of us. In the sexual area,

since we are allowed one mate; that dest!

ruction in us is not unto death. When we stop bringing in other material for

the destruction within our quasi essential to destroy instead of us; then it

destroys parts of us. We thus voluntarily give up or sacrifice our earthly life

for Jesus. What is occurring here is separation of the forces. When the evil

is not fed, that is a separation of the forces. But in my proposed plan, it is

the confronting fogoHC who does the separation of the forces. If all that were

needed were for us to give permission for Jesus to come into us and separate the

forces in our quasi essentials, I would do it. But according to the Bible, we

are required to purify ourselves (even as he is pure). We are required to

separate the forces in our own area- concerning our own flesh and quasi

essentials. And this is the clincher: since we are only of earthly power: for

us to perform this (within ourselves), is therefore an earthly act and an

earthly way -a part of earthly life: I therefore also sa!

crifice and give this up as well, in my voluntary giving up of my earthly life.

Now, if after I had invited Jesus in to take over and had given Jesus permission

to separate the forces within my flesh, he then came and did this for me; then

it would be an act of God and of eternal life. But then I would no longer have

a problem. Why does the Bible want me to purify myself -to make myself pure

(even as he is pure), instead of letting Jesus do it? I mean, if we could free

ourselves from the destruction in our flesh in our own earthly life; wouldn't we

have done it already by our own natural death? What is so great about impaling

ourselves upon the destruction within our flesh in a sacrificial mode? Sure, it

causes separation of the forces, but we are dead (or parts of us are dead)

-awaiting resurrection by God the father. Why should we tell God when to

resurrect us/parts of us (by performing separation of the forces): why not let

God determine when He is ready to resurrec!

t us/parts of us by allowing the one He sent to us to confront evil, to

separate the forces, instead of us doing it? I mean, I've asked Jesus in and

given permission to release me from my flesh: yet I still get horny with members

of the opposite sex and feel sexual pain if not relieved. If I am to obey the

Bible law concerning sexuality, then I still find myself having to suffer loss

and find myself having to perform separation of the forces myself in this my

fleshly area. Perhaps this all has to do with getting us as individuals to

control the variability of our sexual reproduction so that we can remain the

dominant species -and as a society, advance, instead of stagnate -unfortunately

the attempt to do this, being according to the way of evolution, which itself is

prone to stagnation, -being an earthly way not free from evil. But since I

must suffer and sacrifice my earthly life and I must perform separation of the

forces in this area(and since I am only of ear!

thly power): then this act is an earthly act and a part of earthly life --to

also be given up, according to Jesus' own words.

When God is ready to free us from evil, he will send us a Jesus who will

separate the forces within us including within our flesh (without requiring us

to do it) as the time God frees us from evil is up to God, not us. We may try to

free ourselves from evil but God's attempt to free us from evil is more sure

than our attempts -since we haven't completely succeeded as of yet even after

many tries. If we could do this ourselves, then we'd have done it already. But

since we need God's help, let us not try to force that help out of Him, but

instead allow Him to act when He is ready. In the mean time, we continue to

try: but let us now try in ways not limited to orthodox prescribed ways. Let me

reiterate, that in my prescribed method, that we do do some abstinence and

suffer some destruction of the self, as responding to every little need we get

the moment we get it, would consume (destroy) more resources than the

destruction in the essential would have. We wait awhile, b!

ut we don't wait forever; and when the optimal point arrives, we then act to

satisfy our essential.

 

Oops. I wish to correct some errors. Previously I had mentioned that we don't

accumulate need. But my current stance is that we do accumulate need, since

satisfying every little bit of need as it appears would be too costly; and is

the reason behind my use of the term 'optimum'.

A more serious correction is that of feeding an evil attack, our lesser

material, and unhindering it. The first question is, why do we unhinder it?

Well, since it is not going to be saved, but instead destroyed; and since the

purpose of held back mode is to save out and preserve: we thus unhinder it so it

won't feel any need (which is the cost of the held back mode). Now, previously

I had indicated that unhindered material that is alone, cycles rapidly between

held back and unhindered modes (due to the quick satisfaction of its need when

in unhindered mode). But this use of unhindered mode against evil attack, isn't

need driven. It isn't being used to satisfy a regular essential, but to fill

the vacuum from an irregular evil attack: so that we don't cycle it back and

forth between unhindered and held back modes according to its internal need, but

instead leave it in constant unhindered mode to respond to the external evil

attack's vacuum. Since it is always in unhindered!

mode, and that we involve all of the lesser material; our usual method for

saving out any high quality material this lesser material IN UNHINDERED MODE

generates, (the saving out, being done in a held back part of a cycle): doesn't

work (because there is no held back part of the cycle because there is no

cycle). We must therefore act specially and pick out high material that is

occasionally generated, and do so directly from this (constant) unhindered mode.

(Usually, when the lesser material cycles between held back and unhindered mode;

we wait till a held back mode part of the cycle to save out any generated high

material.)

Now, perhaps we needn't involve ALL the lesser material for an extended period.

The purpose is to fill the vacuum created by the destruction of the evil attack.

Once whatever lesser material is sucked in and fills the vacuum, then the

remaining lesser material can revert to need-drive-and-cycling; until the

destruction destroys sucked material, and the vacuum pulls again. end

corrections.

Getting back to religion: so far I've made kind of a mess of it. But after

looking at it in a different light, I'm not so sure we're so far apart. The

centerpiece of it, is to give up your earthly life and receive eternal life.

This isn't so far from what I recommend. Earthly life contains loss or

destruction (as we've expounded upon) and eternal life is free from destruction.

Earthly life then is like the unhindered mode, while eternal life is like the

held back mode. I was under the mistakened idea that we could not experience

eternal life while we were here on earth, but had to wait till we died and were

in heaven. -that we gave up our earthly life and were left with nothing -a

vacuum (while here on earth). But now I see that as long as we act in (loving)

ways free from any destructiveness; that is eternal life, even here on earth:

while ways containing destruction -includes essential doings, involving our

flesh; are earthly ways. And in our method, we do earthly w!

ays or unhindered mode, when we need it; but give it up as we no longer need it.

So that we do give up our earthly life (unhindered mode), and replace it with

eternal life (held back mode); as a large part of our method. So maybe the

truly living God and Christ alive, who I cannot deny; and I myself; aren't so

far apart and are even in tune. But as for these (religious) traditions of men:

I've had it up to the nth degree over my head, with them.

So now we don't give up our earthly religious restrictions in a regular cycle,

but now do so only as we have need (equal or above the cost of switching). So

when I need something, I give up my giving up of that earthly life; and when I

am full, I then give up that earthly life itself. Works for me. Note: if

doing an essential, and then after being filled; switch to held back mode: that

material still exists, and acts, but acts with no more evil, including no

further essential . But my point is that we find similar material in both

unhindered and held back modes, its just that they act differently.

Lets be honest: God may act to save us and make us eternal but He wouldn't do it

by using rewards, or having us SELL things to BUY pearls (of great price) (Why

would Christ be upset and cast money changers from the temple, if He does the

same?) While God tarries to set us all free from evil; we humans, in the

interim, can also act to try to be free from evil. Let us call this human act

to give up things and our life, for an eternal reward, for what it is: an

attempt by MAN to be free from evil. A powerful God (one who could save us)

would not need anything that we could supply Him (other than our permission).

If we wish for God to notice us and attempt to gain His favor, we should keep

trying to get free from evil and not give up here. Unfortunately, religion can

cause us to give up here. If evil(destruction) is right in front of our face,

then obviously, God has not yet freed us from it: so while it is yet upon us:

and while we wait for God to free us: continue to act t!

o try to get free of it.

Let me make it clear; the new logic remains: One may say you just can't give up

your earthly life, you must give it up for Jesus' sake, in order for God to

reward you with eternal life. And Jesus spells out how he wants us to live life

and what we are to give up. But in the area of giving up our giving up of

earthly life, no instructions are given. Thus if we say a 'for Jesus' sake' at

the end; this area should be OK, even though other areas go against being given

up. If you don't think this will fly, then you may find me at the judgment,

where God would say 'how can you expect me to reward you with eternal life when

you have not given up all (earthly life) that you have (like in the sexual area,

where my method doesn't comply exactly with the compromise reached with it by

Jesus). But I'd have to say "how can you reward anybody with eternal life using

this, since these other people who gave up everything else, did not even try to

give up the part of their earthly life wh!

ereby they gave up the other parts of their earthly life; let alone try to do

this for Jesus' sake? Note that if you don't try to give up your earthly life

(including the earthly giving up of earthly life, itself), then essentially you

are saving it: -recall that if you try to save your earthly life, you will

loose it --without obtaining the promise of the reward of eternal life. One

may say that this is only one aspect of earthly life and that they had given up

every other aspect: well I can say that the sexual area is only one aspect of

earthly life and that I had given up every other area; or that riches were only

one aspect, and that I had given up every other area. One may say that using

my definition of eternal life -as anything containing no destruction; that the

act of giving up earthly life is thus part of eternal life, thus not to be given

up. But this sacrificial act of giving up earthly life, IS associated with

destruction. It may not be the direct cause !

of the destruction. The destructive agent exists in us prior to this act. Yet

an act that requires us to place a destructive agent upon a certain area, whence

that area then has some destruction done to it by the agent: I would say that

act has been the cause of some specific destruction, even if it has not

increased (and may have even decreased) the overall destruction. Like, a

shooting gun is a destructive agent. If I require that it be pointed at person

A, then even though I may have had nothing to do with creating the shooting gun:

but I would still consider myself guilty of murder -as king David was considered

guilty of murder for sending bathsheba's husband to the front lines. So even

here, this sacrificial act cannot be considered as eternal life; as sacrifice,

although noble, still contains destruction.

 

On a scale of capability, we're at our lowly earthly life. Above us is an all

powerful God, free from evil. Below us is death and nothingness. We with our

lowly earthly life can try to achieve greater heights and try to become up with

the all powerful God. But that's such a long shot that most likely we won't be

one who succeeds. But if there already exists an all powerful God, we can ally

with Him, and go to death -it is much easier to go to death; then depend on Him

to resurrect us.

What I'm talking about here, is separation of the forces. Within our essentials

-within our flesh, are destructive forces, whereby we must take in outside

material so the destruction destroys it, instead of us. But when the forces

(destruction and growth) are separated; the destruction within our essentials

and flesh is no longer provided with outside material and is forced to consume

us; and parts of us die and we die; as the force of evil dies. Then God the

Father resurrects us. This plan works. Like the people of the heaven's gate

cult: that would work if there was someone out there to pick up the pieces and

catch us. Yes that would be the way to deal with the force of evil that lives

within us, so we could be purified and join God. But this only works if there

is a God the father out there to pick up the pieces and resurrect us afterwards.

If there is even the remote chance that there does not yet exist a God the

Father out there to resurrect us; then we will need!

our earthly lives to try our slim chance to go in the upward direction -of

escaping the evil without dying -without giving up our life, so as to create a

God the Father. With our situation now: we have a God who is hidden -who has

not absolutely proved His existence to us. So concerning these sacrificial acts

on our part whereby we give up our earthly life according to Jesus' directions:

I say it should be up to Jesus to perform the separation of the forces thus

causing the removal of (parts of) our earthly life (after we give Him permission

to do so): and not for us to give up our earthly life (in a sacrificial act).

-because our sacrificially giving up such life, detrimentally effects the long

term overall attempt(s) to create a God the Father. Of course if there already

exists a God the Father, then there is no need to try and create one in the long

drawn out way --(which is the only way we as lowly earthly life, have). But if

there is even the remote chance that ther!

e doesn't yet exist a God the Father, then the plan will not work, as there

won't be any one out there to resurrect us after we are dead. So that a God who

hasn't absolutely proved His existence, must understand that it is then up to

Him -through the one He sends -his son Jesus Christ, to perform the separation

of the forces (which causes us to loose (parts of) our earthly life).-: and not

up to us. -A reason being that we know our lack of all-knowingness -we know

that we are easily fooled. And that we now realize that in the possible

situation where God-the-Father is in the process of being created: that it would

be detrimental to that creation, for us to give up our earthly life in a

sacrificial act. And since God has not yet ruled out this possibility by

showing absolutely that He exists, then this remains a possibility. So, to love

God, in all possibilities, we should wait on Him (through Jesus Christ) to

perform separation of the forces, resulting in the death of (pa!

rts of) our earthly life; and not do this ourselves, in a sacrificial act of

giving up our earthly lives, thus thrusting upon God, a need to resurrect us

(parts of us). -which He may or may not be ready to perform at this present

time.

But what if it were not a question of God's power needed to separate the forces;

but instead was the dirtiness of the job? The very abhorrence of allying with

an agent of destruction, directing it (to be done to yourself), thus associating

you with destruction; is the thing that requires each of us to do his/her fair

(individual) share; so that no one person should shoulder the burden and blame

of doing it for everybody. So then, now we are back to doing this to

ourselves. Plus, we can't put a quick end to our suffering by causing our own

death. In order to make a quick end and put us out of our suffering, would

require us to become an agent of destruction -as opposed to just refusing to

feed the already existing agents of destruction (which causes them to slowly

consume us). By becoming an agent of destruction ourselves, we choose before

God, for destruction. So that it would seem we are stuck suffering.

But there is a time to die; and a time to live. There is no suffering. The

confusion comes between confusing two different doings that we do: when we die

(to our earthly life and flesh); and when we live. You see, when it is time to

separate the forces (within us) and for us to die (as God is ready to resurrect

us and free us from evil); then we will no longer have any use for doing

anything else. There will be no need to go to work; no need to eat; no need to

satisfy our sexual needs, because it is now time to die. So that we clear our

agenda and do absolutely nothing, but await death. The suffering comes when we

try to do the actions of life while at the same time, preparing to die. And of

course, we must have a signal from God when it is time to do this: and that will

be when Christ comes in his power and glory (his 2nd coming). But we are

instructed to prepare ourselves for Christ's 2nd coming; and are threatened with

being cut asunder to hell and given our part wi!

th the unbelievers if we do not. This requires us to suffer -when we don't have

to. God would not require this. This once again brings up the issue of trying

to create God the Father if he doesn't yet exist; vs acting with God the Father

if he does exist. Because if God were visible, it would be time to die, thus

cleansing ourselves from evil; and joining Him. But since God is not visible;

our living (and not preparing to die (in suffering)), has a purpose of covering

the possibility that God the Father is not yet created (and also other purposes

of life). For what purpose would we carry on the actions of earthly life, if

God were ready to resurrect us? But if God were not ready to receive us;

requiring us to prepare for when He was ready (prior to when he was ready),

would cause us to suffer as we would be forced to do both the actions of life,

and the actions of death, together; which would cause the forces of destruction

and the forces of growth to be done together!

over our lifetime: -the very thing we are trying to eliminate (we're trying to

separate the forces) here in this. So do not prepare for when God is ready to

take you (2nd coming), before He is ready to take you, by now performing the

actions of death: but instead do the actions of earthly life now, until that

time. (then when it is time , then do the actions of death unto joining God.)

-and thereby show God that you are against the togetherness of the forces of

growth and the forces of destruction.

Where if you prepare for this time (when God is ready to take you) by doing the

actions of death -of sacrificially directing the agents of destruction within

you, upon yourself, in a giving up of your earthly life: you show to God that

you choose the forces of destruction and good together. -that that is what you

want (for Him to provide you). God has no cause to make you suffer prior to His

readiness to resurrect you. In fact He abhors the suffering caused by

togetherness of the forces; as He himself lives completely separate from the

forces of destruction, and desires this for you. Choose life, not eternal

death.

When it is time to live, go with life, and do the actions of life. When it is

time to die, put away the actions of life, and do the actions of death; that is,

separate the forces -that is, do not take in outside material to feed the

destruction within your flesh; whence that destruction then consumes you. You

thus choose for separation of the forces.

To prepare for when God is ready to take you, before He is ready to take you,

causes the mixing of the actions of death and the actions of life, causing the

togetherness of the forces of good and evil by your hand (with its corresponding

suffering). It is the choice of torment and suffering. -the wrong choice as far

as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

Nature has hijacked our ability to be attracted to others and feel good -really

good about others; to be directed at the opposite sex. And religion and nature

then limit that: so that we don't feel really good with very many people.

Because of this limiting and hijacking; we form family units, but beyond the

family units; everyone else is an outsider. It is this being divided up as

little bands of family units while everyone else is pretty much an outsider;

that makes life cold and impersonal. Being cold and impersonal and treating as

outsiders, everyone outside the family unit; isn't a good way to be -a stagnant

way. (and of course there are even those who find themselves unable to be

loving even within their family unit). But if the attraction we feel which

nature has hijacked to be towards the opposite sex, were instead spread to

everyone and neither limited; this would cause people to stick together more and

be more of a community. Such a force would make us kinder and gentler and not

so stagnant. As we recall from the Biblical account, that Jesus wasn't too

interested in persecuting people for sexual offenses, like everybody else was,

including his followers. !

 

 

(Hell requires one to be alive in some sense otherwise one couldn't experience

suffering, and thus is not the lowest point -on a scale of capability.)

On a scale of capability, we as earthly life, are in the middle: with an

almighty evil-free God above us; with death and nothingness below us. In order

to try and reach the higher plane of oneness with God, we could struggle upwards

in our earthly life, in an attempt to free ourselves from evil and reach God; or

we could go in the opposite direction, go to death, and depend on God to

resurrect us. Apparently, another compromise has been made between these two

ways. We are to sacrifice and give up some of our life (according to Jesus'

instruction on how to live our life and bear our cross -ie for Jesus' sake); but

not all of our life. -Because Jesus doesn't require we give up all our life (at

least not right away), with his instructions on how we are to live our life. So

we sacrifice parts of our life; but not all of our life -so that we do have some

life, but it is a life in suffering (we are to hate our life). This compromise

between life and death directions, partiall!

y answers my concern about not thrusting upon God, our life, needing to be

resurrected, but waiting for God to give us a signal when He wants us to deliver

our life (through death) to Him for resurrection. It says all time is a good

time to include at least some of this: and that this compromise has been reached

here where God isn't indicating one way or the other due to His being hidden.

With all of these compromises; it kind of reminds you of politics and

politicians. The purpose of compromise is to cover all the bases so that you're

not taken totally lacking in any of the possibilities. But in this compromise,

that FAILS, and this compromise is the cause of the worst possible situation.

Because God is hidden, and has not shown himself -absolutely proving His

existence; we cannot be absolutely sure He exists at this time -(or is yet to be

created). We are instructed to have faith; to believe and hope for that which we

do not yet have. We require a sign -a signal from !

God, before we sacrifice even parts of our life: not because we don't believe in

God; but to choose against the possibility of doing evil. Now, just because we

allow for the possibility that God doesn't exist yet: we also allow for the

possibility that He does exist now, and is just hiding from us -so we don't kill

ourselves so He will resurrect us -He must have a purpose for us to be alive

here. The fact that He is hiding and hasn't shown himself absolutely, is a sign

that He wants us to live life and go in the upward direction; and that he

doesn't want us to sacrifice that life to him (yet) -that he has a purpose for

us living. We are of low power and are not all knowing, and are easily fooled.

That is one thing we can be certain of in this time. We know that we aren't all

knowing. We are certain that we are uncertain. Because we are certain that we

don't absolutely know that God exists (because God is hidden); we must cover the

possibility that maybe God doesn't exi!

st yet; as well as the possibility that He does exist now. If our situation

happens to be the possibility that God doesn't exist yet; then for us to

sacrifice all or any part of our life, would represent a destruction of life

from this time until a time in the distant future when God was created and did

resurrect that life. If you wish to choose the force of destruction, then go

and do that. But we wish to choose against destruction, by not doing that. So

that if God wishes for us to go the way of death and then resurrection, then we

require that He give us an absolute sign -because with this requirement, we

choose against evil/destruction in the possibility where God doesn't exist yet,

in our situation of being lowly and not all knowing (we, being certain of the

lowliness of our own position).

And of this compromise: -to mix the ways of struggling upwards to God, vs, going

to death and awaiting resurrection: note that the ways of life and the ways of

death are of opposing directions: and that to mix them together, causes the

togetherness of the forces of good and evil -of growth and destruction. If you

wish to choose the togetherness of the forces, then you go and do so. But we

wish to choose against the togetherness of these forces; as such togetherness is

a choice for the force of evil, because the force of evil requires the

togetherness of these two forces for its existence; while the force of good does

not. So that to choose for the togetherness of the forces here, is a choice for

the force of evil. And you will know it too, by the suffering it causes you, if

you try it. Now then: where to from here?

So far I've shown only the down side of preparing for Christ's second coming by

sacrificing parts of our earthly life according to religion. There is a small

up side (not of actually preparing for the 2nd coming, but to religion in

general including talking about preparing for the 2nd coming).

The requirements to sacrifice for God, and the sexual restrictions resulting in

isolated family units (where it is each family for themselves); causes, or can

cause a situation of reduced capability. I would like to step out here to say

that ultimately we are 'responsible' for our own actions, and that if we value

the force of good, and life, that we should do what we can to avoid destruction

and be free from it as much as possible, irregardless of religious rules. This

is the true religion, and the true pleasing of God. The idea to love God and

your neighbor, fits in nicely here. Jesus has hit the nail right on the head.

What is all this other stuff over regulating human sexuality so closely. That

is off track. The problem is with the statements about loosing your earthly

life for God, in order to gain the reward of eternal life. OK, stepping back

in:. The idea is to spoil the goods before anybody else can get to them. But

this logic only works unto reduced capabili!

ty; as if you completely destroy someone just to prevent a killer from doing it;

then you are just doing the killer's (evil's) work for them (it).

Since we don't know who is going to rule us -it could be a good, kind ruler; or

an evil, cruel one: then this setup of reduced capability in the material that

rulers rule over; causes for only good rulers to be able to make much use of

this material; while evil rulers are held back by it. So we have a good reason

(a political reason) for preserving the family unit. -to prevent totalitarian

and ideological regimes (like communism) from extracting absolute power and

spreading their cruelties around. So when evil governments step in and try to

control who you mate with -trying to breed humans for their evil purposes: then

is the time to revolt and die against your government. (Recall Hitler's breeding

program). So we need to preserve the family unit. To do so requires some

enforcement (or incentive program) of the religious restrictions on sexuality in

place today. However, here in America, we've gone too far with this. Here in

present day America, there is little chance o!

f a totalitarian government taking over. But there is excessive emphasis

against any form of sexual deviation from what religion determines to be

appropriate. The sex police are out in force. Recall that in an atmosphere of

reduced capability the good can still bridge barriers and get together but the

evil cannot. -but that in an atmosphere of desolation; neither the good nor the

evil can bridge barriers or get out. The excessive enforcement of sexuality we

do here in America has created an environment of sexual desolation where near

absolute compliance is achieved and no one breaks the religious restrictions.

(The compromise Jesus makes in the sexual area also helps this). Thus no

government (or organization larger than the family unit) -good nor evil, is able

to be sustained. This creates a vacuum in government, leaving the good unable

to escape the evil, left behind with the evil -resulting in togetherness of good

and evil. (This is no better than no family unit at a!

ll). Some discouragement of breaking the sexual restrictions is needed yes; but

not to the extent of absolute or near absolute compliance (as if that is done,

then it is the same result as if a totalitarian regime was allowed to reign with

no family unit, as under Hitler. What we now need to realize is that we don't

take these religious restrictions over sexuality so seriously. As I have shown,

they have no serious basis in truth or path to eternal life. -except that of

political truth-life-and goodness. What they should become, is as Santa Clause

is for children. We know Santa Clause isn't real, but that we allow and

maintain it to a degree, as a tradition; as it has its purpose. So should

religious sexual restrictions be.

So now that the cat is out of the bag, repressive totalitarian regimes may use

my logic to break up the family unit (against religious objections) and

institute their own human breeding programs. That's no good. I debated with

myself whether to release this information. But it is already too late since

I've already released earlier material, before I realized this. And ultimately

I think it is better to be informed. I think we can handle it. The idea is

that now we know how to die (against repressive regimes). Acting (and even

dying) against bad authorities, is different than dying for God (when God

visibly appears). When God visibly appears we stop taking in material for

feeding the destruction in our flesh; but neither do we any of the actions of

life -we clear our agenda and do nothing; awaiting the separation of the forces

within us.

But when going against evil authorities, we take all our lower quality material

and unhinder it. After a short time, that lower material not involved or

sucked into this, reverts back to what it was before; and continues our (adult)

earthly life -if all is sucked in, then we die. The material that is involved

or sucked in, remains eternally in unhindered mode (with the occasional escape

of any high quality material generated). Being in unhindered mode, it never

feels any need and is never need driven (until the destruction present, destroys

it). -It is the eternal child --never feeling any adolescent need or need of

essentials/quasi essentials.

This, I hope, allows us to preserve some semblance of a family unit; although I

never want such preservation to be absolute: but one that allows for some

wandering (by both partners of course).

 

So, one can call Him the king of compromise, but king of kings is much better

-(kings and lords (as leaders) being masters of compromise themselves).

So; I'm impressed. Almost single handedly, this man, with no heavy use of

divine power (except as a healer and such), has almost single handedly caused so

much good. By tricking people into sacrificing for God, he causes them to help

each other and form a community of togetherness and love (the Christian church).

Not only that: by inciting people to sacrifice for God, this causes them to be

at reduced capability. Because if left to their own devices, they would build

up high earthly capability, and evil leaders would feed on this and would be

sustained; and the end state (of being ruled by a tyrant) would be much worse

than the light burden Jesus lays upon us. The reduced capability favors the

emergence of only good leaders and good governments. -All because of Jesus and

his church. Fitting is the tittle King of Kings and lord of lords -as He has

thereby made the rulers to be good. Wow. What an accomplishment. How can one

man provide so much? Jesus may say that only!

God is good, but by men's standards: Jesus was a good man. With what he had to

work with; he did wonders. It may be true that we have been tricked into

sacrificing for God, and that His compromise with sexual frustration -resulting

in greater certainty of enforcement; has caused us some discomfort and has been

a slight burden (which now at the end, threatens to stagnate what He has

accomplished). He was just playing it safe- ensuring that His Church would pull

through and reap some genetic benefits, some political benefits, some

togetherness of the group benefits -even if not the maximum possible -the most

certain instead. Recall the roman empire was ruling people with an iron hand in

Jesus' time, and was quite a force to be overcome. It took awhile, but it got

done. But now that we have accomplished what He set out for us to accomplish;

this excessive enforcement threatens to stagnate these gains, as the people of

today focus in on the letter of God's law; oblivious to!

the spirit of God's law. Now see! I have shown how loosely Jesus played you

with His requirement for you to sacrifice for God: and all for your benefit.

-You ought therefore not to take the letter of His laws so seriously, but

instead emphasize the Spirit -Love. Love remains. Love and helping each other

is what remains important through all this. I certainly have not disproved

that: in fact have even strengthened it. As the story of the Good Samaritan

points out: if your religion gets in the way of loving and caring for each

other; it is of little use.

This enforcement of religious sexual restrictions, is a part of earthly life:

what are you saving this for? Don't give up your chance at the reward of

eternal life by holding onto this and not giving this up.

Give this part of earthly life up for God. Give it up for love.

The Bible says those who won't believe on Christ, do this because their deeds

are evil and they don't want them brought into the light where they will be

reproved. And the Bible is full of exhortations to obey the laws of God with

our earthly deeds. So, what we do in our earthly deeds, seems to be quite

important to God. It is important to obey a set of rules (that we are told, are

from God). What we do in our earthly deeds seems to be quite important -here

on earth where we don't act out of complete free will but are coerced by our

needs. It would be nice if the rules had a common theme behind them, and were

not just the whims of evolution. Because if the rules were just the whims of

some elders of old, passed down over the generations; and had no solid theme:

then to say obeying them pleased God and gave you eternal life, would be one

statement. (Since God isn't limited by the whims of a group of elders of old or

the earthly process of evolution.) 'what profiteth!

a man to gain the whole world (including worldly deeds) but loose your

soul-your relationship with God.

Well, what about a set of rules based on destruction vs growth of life?

Wouldn't God care about them? -since He is quite great in the area of (evil

free) life?

We show God that we are against sin, by not sinning. We should also show God

that we're against destructiveness the same way. -As our earthly deeds are said

to be of importance to God in determining His response to us.

I want to reiterate that the act to sacrifice and suffer while also trying to

live -a way of suffering through life (which by the way, is allowed by the

scriptural promises favoring receiving the reward of eternal life); is a choice

by us FOR the very destructiveness that makes our deeds evil, -shouldn't God

care about the statement this deed makes? (This even causes Christ of the Bible

to reject us due to our continuing to sin.) And that this way of suffering

through life may have even been what drove us to desperation and caused us to

ask Christ to save us in the first place -what we were seeking God to save us

from in the first place).

Since I respect what Christianity has done and the good it has caused, I choose

to work within its system. And people who don't like evil, who choose against

evil (destructiveness); but who are trapped by it and are seeking help in

getting free of it: find an appeal in Christianity. It is these people I wish

to help and represent as I myself am one.

 

There are 3 promises of eternal life I am aware of in the Gospels. One is the

one we've just discussed about giving up your earthly life for Christ's sake and

you will gain eternal life. The next is that you need to do everything that

Jesus says (ie whatever He commands). (Note that the saying to give up your

earthly life for the reward of eternal life, isn't a command, but is a choice

offered us). And finally is the promise that if we believe on Christ, we will

have eternal life.

Obeying Christ's commandments is important and will give us eternal life, is one

of the promises. But so is disobeying Christ's commands important and will give

us eternal life in the second promise. Yes, since we obey in our earthly life;

obedience is part of our earthly life and we have that as part of our earthly

life. We are then told that if we give up our earthly life and all that we

have, for Christ, and hate our earthly life, then we will gain eternal life. So

here, we give up our obedience (a part of our earthly life) for Christ and the

Gospel. To give up obedience in any specific incidence, means disobedience.

So, both obedience and disobedience are given eternal life according to the

Bible. Any moral direction or moral compass is shot. What remains out of all

this, is to love one another -to love our neighbor as ourselves and to love God

(excluding any sacrificial acts). Why? Because love (EXcluding sacrificial

acts of love), contains no destructiveness. !

And things which are free of destruction are not earthly life but are eternal

life -and we are not asked to give up our eternal life -only our earthly life.

What I don't get, is why would God, who is so much more powerful than us puny

and needy individuals; why would He want us to sacrifice for Him? He has no

needs and is self sufficient unto himself. He would not need any sacrifices

from us. (in fact, one would think it would be upon Him to help us.) Now, our

government, our church, and all organizations which are made of individuals and

which rely on their individuals for their power; would need their individuals to

give up some of their individual pursuits in order to act in unison -as a group.

-But the benefits from that group action should outweigh anything the individual

could do as an individual. -unless the group is misusing its power and is not a

growing group, but is a stagnant group.

One may say that obedience to God is eternal and part of eternal life, and

rightly so in some situations. But since our obedience to God here on earth (in

some commands -especially governing sexuality), involves destruction done to us

in order to obey (although not destruction unto death); it is therefore an

earthly act. One may say, just consider as separate parts, the destructive

aspect, and the eternal obedient aspect. But here on earth, we are unable to

separate the destructive part from the obedient part, and since God doesn't do

it for us; these parts remain together as an inseparable unit, to us puny

earthlings. Therefore, to us, we must consider this whole unit, as an earthly

act. -Recall: heavenly treasure does not suffer loss from rust or moth or

thievery. -So that this earthly obedience is not heavenly (eternal) material,

as it is associated with loss. (even though it is a light burden, it is still a

burden, and therefore earthly life.) So that in order to o!

btain eternal life through this promise, we must give it up (as we must give up

all (earthly material/life) we have). But 1 John says that transgression of the

law is sin; and if we sin we don't have Christ. The Gospel of John chapter 3

says that if we don't have Christ (if we don't believe on Christ) then we are

condemned already -and relates this to evil deeds. Thus we must find a way to

give up our earthly obedience without disobeying. If we do nothing (or die) we

are still obeying. If we wait till we die to give it up; then we haven't

purchased the reward of eternal life. It is impossible. It is thus impossible

for us to obtain eternal life through both of these promises. To give up our

earthly life (for God) we must disobey -(to give up our earthly obedience); and

that disobeying prevents us from gaining eternal life via obeying Christ. Now,

if we obey Christ, then we haven't given up our earthly obedience, (a part of

our earthly life), and thus we haven't purch!

ased that pearl of great price (eternal life) by giving up all we have (all our

earthly life) and following Christ.

Perhaps what is being referred to by obeying God's law, is only that obedience

which does not cause us to suffer any loss in obeying. In such case, this

obedience would no longer be earthly, but eternal life; which we are not

required to give up. In the sexual area then, to obey the command not to commit

adultery, we can just marry everybody we have sex with. Our organization

utilizes a mental marriage license where we mentally (in silent prayer) defer to

God just prior to sex. We secede from the American govt and each individual

becomes a government of their own. Since we are so much less powerful than the

American govt, we wish to cooperate with them and go along with all their laws,

except the one governing polygamy.

This interpretation of Biblical law over our sexuality is no burden at all

-concerning the destructiveness evolution has placed in our sex drive when we

don't fulfill it. It does require us to share our material possessions with

those we share our sexuality with. But that doesn't require we suffer any

destruction. Thus, this interpretation of God's command over sexuality, is the

only one that fits and allows all the promises of the Gospel for eternal life to

be fulfilled. Cool huh? Now, although obedience to 'do not commit adultery'

would allow we all the free sex we want; obtaining eternal life by giving up our

earthly life, does not. Giving up our earthly life still includes giving up the

giving up our earthly life, -since the giving up of our earthly life inescapably

involves sacrifice and loss on our part, thus making it an earthly act -with no

interpretation allowing it to be eternal life. (ie without loss). Giving up our

earthly life causes a moderation in all th!

ings (including the religious sacrificing of giving up our earthly life): one

man one woman is Paul's way. My way of abstinence for a time, and then limiting

the unhindered mode; is just as valid and obedient, and additionally allows us

to be closer and develop our friendships more deeply with all our friends of the

opposite sex or the attractive sex. Let's love one another. Let's moderate the

sexual restrictiveness of religion; because it is the righteous thing to do!

Realize that obeying God's commandments cannot be a burden to us -not even

a light burden (as in my burden is light). -because if we suffer any loss from

obeying these commands, that loss makes this an earthly act and not an eternal

act. And only when God's command is part of eternal life are we allowed to not

give it up, (by Jesus' promise of eternal life) whereby we give up all our

EARTHLY life for Jesus sake to purchase the pearl of great price -eternal life.

Otherwise the promises of eternal life in the Gospel and new testament, crash in

their logic and do not make a lick of sense (if obeying Gods commands cause any

destruction to us thereby making it an earthly act).

(The light burden Christ refers to comes not from obeying any of God's

commandments, but from purchasing eternal life by giving up our earthly life

-(this isn't a command); and even here, the burden is light, because we also

give up this giving up of earthly life -resulting in a moderation in all things

-a burden yes but a light one.

Ask yourself this: Given an all powerful all knowing God, -and I've also shown

that such a God is benevolent: What purpose would He have in placing burdens

upon us? (We're already in sorry shape without any additional burdens.) God

would not place burdens upon us, but would instead FREE US FROM THE EVILS FORCED

UPON US. If He wanted us changed, He would change us in our insides, and would

not use commandments to cause our change. Commandments would only be to inform

what God was like. If a person was obeying a commandment already because that's

how they were on the inside, then the commandment would cause them no

destruction and would thus be part of eternal life. But if a person were

disobeying a commandment (because that's how they were on the inside) then for

them to obey the commandment would cause them destruction as they threw out what

they were before to conform to the commandment. For them, obeying would be an

earthly act due to this destruction. (being part o!

f earthly life we are asked to give up this earthly obedience (for God) in order

to purchase eternal life -yet how do we give up obedience other than with

disobedience; and disobedience to God's commandment condemns us to loose our

eternal life -system crash; logic crash- The Gospel promises for eternal life

don't work here.) The Bible says His commandments are not grievous -in fact,

they are no burden at all nor can be.

It seems commandments are something man needs, and God just includes them for

man's sake, but are not the main thrust of God. Love and kindness are God's

main thrust. (There is no destruction involved in loving Love, and loving your

neighbor (excluding sacrificial acts of love), so that this is eternal and part

of eternal life.) (Sacrificial acts of love are part of earthly life.)

Commands over eating only Kosher food and other such commands, place burdens

upon us puny mortals, and are obviously the traditions of men, and are man's use

of religion to get things done. As it stands now, no commandment that causes us

(or others) any destruction by obeying it, fits in with the Gospel promises of

eternal life. -it actually causes them to crash. Just think: there is no

conceivable reason for a benevolent God to lay burdens upon us. --(our

situation is already pretty crummy as it is). Instead, a benevolent God would

act to save and rescue us from being trapped by destructio!

n and destructiveness.

One might say God gives commandments to give us a choice -to preserve free will.

But this is inaccurate - we here on earth do not have free will. -not when we

are slaves to and coerced by all our essentials and quasi essentials.

It is when man has an agenda or evolution has an agenda (to increase sexual

frustration), that man can use religion (through commandments) to get what they

want done (whereby commandments become burdensome). But none of this fits in

with the Gospel's promises of eternal life.

Love God and love your neighbor REMAINS -wholly separate and pure.

 

I just had a thought (in favor of religion, for a second): Since God has not

yet shown Himself, he thus wishes for us to live. When we and Jesus sacrifice

our life for God (in sacrificial love) we are thus disobeying God, for God's

sake. (and have thus given up obedience to God for God's sake -according to the

promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain eternal life. And since the

law of God is one unit, not divisible into component parts ie, if you break any

one aspect of the law, you've broken the whole law -where all other

combinations (of obeying or disobeying the commandments) are disobedience, and

only one combination (obedience in all the commandments) is obedience and

keeping God's law. -since the law of God is one unit not divisible; then

Christ's way of sacrifice is a valid way to give up obedience to the law, for

God's sake.

However, this line of reasoning doesn't hold water. True, obedience to the

whole law of God is given up here; but the requirement is for to give up all you

have -all your earthly life. The obedience to the individual commandments,

although not the whole law of God, are still earthly actions and part of earthly

life. If these earthly actions of obeying individual commandments (earthly

because they cause you suffering to do them) are not given up, then you are

saving your earthly life (a part of), and thus have invalidated your claim to

eternal life through the promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain

eternal life. (ie: giving up obedience in one aspect/area, doesn't absolve

failing to give up obedience in other aspects; as all earthly life is to be

given up.) Obedience to individual commandments may be considered as one whole

for the purpose of obeying God's law; but for the purpose of their identity as

earthly life, they cause us suffering in individual separat!

e areas; we do them separately; and are thus individual separate earthly actions

-(if we suppose they are allowed to cause us suffering in obeying them). Thus

my insistence that obeying the commandments and the law of God cannot cause you

suffering (otherwise the promises of eternal life in the gospel disagree):

remains. . . . that suffering in individual areas not being given up until

death, thereby eliminating the idea of prolonged suffering while alive.

 

Recently I've discovered that there is a place for this choosing to suffer while

we live. This choice for evil (for evil and good together), can be used against

an external evil attack. The method used here, turns -the fact that we're bound

by our essentials-, to our advantage by using the evil in our essentials, within

us, to bring us to reduced capability for separation of the forces. (This method

replaces the method if inc. fragmentation). The idea is that when there is an

external evil attack whereby an external evil is feeding upon you: you're

already in suffering, so that if you instead allow your own internal evil from

your essentials to bring you to suffering, this spoils the food before the

external evil can get to it, and thus starves the external evil and causes the

forces to separate in the external world.

With your essentials, you take in outside material so that the destruction

within you will destroy that material and won't destroy you. When you take in

and consume that outside material, that makes you more alive. But if an

external evil (perhaps in the form of a boss deriving some production from you

with the side consequence being some of your life is destroyed) does then

destroy that life; then you have gained nothing and also have depleted your

supply of material you use to feed your essential. But if you instead hold back

the material you use to feed your essential (only to the point of suffering, not

death), then the evil within your essential destroys you and your life instead

(but only to the point of suffering). Thus there is no rich food for the

external evil to feed on, and with this reduced capability food, the forces

separate here and the external evil is thus defeated. Plus, since you didn't

consume much material for your essential; you then still have it t!

o give you high life where you can get free of external evils. Thus the

suffering-while-you-live of religion, has a place and can be used as one method

against evil.

Another method of acting against destruction, involves unhindered and held

back modes. When an external destruction destroys, it leaves a hole, a vacuum,

which pulls at the other surrounding material to fill it. We first let all our

lesser material go to unhindered mode and see what of it this vacuum claims.

The material it sucks in, we leave eternally in unhindered mode. The lesser

material not sucked in, we return to held back mode. Usually we let our need

determine when we go to unhindered mode. But here in the vacuum, the need is so

great that nearly as soon as we would switch to held back mode, a great need

would quickly grow from satisfaction so that no sooner than we switched to held

back mode, we would have to switch again, back to unhindered mode. So that

instead of wasting resources switching so rapidly, we just leave it in

unhindered mode.

Now with this material never doing any held back mode, this transfers a vacuum

to the array of material in held back mode. Note that the material not sucked

into the original vacuum, since it is in held back mode a good part of the time;

it grows better and outgrows the completely unhindered material, which although

it never feels need; is in stagnation. Material that is outside the type

affected by the original vacuum and destruction, is then pulled into the

secondary vacuum in the held back area, and fills the function of a type which

it originally was not. Allow this to occur. Whereas the material caught in the

original vacuum, although it fills the hole that is there; it never gets out to

fill that need and secondary vacuum in the held back area. So look not to

material of the type affected by destruction, but instead surrounding material

of the other types to eventually fill the need caused by the loss of the

affected material/area. Place your higher consciousness !

and life in this direction and do not waste it in the area where destruction and

its vacuum has claimed material and sucked it in. This is how the secondary

vacuum can cause us to suffer need in the array of held back material when we

think we are filling a need by plugging the original vacuum -and how if we let

it, the array of other materials outside the area / type of the original

affected material can satisfy and fill that secondary need. Just concentrate

outside the affected area, while still filling the original vacuum with the

affected area/material.

 

I've been asked what my position is concerning people having sex just for fun

(as opposed to sex for the purposes of reproduction/procreation). First let me

say that with sex as other things, the best way is moderation in all things.

-Because if we are constantly attending to and keeping our sexual needs

satisfied; this will consume ((destroy) more life resources than if we neglected

(abstained from) satisfying the sexual needs, at least for awhile. Moderation

is the key here. (But not necessarily monogamous moderation). Note that since

the sexual area is a quasiessential, containing destruction; vacuums are

created; and in filling those vacuums, secondary vacuums are created in the held

back array -where we feel need the most). Thus we often need to satisfy needs

generated by sexuality, with material outside the sexual area (by concentrating

outside the sexual area) with material outside the sexual area, that through

growth and development, also works its way into the !

secondary vacuum -working its way also into the held back part of the sexual

area.

now, as for the question: Evolution (and/or God) has determined that sex is

pleasurable, or fun independently of us. (The reason being to encourage the

production of offspring -not by commanding us to bear offspring, but by how we

feel inside). So that whenever we have sex, its going to be fun, and fun not

due to anything we have initiated, but because that's the way evolution and/or

God has fashioned it. (although in the case of women, this isn't always the

case due to them not having as much freedom of choice as men have had over

history over the generations -see earlier material). But in general, sex is

fun. So that whenever we have sex whether for fun, or for procreation: that sex

is going to be fun. Since we weren't included in the fashioning of sex (into

being something fun) as done by evolution and/or God; what makes you think that

you can play a part in what evolution and/or God is doing with it now?

Evolution and or God will do with sex as they will, without i!

ncluding you or I as a permanent part of that action. It is easy to see that

evolution and/or God intends that the purpose of sex is for procreation, and

that the fun is just the method used to entice us into performing that function.

But for us to then act to try to assist evolution/God to that end (by insisting

that all acts of sex should result in procreation); is an attempt by us to be a

part of evolution/God's fashioning of sex and sexuality. We were not a part of

this before; what makes you think that God will include you now? Evolution/God

have their own way of causing people to procreate -and that is by making it fun.

What makes you think you can change God's method to one of your own design? If

you wish to be part of evolution/God's action in the sexual area; then you must

enhance the fun aspect of your and others sexuality.

Note that we as a society, (because of death), must produce offspring to replace

what death takes away. This is why evolution/God has fashioned sex to be fun.

Now, it is not necessary for every act of (fun) sex to achieve offspring and

procreation, for this goal to be met. Thus even when people do sex only for

fun, they're often unable to prevent offspring from occurring, even if most of

the sex was fun only, with only some of the sex being fun plus procreation.

-This still meets the goal of producing offspring to replace what death takes

away and/or expand population into favorable areas. Only when society as a

whole causes most all their sex to be fun only, is this goal thwarted and

evolution/God disobeyed. Another angle: Let me ask you: do you have a problem

with people having fun in general? Is fun itself a harmful or destructive

thing? Do you think people need to be prevented from having fun and that fun

should be stamped out? -isn't stamping out fun destructive!

of a non destructive thing? Only living things have fun -it is part of life

and the edifying of life. If you are against fun, it seems to me you are

against this our imperfect life and are moving toward (the direction of) the

inanimate ie: mortify (put to death) the deeds of the flesh -in the direction

of death -nothingness ie the inanimate. And if imperfect (fleshly) life is to

be put to death, is any life to be saved? or is it all death, destruction -the

force of destruction?

Looking at this from another angle: evolution warps the "fun" or pleasure a

person's life would produce (as a living person), to be directed towards the

task of reproduction. Now then: just because a person's "fun" or pleasure -a

part of being alive and a part of life - has been warped by evolution and is now

imperfect: does this mean it must be discarded? (in answer, I say no and yes.

-we should continue with it to plug the need it now fills; but as for replacing

what it once was in its previous pure and perfect fun - that is done outside

this area; and it is near impossible to use this area to re-achieve that former

perfection.) In conclusion, I would say then (but not I - evolution/God), that

it is OK for 2 consenting adults to have sex just for fun, but not to total

exclusiveness. Moderation remains the key even here..

Concerning this "fun", wrapped around the task of reproduction: it is now a

quasi essential, where destruction is involved: where in addition to having fun

to do it; it is irritating and contains (mild) destruction to abstain from it.

How do we deal with essentials in this country? Do we arrest people and put

them in jail for eating? Animals had to be KILLED so that we can eat -do we

arrest for murder? What about thou shalt not kill? Animals are raised in

confined spaces and not allowed to run free so that the feed will be converted

to animal poundage most efficiently. Do we then arrest the corporate farmers

for animal cruelty?

Let me jump to another subject. This concerns the violation of a person's will.

What are the consequences of doing something good to another person against

their will? Let me restate my conviction that what is important is the

distinction between things that are destructive of life vs things that are

constructive (or growing in life). -and that other distinctions are not so

important. Now the violation of a person's will always involves some

destructiveness of (thought) life. So that doing something good to someone

against their will, then is not perfect. But because the thing done against

their will was good (and not destructive); the destruction done here is not

excessive. Of course, this line of thinking does not apply to sex, because sex

itself is not all good, but is a mixture of good and destruction. I just want

to make the point that violating a person's will, is not the all important

criterion that one might think it to be (the boss does it to you all the time!

). -now if you are seeding perfection, then it is very important. and it is a

good thing in itself to work with a person and get their cooperation, as

violating a will does represent a measured amount of destruction. But in some

circumstances where no path is free of destruction, it's conceivable that the

best path to take could be to violate a person's will to do something good.

Once again, the purpose of this line of thought is to establish that the

violation of will is not an absolute untouchable criterion, but instead,

destruction vs growth is that absolute criterion.

Now then, I have also been asked to define my position on rape. They say that

rape is a control issue. I would say that it is obviously an issue of who

controls who can initiate sex. I can understand rape in the harem model where

sexually frustrated inferior males attempt to violate the harem system which

prevents them from breeding. But this idea of rape, touches another issue that

is more important to our situation today. It is the female of our species who

risks the most from the act of sex. She is saddled with the burden of the

offspring the burden of bearing the offspring, in old days the burden of feeding

offspring with the milk of her breast. Just a lot of burden for one night of

fun. And she is more likely to be the victim of STD's transmitted in the act of

sex. Thus to be fair, I think women should be the boss of the sexual area.

They should have the right to choose. Instead of the man asking the woman out,

it is the woman who should ask choose which man sh!

e wants and be asking him out. The idea of a man raping a woman, violates this

idea, and I am therefore against it. Now a man may feel very horny towards a

woman, but we men should realize that the way to get women to feel horny back

towards us, is to allow them the choice of with who and when they will have

sex. You see, if women have choice, then the genes coding for increased sexual

desire in women will be selected for, and those for ambivalence towards sex will

be weeded out. But if men go around raping women and forcing themselves on

them, then women won't have choice and the genes for sexual ambivalence in women

will remain and won't be weeded out. Men are beset with the problem of sexual

desire and being horny -and this is the result of them having choice and

having their way in this area over history. So by birth, most of us men are in

a fix as to how to cool the heat. What I would suggest is that it is in our

best interest to work for causing the women to ha!

ve the same hot sexual desire that we are beset with, so that we can

cool/satisfy our desires together in a non destructive way. -that is by two

consenting adults together. -because violating a person's will is destructive,

and killing that person afterwards so they won't report you, is even more

destructive. We want to avoid destructiveness. So we men cause women to share

our horniness, by allowing them choice and not forcing ourselves on them.

Now, if religious organizations deny men access to willing women, and that the

only way men are going to cool their desire is by violating unwilling women,

then I don't think quite as much of a crime has been committed here as compared

to if a man has access to willing women, but chooses instead to force unwilling

women.

Now, religion that wants to minimize or eliminate the sexual desire that men and

women have between each other, might allow forcing unwilling women, so that the

genes favoring unwillingness would be selected. But that hardly seems fair or

compassionate; and I think we'd thereby loose the cooperation of the fairer sex

and also incite their wrath. Here, the factor of destruction and stagnation by

forcing all the burdens onto women, would drag that society down -to be

overgrown by growing societies which try to eliminate destructiveness and try to

improve the conditions of the lowest position.

Now then. I realize you women have been burdened upon and have been made the

scapegoat to receive all that is undesirable. But if you are poor, no matter

what sex, this has also happened to you. And then on top of that these aberrant

men impose their unwanted sex on you. That does it That's the last straw.

Your wrath is justifiably unleashed and you let them have it with both barrels.

These aberrant men then become the final scapegoat: receiving wrath from women

not only for their sexual crimes against women, but also from women for what

society as a whole has done to women; and also wrath from religious minded

officials who wish to stamp out sexuality. I understand that women are

frustrated (and not just from sexual criminals), and I certainly don't blame

them, nor think that they should be the ones to fix this -women are already

overburdened. But as for my position on rape: I think today's punishment

doesn't fit the crime and that it is excessive. I do not think ra!

pe is as destructive as murder. (and therefore shouldn't receive the sentence of

a murderer.

I think rape is more comparable to assault and should receive similar

sentencing. Of course there is the problem of the rapist re-offending and I

agree that that is more of a problem than for other crimes. Perhaps a

special halfway house or something.

With rape, there needn't be much physical harm -the main damage is

emotional/psychological. But if we are to criminally punish for emotional

duress, there is one thing I bear witness to: The overburdening society does to

women, is not received well by all women. Some are able to handle it without

too much bitterness; but others do not and become what I would call "bitchy".

The emotional damage that these women can do to the unsuspecting, naive, dreamy

headed male, (as I once was); is large. And no one goes to jail for that

emotional damage. Neither would I want them to, as I feel criminal punishment

is just a continuation of destruction and destructiveness. We can all hurt each

other and cause us to evermore flounder in stagnation: but instead, let us get

away and free from all destructiveness as we are able, and thereby make our

world a better kinder friendlier place for all.

This is done by always improving the lowliest position in a given society.

 

Now, concerning my sexual feelings. With these, I'll be more concerned with

working in my methods for essentials and quasiessentials and improving the

growth vs destruction status, as opposed to gaining permission to feel sexually.

-as this is the nature of essentials -like it or not we are forced and are not

guiltless. In my method, I will not be doing life in suffering, which is the

choice for evil (and good together), (except on those odd occasions where this

is needed to deal with an external evil attack).

The quasi essential, human sexuality, has destruction in it. Religious minded

women who attack me because I won't suffer in the sexual area; is also a

destruction I have access to. In response to all this destruction I then

unhinder all my lesser material. Shortly afterwards, I return all the lesser

material not sucked into these destructions, back to the more restful held back

mode: while leaving the material involved and sucked in, eternally in unhindered

mode. -Just because it is unhindered doesn't mean it's going full tilt all the

time -unhindered means all options are open: high activity rates may vary

according to changes in what's being responded to; yet it is the same material

doing this unhindered response. (an aside note: if worshipping the devil is one

of the options you pick up being unhindered; the suffering through life of

Christ's religion is a good way to be freed from that foolishness.)

OK. Leaving the tangents I get back to the matter at hand (essentials):

Because I let some material go eternally in unhindered mode, (to fill the vacuum

created by the destructions)(thus no longer spending time in held back mode); a

secondary vacuum will be created in my held back area. I then focus my more

advanced consciousness/new growth, upon the lesser material that was not sucked

in, and away from the material that was sucked in (and is in eternal unhindered

mode); and act to grow that so it fills my need of the secondary vacuum in my

held back area.

 

I prefer loving relationships of equality between men and women and disdain

controlling relationships where men try to control women (or vice versa).

Let me go at this again. Concerning sexuality: The concept of violating a

person's will, indicates that someone has a will and command over an area which

they are the boss. It is a concept based on ownership whereby boundaries over a

person's body and even a person's spirit and feelings, can be defined. However,

the force of good is based on cooperation and interrelatedness. We are all

interrelated. We can each help each other. And the different areas and aspects

of ourselves are interrelated and each depends on all the others. The concept

of ownership here, is a foreign thing and doesn't fit. Ownership means denying

others access. Interrelatedness on the other hand is just the opposite, and is

the benefits we can all receive through sharing access with each other. The

concept of will and ownership has no place here. The only thing that reigns as

a supreme will, is whether something is destructive of life vs helps in the

growth of life. That is the only criterion.

Wherever there is destruction, there is a problem needing to be dealt with.

That's what irks me. It doesn't matter who the destruction belongs to -who it

is attacking. The fact that it exists, irregardless of who the unlucky slob or

area being affected is; is reason enough for us all to act and deal with it.

And not just deal with it: deal with it in a good way. We cannot stand behind

-it's not my problem -the problem doesn't belong to me -as this ownership junk

here just isolates us, and isolated we cannot interrelate to help each other

out. But on the other hand, isolation and ownership over your own personal

space, is much better than a misguided group effort to assault you in trying to

purify some evil out of you. Because of this, you must have the option of

dropping out of groups and becoming an individual, and this is the place of

individuality and ownership. But the main benefits are found in joining the

right group, and supplying each others interrelated need!

s. And the 'rightness' of a group, would be based on what is growing in life vs

what is destructive of life. Any common sense will tell you that what is

eternal cannot contain a lot of destructiveness within it -as when something is

destroyed, it comes to an end -not very eternal eh?

When all the interrelated parts (of a held back array) are present and helping

each other; all are satisfied and there is no need. But when one of the

interrelated parts is missing, then all the other parts feel need. And they all

then send their lesser quality sections into unhindered mode periodically,

because of that need. But the unhindered mode allows for destructive actions.

And destruction destroys parts and creates more need. It would be much better

if the missing part in the interrelated held back array never went to fill where

destruction destroyed.

But the need and the suffering is too great. There is destruction. And that

destruction can cause the held back mode to feel great need. But in the

unhindered mode, this material feels no need at all, yet it generates more

destruction here. Also occasionally generated in the unhindered mode, is the

occasional high quality material.

Now, when there is a destruction, it creates a vacuum that sucks other material

in. That material sucked in, feels great need unless it goes completely to the

unhindered mode. When it does, that creates a secondary vacuum in the held back

array. The whole held back array then feels need due to this secondary vacuum

and loss of the held back aspect of that area. But if the held back area

continues to do things in a held back way; the other surrounding held back

things will be sucked into that secondary vacuum; and the held back array will

be satisfied and no longer feel need. -And the unhindered mode here also feels

no need. So we should work with and in the held back mode, when there is a

secondary vacuum. -(this allows for periodic cycling to unhindered mode by

lesser parts here; but such is still much less unhinderedness than the material

eternally and always in unhinderedness). (Yet the reason for that periodic

cycling is because there is a secondary vacuum (ie, -need!

in the held back array)- Once the secondary vacuum is filled (either from held

back material generated from unhindered mode, or already existing surrounding

held back material), the periodic cycling will stop not just for the material

that fills the vacuum, but also for all the rest of the lesser material.) So

when we feel the need of a secondary vacuum -ie whenever we feel any need -all

we need to do, is to work and act in and do things in the held back mode. Of

course, this all started when a part of us was overtaken by destruction, and it

went into total unhindered mode. So we have the total unhindered doing. But we

additionally need to also act outside that, and go in our main consciousness

with the more growing (non stagnant) held back mode -not in the totally

unhindered material affected by the destruction; but in the surrounding

material, not affected by the destruction (in held back mode). Only if you stay

with the total unhindered material and don't act in the!

surrounding held back mode( to grow and generate new material to fill the

secondary vacuum); will the secondary vacuum then remain and you continue to

feel need and be continually unsatisfied. -As it is only in the held back mode

where you feel need; and where you must act (away from the unhindered area) to

fill that need.

This is how in the quasi essential of human sexuality, the destruction therein

can cause one to have sex over and over again, but not be satisfied. The sex is

the unhindered part. The sex is done to relieve the need from the destruction

in that area. This creates a secondary vacuum. Also needed, is action in the

held back array (outside the sex), to alleviate the need caused by the secondary

vacuum; which was in turn caused by the sex itself. This is how we deal with

destruction when our held back mode fails to withstand the suffering of going up

against destruction directly; and affected areas do go unhindered. This is not

abstinence. But it is not corruption either. We are all interrelated and we

draw from each other. But if we satisfy our sexual needs as outlined above, we

will not bring our interrelated groups down to corruption, as we would if our

need went unsatisfied even though we were constantly acting to satisfy it.

Where does the concept of rape fit in? !

It is the antiquated concept of ownership and individuality whereby members of

a corrupted group seek to escape it and join a better group by becoming

individual and leaving the group, but where the corrupted group tries to prevent

them from leaving. But the corrupted people were only this way because they

don't know any better. -driven by a sexual need that no matter how much sex

they do; isn't satisfied. It all boils down to that which is destructive vs

that which is growing; and how well we deal with destruction. Because if we are

able to be satisfied in our sexuality, then we won't need to repeatedly force

others into sex.

 

As for being offended because someone is attracted to you:

sexual feelings do not yet cause a woman to become pregnant, nor place years of

burden from bearing and raising a child, on a woman. Thus sexual feelings, or

the 'fun' part of sex, in not placing large burdens upon women; do not have the

potential for as much destruction/harm as a physical encounter. So that sexual

feelings are not the same as a physical encounter, concerning the criterion of

destruction/harm vs growth of life. But if expressing your attraction to

someone without contact is punished; then that prevents this difference from

being expressed. It encourages one to dispense with personal restraint: as if

one is going to be punished whether they try to gain sexual release through

voluntary, mutually pleasurable sex, or forced sex; then it eggs one on, to

dispense with the work needed to obtain cooperation; and just take what one

wants; and then to kill the victim afterwards so they won't report it. Much

much more violence and destruction of life is in part, ca!

used by sexually intolerant authority.

 

What is needed, is the way to deal with destruction and destructiveness.

The rapist doesn't know how to deal with the destruction in the quasi essential

of his sexuality; and neither does his victim who cries rape, know how to deal

with the destruction the rapist does. Destruction is painful -(and you're

supposed to bear up under that to the end and not go unhindered or resort to

destruction yourself right?) Well neither the rapist nor the victim who cries

rape, nor most everybody has been able to overcome their destructions

(destructions in general). If crying rape helps the victim deal with the

destructiveness, then by all means, cry out and prosecute. But I suggest we

make good use of the method outlined here, so we can avoid suffering and also

work our way out of destruction within our ways. That destruction exist, is

enough to try and find ways to undo it and overcome it: in all situations: from

the victims situation; from the oversexed man's situation; from everybody's

situation.

 

 

Continuing with essential methods:

Note: when working outside the area which is affected by the destruction (an

outside area) -in producing/acquiring new material to fill the secondary vacuum;

remember that we do so mainly in held back mode, which is a more restful mode

-so that although we need to be doing something, we are also not overexerting

ourselves (which would require including destruction in our ways).

 

Note that when destruction destroys; it makes a difference what it destroys. If

it 'destroys' inanimate material; then it is just a transformation, and not much

harm has been done as compared to if it had destroyed the material of living

things and had destroyed life.

Note that with my method, neither the unhindered mode, nor the held back mode,

can be made to suffer by destruction. With destruction now unable to hurt us

and cause us pain inside us, it is no longer an effective motivator. Thus the

command and control structures of the greater organizations that we as

individuals make up, will have to fund different motivators to function. With

destruction out of favor; stagnation will be gotten away from and we can make

the world a better place for life.

 

Compare this method to the separation of the forces. Separation of the forces

works well when there is a God out there ready to catch us and resurrect us

after we have gone to death. But when we're trapped of essentials, whereby if

we enact separation of the forces there, we die, or suffer terribly: this method

looses its effectiveness to us mere puny humans -in the area of those

essentials/quasi essentials (although the method still remains quite effective

in the hands of an all powerful God).

While we puny humans await God's action, we can make use of my proposed method;

which although doesn't enact separation of the forces -but only where we are

trapped by destruction: does remove much of the mental suffering from existing

destruction; thereby removing it as an effective motivator; so that humans will

no longer be tempted to use it to get things done. And without human support,

destruction will cease to reign here on earth but will shrink like the shrinking

force it is.

 

Note: if you find yourself completely taken over by controlling parents; an out

of control boss; a religious cult; a totalitarian govt; any govt; a demon

spirit; the devil; or even the essentials themselves: this is where Christ's

suffering-through-life method is quite handy. You see, if you are completely

taken over, then it is no longer you, but them. -there is no longer any "you"

anymore in these situations. Thus if you cause yourself to suffer by

restricting the intake of material you use to feed your essentials and quasi

essentials, it is no longer you alone that suffers, but them also. -you thus

bring their controlling system not to desolation but to reduced capability by

this; where the forces separate and you can escape and be freed from such

absolute control over you. (you are already in suffering because of their

controlling system anyway).

Life liberated from such controlling systems, is then life of the spirit.

Spirit life that is free of destruction and suffering, is eternal life; and

eternal life is not required to sacrifice by Christ's method/promise of eternal

life. Only life that is already in suffering because of being already caught in

other snares; is the non eternal earthly life, that Christ asks us to sacrifice

to God. -but only to the point of suffering; not death.

It is with the spirit life free from destruction that we use to fill secondary

vacuums, according to my proposed method; which I build on top of Christ's

method of suffering through life, -(which only deals with the (part of) life

that is caught of evil -that is not evil free). Note: when the only thing

taking you over and controlling you is the essential or quasi essential; you can

also (still) us use Christ's method of suffering -by restricting intake of

essentials/quasi essentials, here. Even so, also remember to also activate

(act) in the held back spiritual material outside the essential/quasi

essentials, to grow material to fill the small secondary vacuum created by the

small amount of the essential/quasi essential that you do do.

 

But wait a minute. If we restrict our intake of essentials so we are in

suffering in the unhindered mode, then that defeats its purpose and definition.

Unhinderedness means all options are open and we are not limited by concerns

over including harm in our ways. We did the unhindered mode because the

suffering (from a hole that a destruction made), was too great for that material

in the held back mode. And now with my method; neither the held back mode, nor

the unhindered mode need suffer anything. -Why would we wish to bring back any

suffering? If we can free all our life from any suffering? Well, previously I

had recommended that to choose this method of suffering through life, when we

had no cause to, was an evil thing -a clear choice for evil fed by good. Then I

suggested that in some circumstances where we were already trapped completely by

a situation -where it was no longer us that did it -that we had lost our

identity, that we could use this method (which uses t!

he evil in our essentials), to our advantage. And now I just suggested we

incorporate it with my method -this seems incompatible.

The main current reasoning behind allowing this suffering method to a limited

degree, is that wherever there is destruction, should be at reduced capability

for separation of the forces. Our method alone causes for there to be no

suffering at all in either the held back or unhindered modes. But in the

unhindered mode, a little suffering may be a good thing, because that's where

evil/destruction is; and the suffering would bring this area to reduced

capability for separation of the forces.

What I understand is this: it is best to do things evil-free even if we can't

do as much ie the held back mode. But the reality is that in some things (our

essentials) we are unable to do this. And in situations near a destruction, the

suffering can be too great to remain with the held back mode. It is in these

areas we allow the unhindered mode (in our lesser material). The suffering by

material in the held back mode near a destruction, is intense extreme and

unbearable and not under our control. -we cannot adjust the degree of

suffering. When we go to the unhindered mode in this area, we then eliminate

completely any suffering in this area. But by doing this we create a secondary

vacuum in the remaining held back material/array, which causes them suffering.

Using my method (which I'd refer back to my earlier writings as "balanced

focus"); we then alleviate that suffering also; so that we don't have to suffer

at all in any area. What I am toying with in allowing so!

me suffering in the unhindered area; is that here, the degree of suffering is

under our say so, and is totally up to us. -we adjust it to be what we are

comfortable with. The reasoning FOR such suffering, is that this is where a

destruction is, and that the suffering might bring this area to reduced

capability (for separation of the forces). The reasoning AGAINST such suffering

is that if we can free the living parts from suffering, then it is OK to let the

inanimate 'be destroyed', as it isn't alive to notice anyway. So, I'm not

really sure about what to do here. It is totally up to us and at our

discretion. This idea to partially suffer, should be in your service; not as

your master. Do what you (what your life instructs you) want to do and when

your done, then you may return to a background mode of partially suffering here

in the unhindered areas. Because if you want to do something, then it is thus

affecting your life. And nothing -no inanimate thing is more import!

ant than (your - and others) life. But after your life is satisfied, then not

wasting resources in the inanimate becomes more of a factor. -Resources in the

inanimate are only so due to how they relate to and their potential to edify

life. In this, I cannot say for any one way or solution, but that we all must

individually do what we think is best.

Now, don't let concerns over this suffering method distract you from the work

you need to do to alleviate secondary vacuums and the much more intense

suffering that causes in the held back array.

So the limiting factor may be what you are able to concentrate on outside the

areas affected by the destruction (this is the alleviation of secondary

vacuums). -To enjoy what you can pay for with this alleviating of secondary

vacuums. The remaining unhindered actions you refrain from because you are

unable to handle the additional secondary vacuum they would cause; then

represent your suffering in the unhindered area according to Christ's method.

No. The degree of unhinderedness we do (to prevent suffering in an area with a

destruction), and the corresponding alleviating of secondary vacuums from that;

vs What unhinderedness in this area we REFRAIN from (even though we're capable

of paying for it with alleviation of secondary vacuums); is what I am talking

about when I say I'm not sure the exact level and that it is up to us.

What I suggest is to compare to the degree of suffering that made you leave the

held back mode and go to unhinderedness in that area containing destruction in

the first place. Use that as a measuring to compare to how much suffering you

will occasionally allow.

 

But there is one factor that weighs heavily here that I had forgotten to

consider. Choosing evil/destruction while under coercion and duress is one

thing; but voluntarily choosing evil/destruction (the suffering through life

choice is included here); is a choice before God, indicating to God what you

want so that He may send you there -either to God who is now, or to God who

will be in the future. I mean, the choices we make with our actions for sin and

destruction, are said to weigh against us on judgment day before God: what about

this choice for destruction that we make for suffering through life?

So, in order for you to choose suffering through life and use that method; there

must be some duress and coercion.

In choosing to leave the held back mode and go unhindered; this has been a

choice for destruction by you -yet it has been under duress and coercion by

the suffering. Note that the destruction was there initially (not by your

choice) and has been causing destruction of life right from the start -that's

what you have been given to work with. Your choice to go unhindered has not

increased the overall destruction -only shifted it around. All that is left, is

that you haven't chosen destruction out of a free uncoerced will: but you do do

that if you choose this suffering through life method of Christ's. So I wish to

preserve the one thing I have left -that of not choosing destruction of a free

will, by now, not doing Christ's method of suffering through life in any part of

my life that is still mine. -Only when I am taken over (by others, by my

essentials, etc) and it is no longer me anymore; then do I allow this and choose

this. And I let my resistance to the advancement o!

f evil, be how much suffering I will allow a held back material to endure before

I go unhindered with it. -because after I go unhindered with it, that itself

can stop further spread of destruction ((assuming I also alleviate its secondary

vacuum it causes). Once I've gone unhindered with an area, the only thing left,

is that I didn't do it voluntarily, but under inducement. Only when my

unhinderedness in that area fails in preventing the spread of destruction, do I

then adopt Christ's method of suffering through life here. Note that if we have

prevented destruction from causing us to suffer; it will not have affected what

is alive in us; and we then, with an uncoerced life force can work to eliminate

its limitations to life altogether.

 

I'm going to get a bit intricate concerning the alleviation of secondary

vacuums. Now, when we no longer need to do a part or stage in unhindered mode,

(to alleviate suffering), we should revert with it back to held back mode. Once

we get tired of a stage (ie, it has satisfied us), then we can (should) change

it back to held back mode. (But before we get tired/satisfied of a stage, we

have to actually do the stage and do it unhindered.)

In our methods, we see there's a connection between doing unhinderedness; and

then in addition with different (outside) material, doing held-back-mode, -for

to quench the secondary vacuum (in the held back array) caused by the first

action. (-This throws back to my earlier balancing focus on gogr ie the gogr

concept.) So that for our edification, we split our focus between doing

unhinderedness; and doing held back mode. The new held back mode we do, kind of

pays for the unhinderedness we do (so that we don't suffer in our held back

array).

Now, concerning the TYPE of material that fills the secondary vacuums -it is

best if the same type of material fills it. But if that isn't available, then

other material types can fill it. (Note: all material types referred to here,

are of the held back mode.)

Now, in the process of doing an essential's stage; as we start to become

satisfied, we can increasingly revert to held back mode, till eventually the

whole stage is in held back mode. When a large part of a stage is in held back

mode; it can fill secondary vacuums not only for its own stage, but also for

other stages (but only using the held back portion). Whereas when the held back

part of a stage is small, it has difficulty even filling the secondary vacuum

from its own stage (or area-type) -and it needs to either accept held back

material from other stages; OR extra focus effort and work can be done to the

small held back part (of that stage) so it generates more new held back material

to fill its secondary vacuum.

Now then, the reason we devote the extra focus effort in that area, is to

provide the same type of held-back-material to that specific secondary vacuum.

A mistake we can make, is to try to apply this material we've worked so hard

for, to all the other secondary vacuums (which are shortages in different

types). Instead, when forced to work hard in our focus (on a small held back

proportion (of a stage)); we use the generated material to fill secondary vacuum

only in that area/type and refrain from spreading it around to secondary vacuum

in other stages/areas/types. As a stage has a higher held-back-proportion and

it is easier or effortless in our focus; we use this (excess) new held back

material to then spread it around to other types of secondary vacuums in need.

Now then, in the sequential doing of an quasi/essential's stages: the previous

stages are mainly in held back mode; the current stage has some degree of

unhinderedness up to being mostly unhindered and only a small held back

proportion; with the further stages being completely unhindered if they're being

done at all. In order to break through to the next stage, we must first do it

as all unhindered for a (short) while. In the current stage containing only a

small held back proportion; we're working hard with that small proportion in our

focus, to fill only that stage's secondary vacuum. With the next stage done

completely unhindered, -since it is not of the same type (and wouldn't be

specially benefited), we don't use the worked-hard-for, held back material of

the current stage, even though it's right next door. Instead (to fill this

secondary vacuum) we use material further away; from stages with higher held

back proportion and even in all held back, where excess held bac!

k material comes much easier. -Since no material we use is going to match the

type here (because there is no held back proportion at all being done at this

stage), then we can use material from far away -from stages completely in held

back mode, where there is effortless focus, to fill the secondary vacuum here.

Such material has the similarity here in that both the vacuum and the filling

material are from stages wholly in a single mode with no division between held

back vs unhindered; which can make this far away material better suited to fill

this vacuum. So in one situation, we have a lot of sharing of generated

held-back-material to fill secondary vacuums, while in the other situation, we

have a very tight hold on generated material to fill only the specific secondary

vacuum of its type.

When in a stage with only a small heldback proportion, we need to exert

effort here in order to generate enough heldback material to fill the secondary

(2nd for short) vacuum of that stage -(created by the large unhindered portion).

But instead, we could have generated heldback material from other stages/areas;

to fill the 2nd vacuum of this stage (which it did not come from). But we don't

like to do this because the type of generated held back material fits exactly in

the 2ndvacuum of its own stage, but not exactly in the 2ndvacuums of other

stages/areas. So at what point do we begin sharing material to 2ndvacuums of

other stages? Well first we have the proportion of unhindered vs heldback

modes; and this is based on our need and our progress into a stage. As we

progress through an essential's stage, we start as all unhindered, and move to

all held back. Near the start when the held back proportion is small, we must

exert focus effort and really get into it in o!

rder to generate enough heldback material to fill the large 2ndvacuum here.

Then, as the held back proportion gets larger, we need less and less effort (it

becomes easier); until finally we need exert no focus effort at all, -(the held

back proportion is large enough to generate enough material to fill the

2ndvacuum here on its own, with no added effort). The held back proportion

continues to enlarge. As it does, excess held back material is generated, which

can then be used to fill other 2ndvacuums, especially in the stages with all

unhinderedness and no heldback proportion.

One might think that a gradual approach might work: where we share (to other

2ndvacuums) a small bit of held back material even from the stage with just a

small held back proportion (where we have to work hard with it to generate

material). But I am against this. I don't think a stage should share any

material until its own 2ndvacuum is filled without any effort. You see, the

basic unit of vacuum filling material, either fills unit sized vacuum, or it

doesn't: -there is no in between. So the question is, which vacuum should it

fill? and the answer is, it does best to fill the vacuum in its own type, and

not of other types. The reason we exert effort instead of receiving effort-free

material from other stages, is to get material that exactly fits its type of

vacuum. To then turn around and take even the smallest bit of this material and

give it to another stage's 2ndvacuum (of a different type), defeats that

purpose. -why go to any effort, when effort free material from!

other stages is available to fill all the vacuums? So whenever any effort is

used; that stage shares none of its held back material. Even concerning stages

with excess material that do share/give material to other stages; they first

fill their own 2ndvacuums with their own material type, and only the excess

material (-that beyond that needed to fill this stage's vacuum with zero

effort); is freed up and shared with whatever vacuum will have it.

So as we progress through a stage, first we need to exert much effort with the

small held back proportion; then it becomes easier, and then effort free. We

hold onto all material and do no sharing through this (even though it is getting

easier). Then only when the stage is beyond effortless filling of its own

2ndvacuum, does it then share; and then only the excess part of its held back,

vacuum filling material. Remember, we need this effort-free sharing to deliver

material to completely unhindered stages (which are right next to stages with

small held back proportions, which are in maximum effort).

So, in a sequential or multistage essential/quasi essential; some stages share

material, while other stages do not

Note: in an evil attack, there is only one stage and only one unhindered vs

held back proportion. And we may need to do focus work on the held back portion

to fill the 2ndvacuum here.

Note: whether or not we get what we want in our doings, we still have to 'pay'

for any unhinderedness by filling its 2ndvacuum (even from our sensory

recognition of other people's individual existence). But when we don't get what

we want/have need for; we keep doing unhinderednesses. When we do get what we

want, we stop striving and do no more unhinderedness

Now, often an external stress will be such that we only need to do a little

unhinderedness; only to the point of withholding some of the generated held back

material (to fill 2ndvacuums of its own type) , while letting the rest go to any

2ndvacuum: -and not to the point of effort/requiring all the generated material

to stay put. So, we can do this. We just do the end part of our method without

having to go through the whole method in response to these minor stresses.

 

When we are attracted to the opposite sex; that is part of life and our life.

When we pick someone and marry them and live as husband and wife; that is the

exercise and growth of this part of our life. When we are attracted to other

members of the opposite sex, (other than our spouse) but have to stop that so

we can obey the rules; then this is us destroying / being destructive to that

part of (our) life. This is the forces of growth and destruction together

-(resulting in reduced capability). But here in our essential, the force of

destruction is already present and feeding off good anyway. So that we haven't

spoiled anything that wasn't already spoiled and the reduced capability produced

by this in the sexual area is just what is needed for separation of the forces

here. -It is a workable method, and even keeps our suffering and sexual

frustration to that compromised level; which isn't as excessive as it could be.

 

So, where is the reduced capability in my method? Well, my method depends on

the evil in the essential itself to bring reduced capability. It does this by

our focus on our held back parts. As we focus and direct our major

consciousness/effort to the part that is heldback, we deny this from the other

portion, which is unhindered and is where the evil is. With the evil being

denied much of our higher selves, it is not well fed and is thus at reduced

capability. Note that we do unhinderedness sparingly -only as we need it.

-(That if we can get by in the evil free, but slower, held back mode, we do so.)

In our method, all our lesser material is available to go unhindered. Usually

we aren't unhindered with all of it (for any extended length of time); but if

and when we do find the need to be so, we can. When we are; since it is only

the held back portions which feel 2ndvacuums: since there are no held back

portions nearby, there is no need for our method's action of focus !

(which focuses and may additionally exert effort on the held back part). This

makes our method quite simple and effort free in this situation (but as far as

evil being done, we are doing maximum evil; apparently as forced to by a rough

situation). Now, just one step off this position, where there is a small bit of

held back part; we ARE in maximum focus effort and restriction of movement in

types that fill 2ndvacuums, in our method. We don't wait for the unhindered

area to generate held back material, but work with: existing held back material,

and surrounding held back material. We set our held back vs unhindered

proportion, as based on our need.

 

Comparing the traditional method vs my method:

Whatever evil there is in an essential: both methods allow for some to be done.

-Whatever evil is done in sex with a person not-your-spouse; is also done in

sex with your spouse (concerning the act itself). With my method, there is

no suffering -we feel no need; whereas it is not completely so with the

traditional method, considering the fickle nature of our attractions that come

and go. Why did we allow for any satisfaction of the need in either method

(since this allows evil to be done)? Because the need was too great and the

suffering too much if we didn't. My method allows for a more complete

satisfaction of that need, while still maintaining reduced capability in this

area (as does the traditional method also in this area). Finally, my method

doesn't require you to voluntarily in a non coerced choice to choose

evil/destruction in order to achieve that reduced capability, like the

traditional method does. My method eliminates more suffering. -Suffering being

!

something associated with life and living things (inanimate objects can't

suffer): suffering therefore represents destruction of life. My method doesn't

employ suffering to bring to reduced capability for separation of the forces.

The traditional method does. That non coerced choice for suffering (a choice

for destruction) before God, as done in the traditional method, is not done in

my method. So, due to my religious conviction, hope in God, and making a choice

for good with my actions so God may edify that choice and help me achieve that

choice for good completely: I thus choose against the traditional method and

choose/do my method. You too can be a believer. Have I yet converted you?

 

Christ says, the greatest love a man can have is to sacrifice his life for

another. True, that is the greatest love; but it is not the greatest

destruction-free love. Recall, just having the highest production, is not the

only criterion. Also important is the evil-free status of an action.

 

When the forces of evil and good (destruction and growth) are together,

reduced capability and stagnation are the result. Some dislike living like

this, and choose against such; but are forced to live this way anyway. It has

been noted that reduced capability is an optimal environment for separation of

the forces (which when good separates away from evil, it creates the other

alternative of good-only, (which people are seeking)). Thus it might be

reasoned that we should make everybody live at reduced capability and spread

reduced capability all around so as to purify what is good to the highest

degree. -and this would be done by asking people to voluntarily live in

suffering. But recall that evil is able to perpetuate itself because reduced

capability and suffering causes life in it to do more evil (necessary evils of

survival). So that the more reduced capability and suffering we cause people to

live in, the more new evil we thus cause to be generated. This doesn'!

t get us our goal of ridding ourselves of evil, but instead, creates a trap of

evil, where evil is perpetuated, and is at home. So, we thus do limit our use

of reduced capability environments to only areas where evil is already present.

But wait: we've just disproved the reasoning for the use of reduced capability

and suffering as a blanket means of setting us free from evil -due to the new

evil such reduced capability and suffering generates. Even if we limit the use

of reduced capability/suffering to areas where evil already is, doesn't mean

this will work. It may. It may not. We must realize that causing living

things to live in suffering/reduced capability causes them to do more

evil(destruction) -which causes continued reduced capability and suffering. The

only benefit here comes when (good) things escape this reduced capability and

suffering.

Let me review how a reduced capability environment causes separation of the

forces. The reason is the cost of destruction. A force of destruction,

destroys life and capability. What it destroys can't help it -cannot help it

get around, grow and do things. Now, when there's plenty of excess capability

and life around (in a high capability environment, above reduced capability),

then there'll be enough to destroy as well as enough capability and life left

over to do whatever the force of evil wants. But when capability and life are

in more short supply, like in a reduced capability environment; then the

destruction the force of good does, prevents it from doing and acting, growing

or getting around, as what it destroys can no longer help this force of evil.

But forces of good here, don't have that problem. Even though they are also

short on resources, they don't destroy any of those resources, but just the

opposite -work to produce more; so that they can do more, grow mor!

e and get around more than the forces of evil here. With good getting into more

than evil; some of that good is thus free of evil -as evil cannot and does not

cover all where good is. That good without the presence of evil can then grow

better even more and even more get away from evil. And if the force of good

is a conscious, living force of good, it can choose to get more away from the

evil with the extra resources it has from not being destructive.

So that in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate and some good

becomes free of evil. However; as for these now evil free forces of good

growing out of this reduced capability environment: achieving high capability

takes considerably longer, especially if the evil-free good starts out as very

small. Note that what good, free from evil ultimately produces, is high

capability, not reduced capability. To then cause good to live with what it

produces, is to cause it to live at high capability, and this is where it is at

home at. It's not at home at red cap.

 

In an environment of reduced capability; what would escape the reduced

capability and suffering? -Forces of good would escape. Forces of good make

things higher, thus forces of good (that escape) are usually living things.

(life and living things are higher than inanimate things). But in the

traditional method , in order to achieve reduced capability, living things are

required to suffer from their essentials and thus not escape reduced capability

and suffering. -But the only gain of reduced capability, is for living things

to ESCAPE that reduced capability and suffering. But doing the traditional

method nullifies that.

Let me zoom in on the concept of escape in the environment of reduced capability

and suffering. It's one thing for a force of good to escape forces of evil that

are present with it in reduced capability (and this occurs fairly readily and

rapidly). It's quite another thing for that escaped and evil free force of good

to built itself up enough to escape the environment of reduced capability -so

that it is no longer at reduced capability but at high capability (and for a

small force of good -one that starts out small, this could take eons). We're

not interested in depending on the small production and increase that these

small forces of good in the reduced capability zone, produce; -as the new evils

that the reduced capability/suffering, force to be done, just traps these forces

of good here for the most part. To cause these now evil-free forces of good in

reduced capability to remain in reduced capability, isolates them from other

evil-free forces of good, and also forces!

them to live with what they have chosen against. Reduced capability is the

result of a choice for evil with a good to feed it. Evil-free forces of good

have their home at high capability. Keeping these small evil-free forces of

good at reduced capability, causes them to live with what they (by becoming evil

free) have chosen against: and also forces them to work against the trap of evil

with all the new evils the reduced capability causes, preventing these forces of

good from growing out of the TRAP of evil very readily; which only happens

occasionally. They will after a long time escape the trap of evil of reduced

capability; but what is the sense of continuing to create God in the long hard

road if God already exists? And wouldn't a God that already existed, be

offended by a system that tried to create another one of Him, without including

Him (all of Him, in His entirety, in all His power)? Yes, when God is

reproducing; one would expect Him to take the lead in such a!

n endeavor, and that it would not mainly be a human production.

The purpose of our use of reduced capability environments, is to separate the

material involved in its forces so that forces of good separate from existing

forces of evil. This is achieved fairly rapidly. (Some of the good separates

completely from evil, fairly rapidly.) We can then remove the reduced

capability environment (going back to normal feeding of essentials); and then

the good already separated from evil can be removed/remove itself (from the

reduced capability environment) and join the other forces of good at high

capability.

Concerning the traditional method: If you voluntarily require that the part of

your life connected with your essentials, be destroyed upon (by the evil in the

essentials) -not completely, but just down to reduced capability and suffering;

(by not feeding the essentials well); -that is one way to do things, but is it a

good way? as compared to either dying, or not living in suffering. We take a

simple observation -that the forces separate in reduced capability -that the

good escapes the evil here and is able to be separate from the evil here (but

does not escape the reduced capability environment) and we then require that

life (this includes the life that would escape evil), be at reduced capability

and suffering. What do we have here? The thing is that this suffering

represents the abhorrent choice for evil (with a good to feed it), and with

escape of forces of good discouraged so that this choice for evil (with a good

to fed it), is stabilized. But is choosing not to s!

uffer a better way? Well, not suffering seems to better open up the avenue of

escape, where it enables us to attempt to build something more whereby we can

try to escape with that.

But if we continue in reduced capability and suffering, the reduced

capability/suffering generates or causes to be generated, more evils, which

keeps things at reduced capability and suffering. Thus it creates a trap of

evil that is difficult to escape. It is a choice for evil (with a good to feed

it) -the traditional method of putting things in reduced capability and

suffering is. Any other way than this, is a better way.

We should choose not to suffer -Because we wish to choose before God against

the stabilized choice for destruction fed by good.

-Because we wish to exercise escape attempts, whereby we attempt to escape the

traps of our essentials (of evil and reduced capability) with the improved and

higher capability our life is at (when we satisfy our essentials above

suffering.

-Because we wish to prevent the destructiveness we'd do if we lived in

suffering, -due to that suffering. -the destructiveness we prevented, being a

successful movement toward our goal of escape (from our essentials) (Of course

by this same token of reducing evil done, we need to cease doing the evils of

satisfying essentials, when we become satisfied in our essentials.)

 

Doing suffering all the time, not only shuts off the avenue of potential for

escape; it also causes more evils to be done, that we wouldn't do if we didn't

suffer: with those extra evils setting us further behind in what we build and

our escape attempt. I may concede that an occasional bout of suffering (whereby

we fail to feed our essentials well), may be good to wake us up as to what the

problems are, and what we should be working on: but that for the most part, we

should not live life in suffering (caused by voluntarily poorly feeding our

essentials quasi essentials).

If we're careful, we can use reduced capability environments to separate the

forces and purify material. We can use the reduced capability/suffering of the

traditional method to achieve (some) separation of the forces. The purpose for

doing this, is to achieve some separation of the forces as is what happens at

reduced capability. But it doesn't take long to achieve this; and continued

subjection of these forces to this reduced capability and suffering achieves no

more and even results in new evils being done. We do not remain at this, as

remaining here represents a choice for evil (fed by good) We instead revert to

full satisfaction of essentials. So we don't force the meager forces of good

here-now separate from evil, to continue in this reduced capability (to try to

make their way out of this trap on their own -which would take eons). Once the

task of separation of some of the forces is achieved; further subjection of

these forces to reduced capability and suffering i!

s only counter productive, and incurs the negative factors I've previously

listed: that is: it becomes a choice for evil (fed by good) before God. It

becomes a trap of evil where new evils are generated and evil perpetuates

itself. Thus we after a short while, return to full feeding of the essentials.

So I now concede that we do use the traditional method on occasion; for short

durations; to bring an environment of reduced capability, for purification(ie

separation of forces in material in essentials) but that we don't do so for

long, but instead, shortly switch out of it after a goodly amount of good

separates out.

When I said that the use of the traditional method prevented escape; I was

incorrect in meaning that the forces do not separate from each other, as the

good does escape from any evil present here. But I was correct in meaning that

continued use of the traditional method does keep these small now separate

forces of good, from escaping well, their environment of reduced

capability/suffering -which would often reinfect them with evil.

(We realize though that when we go back to full feeding of essentials, that we

still cease doing essentials as we become full and satisfied of them, so as to

minimize evil done.)

 

The traditional method is to restrict the intake of material used to feed our

essentials/quasi essentials so that we are brought to reduced capability and

suffering.

In my method, I claim the focus effort we do upon the held back proportion,

keeps the area-infected-with-evil (the unhindered proportion), at reduced

capability.

One thing I hadn't recently mentioned in the use of reduced capability

environments to separate the forces; is that there must first be some good to

separate out for this technique to work. So that when we use (my version of)

the traditional method, we must do the essential fully fed first, and then

restrict the essentials intake -to reduced capability/suffering. -If we started

with restricting the intake (which causes the reduced capability), there would

be little good there to separate out. (This may be why fat Tuesday comes before

lent.)

Note that after you are well fed and then stop the intake of essentials: this

doesn't cause you to suffer right away (after you have just been filled). It is

at this time when the evil-free good from a the previous cycle can truly be

removed to high capability environment. Then as you begin to hunger again, the

reduced capability/suffering of the present cycle works its force separating

effect on the remaining material here.

Note also that after a time, we must remove the reduced capability environment

to allow the separated good to then join other high good free from evil and be a

part of the(and its) choice for good only. So, thus, we are then back to full

feeding of essentials here. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Now, isn't this how we normally do things anyway? We eat, become full, restrict

or stop eating, wait till we get hungry again, then eat again etc. We do (my

version of) the traditional method naturally with no need of observance of any

religious rituals to achieve it. This method is already a part of us naturally.

A problem comes as we become rich, when we're tempted by the deliciousness of

the 'food' so that we seek to feed continuously, and don't wait to get hungry.

When we disrupt our cycle of feeding, waiting to get hungry, feeding again, in

favor of continuous feeding; we no longer free up material from evil, and it

remains in togetherness with evil and stagnation.

 

Now, with my method, we start at maximum unhinderedness. This provides the good

that will then be separated in the reduced capability environment to follow. As

we move towards greater held back proportion -as our need/hunger for the

essential is filled; our focus effort keeps the area containing evil at reduced

capability. -also the containment of this material, -not allowing it to share

with other material types, causes reduced capability -as the evil therein

destroys down, but cannot get into other areas to destroy them down, thus

resulting in reduced capability here more so than other areas. Then as we move

to even higher held back proportion, we end the focus effort and then begin

sharing some of the material. This thus ends the reduced capability

environment, allowing the now separated good to then go free, share to all, and

experience what it is (what evil free good ultimately produces).

Note that since this method doesn't use restriction of essentials intake(when we

are in need of greater intake) to produce the reduced capability environment:

this method then doesn't use increased doing of essential to remove the reduced

capability environment. Since essentials contain destruction, they themselves

can be a source of reduced capability environment. So that with my method,

unlike the natural (traditional) method, we can truly be free of all reduced

capability in the phase where we need to remove the reduced capability

environment and return to high capability and set the evil-free good, free of

reduced capability.

So, my method also fits in with the careful (proper) use of reduced capability

environments to produce evil free good and remove evil.

Additionally, my method can work in conjunction with our natural cycle method

(the traditional method). Because my method works to satisfy the needs and

hungers we feel (including in the 2ndvacuums and held back array), it thus

allows us to do a period of abstinence from feeding our essentials; thus

allowing us to cycle; and get away from continuous feeding. Also, the use of

cutting into the end part of my method to handle small needs, allows us to

minimize our response to every little temptation (to feed) -to respond

incrementally, without having to go through the whole essential in response to

every little temptation to feed; thus minimizing the doing of essential; thus

allowing us to produce periods where we do less essential; thus allowing us to

do some form of a cycle, and not collapse into continuous feeding.

 

So, these are just suggested methods of doing our essentials. Note we've shown

that the unmodified traditional method of always putting our essential area in

reduced capability; is invalid due to the reduced capability causing new evils

to be done, thus perpetuating evil. I refer to my discussion at the beginning

of this book where it is described how the TRAP of evil works, and that this

reduced capability if uninterrupted, just keeps perpetuating evil -so that you

might as well say that you are choosing before God to choose evil, if you

practice this uninterrupted reduced capability.

Then we went on to describe how to use this reduced capability in an interrupted

fashion where we don't apply it all the time; if carefully used that it can free

us from evil.

In the sexual area: to follow the rules of: build up mating with only one

spouse, but destroy desires/actions of mating with any other than that one

spouse; is the reduced capability environment we apply. But we need to

interrupt this reduced capability intermittently with a fuller feeding of this

quasi essential. This is what we are missing in today's society, with the

religious enforcers being too powerful. So lets get with it. Free it up a

little hunh? You don't have to choose stabilized evil like you're doing now.

 

The enforcers now allow a reduced capability satisfaction of essentials/quasi

essentials. Why do we allow any satisfaction of essentials at all, since

essentials quasi essentials contain evil/destruction? Well, if we didn't allow

any, we would be evil-free in that we'd have done no evil/destruction ourselves.

But the pain, the suffering, and the destruction done to us would be so great

that we would be completely destroyed (we wouldn't survive). And after we had

been destroyed, destruction itself would then cease. So to keep destruction

alive, we allow some satisfaction, a reduced capability satisfaction, of our

essentials to keep evil/destruction alive? No. To keep US alive, we allow

satisfaction of our essentials. To continue improving 'us'; to be more free

from destruction -of the destructive forces in our essentials; we should use

reduced capability more properly than we are doing now. -Being more intermittent

and cyclic with it is a good start. -because not all o!

f us choose the togetherness of the forces, but instead opt for good only.

 

The attraction a person feels towards the opposite (or whatever) sex, is one

component of a person. To obey the rules, one nurtures and grows one part of

this -(their attraction to their spouse or prospective spouse): while one

destroys or hinders from growing the other part -(their attraction to the rest

of the opposite sex). When you do both growth and destruction to (slightly

different parts of) a thing, you cause the togetherness of the forces (of growth

and destruction); which results in reduced capability and stagnation in this

area. By itself, it is a choice for evil (fed by a good). But this area -this

sexual quasi essential, already has evil in it. Thus these rules can be seen as

a preemptive strike, to spoil the high capability food here before the evil in

this quasi essential can feed on it. Even so, there still needs to be a break

in the reduced capability, to allow the good* -purified by the shrinking of

evil, and separation of the forces, that this method p!

roduces; *to escape (the reduced capability) in a timely fashion (so it is not

unduly TRAPPED there.)

 

 

Till now, I've suggested that for part of our cycle, we need to be in suffering

(in order to bring a temporary environment of reduced capability). But pain and

suffering is the way evil perpetuates itself, causing new evils to be done.

-Nothing we do in the unhindered part will alleviate that -(because the

suffering is in the held back part); and what we do in the unhindered part just

adds more (new) evils. -When destruction destroys; it is not the part destroyed

that feels pain and loss, but the surrounding remaining parts that were not

directly effected by the destruction. The choice of a (lesser) held back

part to go unhindered, is where new destruction is done. It is pain and

suffering that causes (lesser) held back parts to do this. The filling of

2ndvacuums by the held back area (using my method), is not the doing of new

evil, but does put an end to the pain and suffering so that destruction can

cause no further evil to be done and cannot perpetuate itself. !

The prevention of additional material being sucked into the evil, is the

starving of evil we've been looking for. It creates a reduced capability

environment for that evil (where that evil is): and it accomplishes this, by the

alleviation of our suffering; not by making us suffer. If our life can be made

free from the pain and suffering that destruction can potentially cause; then it

cannot cause us to do new evils. And evil by itself, without any outside help,

(without us), creates its own reduced capability and separates on its own. We

ourselves are its rich food, whereby if it can make us suffer, it can get us to

feed it well and perpetuate it. Deny it yourself, and it will be at reduced

capability. Thus, I now do not allow for any suffering in the methods I

endorse.

Note that when a held back part becomes unhindered and does some evil in order

to satisfy an essential (whereby it takes in material so the destruction (from

the essential) destroys the material taken in, instead of the person), note that

evil overall has not been dealt with -just shuffled around. Destruction is

still done, just to different materials/life forms. The destruction still

exists to continues to cause pain and suffering. Since it is the surrounding

things that suffer (and not the destroyed part), by shifting the destruction

away from one, one thus becomes the surrounding parts and thus suffers more.

 

Whenever destruction gets into an area, it brings it to reduced capability. At

reduced capability, evil has a good to feed it, but the situation is unstable;

and at reduced capability the forces separate, leaving evil alone, without a

good to feed it. Evil seeks to infect high capability and burn it down to

reduced capability. In my method of filling 2ndvacuums in a non evil way, pain

and suffering are alleviated. But since in the traditional method (including my

version); pain and suffering are what cause a reduced capability environment;

the alleviating of the pain and suffering by my method, prevents the creating of

a reduced capability environment. But it is pain and suffering that causes

evil-free held back material to go unhindered and do evil in the first place.

So that by eliminating the pain and suffering, we not only eliminate a reduced

capability environment, we also eliminate evil. A high capability environment

without evil is our alternative for good only; !

and is what we want. Thus we do my method here and alleviate pain and suffering

and thus remove us from doing evil in the first place. -Evil free high

capability does not need to be at reduced capability. Only where evil is needs

to be at reduced capability as we seek to deny evil any high capability food to

feed on. With my method Since we eliminated the source of (further) evil here

(that is, reduced capability and suffering), there is no need to bring a reduced

capability environment. Only where we're unable to eliminate the evil (with its

accompanying reduced capability and suffering), do we also then seek to deny it

high capability food and bring its food to reduced capability -to act

preemptively to spoil its high capability food by bringing it to reduced

capability before it can feed on it. (Thus causing evil to shrink.) Thus my

method of filling 2ndvacuums works to prevent and eliminate the evil (further

evil)) in the first place; and only evil that cannot be eli!

minated is applied the natural (traditional) method. -and that would be in

areas outside our held back life, as my method saves our held back array life

from this. By then denying our held back array from the evil of our unhindered

area; this then generates the reduced capability in the unhindered area that we

seek for it; and we thus do not use suffering to bring reduced capability here,

as the parts in the unhindered area, do not suffer (that is why they've gone

unhindered -to alleviate their suffering), even though my method brings them to

reduced capability. Thus with my method, which prevents the further spread of

evil; there is no need for a preemptive strike to spoil that held back area

before the evil can get to it. This is how my method of focusing on the held

back proportion, causes reduced capability, not in the held back proportion, but

only in the unhindered proportion.

The crux of my argument is, that if you can remove evil in the first place,

there is no need to subject that area to preemptive strikes to bring the area to

reduced capability to spoil that area before the evil being acted against can

feed on it.

Referring back to my words on the preemptive strike that brings reduced

capability to the sexual quasi essential area via following the rules: With my

method, the evil within is dealt with, so that this preemptive strike is now

just a choice for evil (fed by a good), and no longer is a valid way to deal

with the evil within, and no longer represents that; but now only represents a

choice for evil. Before, it was one evil(destruction) used to deal with another

evil(destruction). Now, it's just its own evil. Do not choose evil.

 

That's the trouble with using evil(destruction) to deal with another

evil(destruction): if the first evil goes away, then the evil that was at first

there to deal with the first evil, remains, it becomes an evil(destruction) in

its own wright, and perpetuates evil-destruction. I do not have to choose evil.

I choose otherwise.

When we're in a pinch, and there's no other way; evil can be used against evil

-one evil can be used against another evil), in a preemptive strike, to spoil

rich food before the targeted evil can feed on it; (kind of like how firemen set

back fires that create a dead zone to stop a larger forest fire). But in order

to completely eliminate evil/destruction, we ultimately need to remove evil from

our ways, even that of acting against other evils, and find an evil-free way to

do this.

 

 

Now, when I think about it; I think I've got my method for doing

essentials/quasi essentials backwards, at least some of the time. Sometimes

when we do an essential/quasi essential, we don't go to maximum unhinderedness

and slowly work back to all held-back. What seems natural sometimes, is that we

slowly ease into unhinderedness to that level which satisfies us; and then once

satisfied in our essential/quasi essential, we go quickly to totally held back.

The point at which we are satisfied and we then go to all held-back, can be at

any point in our stance: from a small unhinderedness, to a substantial

unhinderedness. This way is best when trying to do multiple essentials at once.

Now at other times, we may wish to do it 'backwards'; and do essentials the way

I previously portrayed them. ie by starting at high unhinderedness and working

gradually to high held back proportion, as we become satisfied. Whichever way

we do our essentials quasi essentials though, we wish to !

avoid spending much time in high unhinderedness without that helping to satisfy

us.

In any case, no matter how we do it; just remember to coordinate: holding

stationary*, part of the held back proportion (while letting the rest go free),

*(so as to fill its own kind of 2ndvacuum), plus our focus effort (if any) on

that stationary held back part; (coordinated) with: the setting that we set our

held back vs unhindered proportion at (which is set based on our need). -As we

set for a lower and lower unhindered proportion, we do less and less holding

stationary as well as focusing; upon heldback parts.

Note that when at maximum unhinderedness, since there is no held back

portion, we thus avoid having to hold material stationary for each individual

area, and can thus achieve a oneness between the areas. We can thus jump right

to maximum unhinderedness to achieve such a oneness (and thus synchronize all

areas of interest), and then jump back to where our other needs (other than our

need for oneness), indicate.

 

 

Over the holidays I saw a TV story about Moses and how he freed the Hebrews

from pharaoh and delivered them out of Egypt. And of course, afterwards came

the 10 commandments. According to the story, these people were saved from

captivity, not by military might, but by supernatural events of great wonder.

Did these events really happen (including the giving of the 10 commandments)?

Assuming they did happen; the people that experienced them would have seen

fairly clear evidence of a great supernatural power. Why would they then care

about going back to the motions of ordinary life? The 10 commandments deal with

regulating the actions of a person's ordinary life. With the exercise of such

great supernatural power; wouldn't there be a great curiosity about the being

behind such? Even among the Egyptians: would they not also be curious? -Curious

enough to forget about their now insignificant squabble with the Hebrews, and to

see about this powerful God? And if I as a H!

ebrew person found that the living of my ordinary life caused me to be tempted

to break the commandments given by such a God of caring love mercy and power;

then what use would I have with my ordinary life? but would seek instead to give

up this meager life and join this God. And if in the wilderness I were to be

killed for disobedience, I would gladly give up my spirit into such a God's

hands and be glad to be rid of my ordinary life which had tempted me to disobey

and would ask for His mercy for my disobedience. -Now free of my earthly cares

and desires, I would be free to join such a loving powerful God. Wouldn't

people, seeing the wonders of God, rush to join Him. Wouldn't people rush to

join such a loving God, like a herd of pigs running into the ocean

But for such a God to not want us to join Him; but instead, to live apart from

Him, our meager lives in suffering: would be a God that wanted us to choose

destruction (fed by a good).

The reduced capability such an (evil) destructive life would cause, would be a

useful method to thwart the even greater evil of a pharaoh ruler who sought to

enslave us, if we were unable to escape in other ways. But standing alone, it

would be an evil (destruction) in itself.

Perhaps they got the story turned around. Perhaps the 10 commandments and

burdensome Hebrew religion came first, and then came the freedom from would be

evil overseers, from the pharaoh of Egypt to the Romans. No wonder those evil

Chinese leaders have outlawed and try to stamp out all forms of religion -it is

a threat to their evil (destructive) ways. All methods against evil are welcome

-even the last resort methods of using evil against itself. It's just that some

methods are better than others, and when we are able, we should use the methods

that are better (those which themselves are more free from destruction), in

place of those methods that aren't as good. Let us be against destruction and

destructive leaders (overseers) and neutralize their evil -so that (their)

destruction (threats of destruction) is no longer a valid motivator. -from the

local boss, all the way up to the evilest leader. Note that the one thing they

can't make us do, is to have us, of a non coerc!

ed choice, to voluntarily suffer for them. But they want that. I guess because

it allows for their evil ways to continue to be a motivator and have a sting.

 

Now, I have some unfortunate ideas on our educational system and training for a

job.

Whether we choose it or agree with it or not, we live in a society that

impresses upon us the concept of property and ownership whereby if we don't own

something, we aren't allowed to access it or use it. We learn about this

property concept from our earliest youth so that by the time we are ready to

train and be educated, we are already well aware of it and its presence in our

life.

In the programs of education and training available to us today; we see that

their purpose isn't necessarily to study things we're interested in or that we

can use; but to study what will be useful to an employer in a job, so that we

can work on materials and with equipment owned by an employer, to benefit that

employer. The materials and equipment owned by an employer (which represents a

larger group of people), are usually too costly and complex to be owned or

operated by or be useful to the individual person. In your education and

training them, you devote your time and energy to learn and develop skills in

how to work with materials/equipment that you yourself have little use for or

chance of owning (and thereby having access to); but that are owned by larger

organizations, (such as employers); to be useful to them in hopes of forming a

mutually beneficial partnership with such an employer whereby you both benefit.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to join a group -an !

entity larger than yourself, to devote yourself to the good of the group. But

can you as a mere individual really afford to do such a thing? You invest your

effort, time and money to develop skills not for yourself that you could ever

use directly for yourself, but instead for an employer and what would be useful

to an employer if you worked with what they owned. Your skills then are a

component part of something much larger. By themselves, your skills aren't of

much use. But together with all the other things, materials, equipment and the

skills of others, -owned by an employer: is where a useful entity is found. Your

skills are one component of a larger useful entity. By itself, your skills

can't do much. -they need to be together with the other components -which are

owned by the employer. So if you can't get very far with your skills by

themselves and you realize that you need to join and be part of a larger group

for anything much useful to come from your skills: do!

n't accept blame for not much useful coming from your skills and that your

skills remain alone without the other components they need to make a useful

entity: BECAUSE the other parts that your skills lack, do not belong to you,

but belong to others -employers. What employers do with their goods is their

business, as these materials belong to them, not you. And you live in a world

where the concept of ownership of what does and does not belong to you, has been

impressed upon you by these others. If people say that you are wasting your

talent because it is alone and isn't together with the other things it needs to

be together with to be useful: say that it isn't you who is wasting your talent,

but is the more powerful and capable employers who are wasting your talent, as

it is they who solely control the other component parts that your talent needs

to be useful. These things belong to them, not you. Thus they are wasting your

talent now -(as long as you are being cooperati!

ve). Hey, I didn't make the rules about ownership etc. In this case, it is not

you who are presently wasting anything; but at this point, the realization hits

you that you have (past tense) wasted a lot of time and effort developing skills

that employers then neglect to use. Now that you know that such selfless

actions of developing skills that will be useful to others but not yourself; are

a waste of time: then to do further effort in this area, becomes more and more a

voluntary choice to waste your own personal resources of time and effort. Once

again, I remain against voluntarily choosing destruction in a non coerced

choice. That's the only thing I have left -that is, not voluntarily under a non

coerced choice, choosing evil/destruction. I don't intend to give that up.

I've already selflessly given up so much by devoting years of my efforts to

develop skills not for myself, but for the good of the group and the employer.

If that in itself isn't enough, and it is req!

uired that I must also choose evil/destruction out of a non coerced choice: then

I say the price is too high. I wish to cut my losses and have no more to do

with these people, who I now know to be evil/destructive (other than joining my

skills with their equipment/materials for joint beneficial partnership) -that

always remains open. Just because you're smart enough to do the job isn't

enough. Employers prefer you to share their philosophy -they are the boss they

run the show. Unfortunately for me, I've found no employers who share my

philosophy. and I do try to make my philosophy known. But existing larger

groups try to stop me.

Isn't it enough to bring into existence -to create, skills that are useful to

others and the group? Anything else just gets in the way of my

creating/creativity. Isn't it now the turn of the much more capable and

powerful group, to at least offer an invitation to join their group?

Before, I did not know that my effort would be a waste because I had hope the

larger group would use my skills. But now that I have finished my training and

am more sure that my effort has been wasted; further effort in this area is now

a voluntary choice by me to waste(destroy) my effort -it is now a voluntary

choice for destruction. I see now that the present groups in power require such

a choice for evil. I thus seek to get away from them and find or create a good

group that is not evil. -that is not based on suffering through life. Just

think. If they had hired me and put my mind to work on technical problems, I

might not have had time or the mental energy to come up with this philosophy to

share with you. TOO LATE. I think I have accomplished quite a lot in freeing

my mind and making myself more alive. Just because it isn't a regular job,

doesn't make it any less monumental. Oh, I just changed the face of

Christianity and freed up the worship of God more towards !

a God of Love. Nothing big you know.

Nothing I could have done in the scientific employment world could have topped

that I don't think.

 

Referring back to the method of doing essentials: when at zero unhinderedness

and all held back proportion, since no secondary vacuums are generated, the

'oneness factor' I spoke of, is also achieved here. But if any unhinderedness

is required for other reasons, that leaves only the all unhindered stance to

achieve oneness plus the other need.

At this time, I wish to correct an error in our method of doing essentials.

Recall that when there is a mixture of held back proportion and unhindered

proportion, that there is a corresponding degree where we hold some or all of

the held back proportion stationary and require it to fill 2ndvacuums only in

its own type of material. And that at either ends of the spectrum -at 100%

unhindered proportion or 100% held back proportion, that this does not apply.

Previously I had suggested that we could jump to the maximum unhinderedness for

this 'oneness' effect, and then return to a lesser level of unhinderedness. But

now I see this as a bad choice. It is true that this way satisfies both our

other hungers, plus our need for 'oneness' between the areas (whereas the other

direction/way -that is 100% held back, although satisfying oneness needs;

doesn't satisfy other needs); but that the price for doing this, is a lot of

destruction done, resulting in stagnation -since here,!

maximum unhinderedness is done. What I propose instead, is a way of compromise

with the 100%held back stance -sometimes jumping between 100%held-back; and a

level containing some unhinderedness proportion. With this way, less

destruction is done, because less unhinderedness is done compared to the

previous way. And with less destruction done, we move away from stagnation,

towards growth and life eternal. At this point, I wish to point out the

difference between evil attacks from outside that contain nothing of value; vs

our essentials that we do whereby we preserve or achieve something valuable to

us. (evil done to us in the 1st case; and evil we do (to achieve some good) in

the 2nd case). You see, when we're dealing with evil done to us, as in an

external attack; this evil attack offers nothing good to us. Since no new good

is produced by our handling an evil attack, there is no good in a different

category. When we respond and deal with an evil attack, we act o!

n our goods in that we hold some of them stationary. But since no new goods are

generated; there is no discrepancy between goods. But in doing our

essentials/quasi, there are new goods produced by this action, (as well as evil

done to other parts (of ourself)). In doing the essential, our existing goods

are required to be interfered with (by holding parts of them stationary). But

the new goods produced don't come with this; and it creates a hunger in all our

good parts to be free of this 'holding stationary'. As we harness the newly

created good to also 'hold stationary', it feels a loss of freedom of being able

to interrelate more freely with the other goods. Thus only with essentials

-where we receive some good for the evil done; do we need our way of compromise

where we try to achieve both 'oneness' and our other needs. So that in dealing

with external evil attacks; we do no special way, and remain at the set level of

unhinderedness needing no satisfaction of 'onenes!

s' needs, until the evil is dealt with. But when there is good produced with

the evil done, as in essentials; then there is a hunger for 'oneness' and not

being held stationary in the good things. We could have that oneness and also

the satisfaction of our other needs, by going to maximum unhinderedness; but

since that results in stagnation from all the destruction done; we seek to find

a better way, using the other extreme -all held back. Notice that using this

way, our hunger for oneness; and our hungers for other essentials, are opposed.

If we go all held back to satisfy our hunger for oneness, then this prevents us

from satisfying our other hungers. If we do some unhinderedness to satisfy our

other hungers, then our 'oneness' hunger grows and is not satisfied. This is

why in the course of satisfying an essential, we sometimes need to take a break

and go all held back to satisfy our 'oneness' hunger, and then go back to finish

the essential. So one valid way, is to a!

lternate between all held back; and some unhinderedness needed for our other

needs. But this way may not work or may be more difficult for some hungers,

which need a certain time duration in unhinderedness for their satisfaction. We

can then do a modified way, a compromise way, whereby instead of going all held

back when our hunger for oneness grows, that we just go in that direction, and

do a little less unhinderedness (more held back). With this; when we feel a

'oness'-hunger, or a partial satisfaction of our other hungers, we move towards

a higher held back proportion. As our other hungers grow, we then stop raising

the held back proportion, hold our position there, and satisfy our other hungers

some more at this level. As our other hungers become more and more satisfied,

we keep working it to higher and higher held back proportion. Even here, we may

find it necessary to take a break and go all held back for a time and then

return to our essentials; but we'll find we !

need to do this less with the compromise way (Both are valid ways).

Note that here, small moves towards 'all held back', do free up some good

material from being held stationary; but that in the all unhindered way, only

all unhindered provides relief whereas almost all unhinderedness provides no

relief at all (no 2nd best). Note that although our compromise way doesn't

satisfy us quite as completely as the all unhindered way (and is thus a '2nd

best'), it allows us to avoid stagnation from all the destruction not done by

our not being so unhindered.

Let me be more specific about this. It is the unhindered mode that generates

the most new material, and the most hi quality new material (destined for

permanent residence in the held back mode). When new material is first

generated it is in held back mode because it hasn't yet been activated to

anything, let alone any unhinderedness. The high quality new material isn't in

need because the low quality material generated with it, hasn't been activated

to unhinderedness, and thus hasn't caused it any 2ndvacuum. But these new

materials aren't helping with the essential either; -that is left to the older

material (and this is the crux of our oneness hunger here). To activate the new

material, we increase the held back proportion -ie, more old lesser quality

material goes from unhindered to held back. This alleviates the 2ndvacuum of

some of the old high held back material: -now making it the same as the new

material. It then joins the new material, or is considered with the !

new material, as the same type. As the hunger for the essential grows (due to

less unhinderedness being done), it draws on both the old and new low material,

which then activate to unhinderedness. Then both the old and new high held back

material feel 2ndvacuum, and the oneness need is satisfied till more new

material is generated.

Hopefully I've now shown how to enjoy your essentials without being stagnated.

And also how to separate the good things a person does to you, from the evil

things they also do to you.

 

Once the north wind bet the sun that he could get the man standing below's

coat away from him. The north wind blew and blew, but the harder He blew, the

tighter the man clutched his coat. The sun then came out and warmed things up.

Soon the man took off his coat. In our life there's nice ways to do a thing,

and there's nasty ways. I suggest that we treat these ways differently.

In response to the nasty ways; we go to the level of unhinderedness needed to

deal with this and remain there until the task is finished and our need or

'hunger' is satisfied: -whence we then go to all held back with no

unhinderedness. Here there is no other opposing hunger.

But in response to the nice ways which still require some unhinderedness: we go

to a level of unhinderedness (vs held back) needed to deal with this hunger.

But when we only partially satisfy that hunger -while some hunger still remains:

(-since here, there is another hunger which is in opposition to the primary

hunger), we go towards more held back, (while still doing some unhindered

proportion). We then hold it here for a time before moving again to higher held

back proportion. (How much we move and how long we hold position is determined

by how we feel the two opposing hungers pulling us).

Recall that in any of these mixtures of unhindered vs held back proportions, we

must hold stationary the appropriate amount of the held back proportion, as

corresponds to the size of the unhindered proportion. We need to master this

before taking on the more complex manipulations I'm describing now.

 

OK, now I want to discuss the solution to a common problem. Sometimes we can be

enjoying one good thing, or satisfying a need/desire in one area, but then

before we're done, be distracted by a need or desire in another area. And

before being done in that area, be distracted again to another area on and on,

and end up making a mess of all the good areas. If all the areas in question

are good areas, we wish to treat them thusly, and as just described. We

certainly don't want to treat them as if they were nasty ways. But if we

abruptly switch from one to another, that's just what we do. As we are

distracted from one good thing, to another good thing; our need for the first

good thing fades while our desire for the second, grows. The fading is similar

to satisfaction of the need. So that before the first need fades completely, we

give up satisfying it (which is what we do when we satisfy the second need) -but

to a degree and not completely -we then hold it here for a time!

and then again move toward the second need. 'Essentially' we're applying my

compromise way between satisfying these two needs, even though neither need is

the 'oneness' need. (But in doing this, we treat all good areas, as good areas,

and not as nasty ways.) Now, while this is going on at a more intricate level;

we may be simultaneously, on the larger scale, adjusting the unhinderedness vs

held back according to the compromise method, in satisfying the opposing hungers

of the oneness hunger vs all the other hungers requiring unhinderedness. So, we

apply the compromise method between the other hungers requiring unhinderedness

when they oppose each other; as well as between the 'oneness' hunger vs all the

other hungers requiring unhinderedness (which always are opposed).

 

Now, I want to say a word about envy and coveting what others have. Just

because someone has more than you do or is better than you at something, doesn't

diminish what you can do with what you have (unless they are directly acting

against you with their larger power -and if they are, and your actions are non

evil, then they are an aberration on their way out). But concentrating on what

others have above you, is really a concentration on what you don't have (as

opposed to you concentrating on what you do have, even though that may be

little). And if you concentrate on what you don't have, that is futile because

you cannot do anything with what you don't have (due to the concept of

ownership). Only by working with what you do have is valid for your situation,

because then you can actually carry out your thoughts -which is a first step and

requirement for improvement. If you realize that doing what you can with what

you have still has as much impact as it ever did (i!

n and of itself) -and that it still has some value even though it may not be the

best or the greatest, then you won't be discouraged from doing what you can and

thereby attempting (in an actual, real attempt) to improve life and your

situation. And if you tried to make your meager materials live up to the best,

you would have to drive them harder than is good for them, and resort to doing

short cuts and necessary evils, resulting in more destruction and stagnation.

Thus it is better to be second best and not keep up with the Jones's.

Concentrate instead on the intrinsic value of what you do have, and work with

it, instead of how much better someone else has things. The intrinsic value and

potential of what you do have, does not change because someone else has or has

not, something better. Do what you can do for the purposes of growth and for

the intrinsic value that growth of life is good; not to be better in a score

against an opponent.

 

Let me review and restate this material:

Recall the story of the sun and the North wind where the north wind bet the sun

he could make the man standing beneath them take off his coat. The north wind

blew and blew but the harder he blew, the tighter the man clutched his coat ever

more tightly. Then the sun came out and warmed things up. Soon the man took

off his coat. What I get from this, is that there are nice ways of doing

things; and there are nasty ways of doing things. Concerning the concepts of

nice vs nasty; good vs evil; and the concept of destruction and -what is

destructive vs growing; good vs evil: these concepts have no meaning concerning

the inanimate and non living objects! For example, you could take a rock and

attempt to do all sorts of nasty and destructive things to it, but it wouldn't

mind. In fact, concerning inanimate objects, the laws of physics state that

matter and energy cannot be destroyed -only transformed from one state to

another(and back again).

Only in the realm of living things, do the concepts of good vs evil, and

destruction vs growth (of life), have any meaning. One of the things

associated with life, is that it grows - it increases itself (at the expense of

the inanimate) -but of course, the inanimate doesn't care.

(One could say that they are sick of all this welfare and that the needy should

fend for themselves and make their own way. Well I'm here to alert such people,

that there are scores of welfare programs going on today that need to be

stopped. Yes, all the products businesses produce, are inanimate objects.

These inanimate objects are very needy -they lack so much (they aren't even

alive) -they aren't even able to reproduce themselves: so that we as living

humans, devote much of our life efforts to help them out and help them

reproduce: -its called work -where we expend our life efforts to help these very

needy inanimate products, reproduce themselves. (One of the definitions of

life, is that it can reproduce itself.) This welfare has got to stop. These

needy inanimate products need to be cast out to fend for themselves and make

their own way. We(as rich living entities -rich far beyond the inanimate

objects, because we are alive, and they are not), should not be require!

d to expend our valuable life efforts to help these needy inanimate objects with

life. Work is a huge welfare program for the inanimate. This work has got to

stop!)

 

But now then, Getting back on track.

One of the things often characteristic of life, is that it grows -that it has a

desire even a drive to increase life; to make life better and improve it, and

make more of it -ie, to grow (includes reproduction). It is this desire or

hunger for goodness and growth, that is inherent in much of life (although not

all).

Concerning the nice and nasty ways referred to earlier: the nice ways have this

hunger for goodness: whereas the nasty ways, which are bent on only destruction,

contain no hunger for goodness whatsoever.

Now, life in these ways also has other hungers -other than this hunger for

goodness and growth. And if satisfying these hungers contains any destruction

(necessary evils), then these other hungers (of the flesh), thus have an element

that opposes the hunger for goodness and improving life. So that the nice ways

contain opposing hungers and are more complex, whereas the nasty ways contain

no opposing hungers and are much simpler to respond to. I've found it helps my

happiness to recognize nice and nasty ways for what they are -(that nice ways

contain opposing hungers while nasty ways do not); and respond to them

accordingly; taking this into account.

Living things have other hungers other than this hunger for goodness for growth

and improving life: and these other hungers often conflict or oppose the hunger

for goodness. So that we as life, must compromise between these hungers -never

completely satisfying any of them (only partially satisfying them). Ways that

have at least some good in them, have this dilemma of opposing hungers; and we

thus treat them accordingly as to what they are -compromising between fleshly

hungers and the hunger for goodness -never completely satisfying any of them

right away -I guess we do satisfy all our hungers here eventually, but the path

to such is never a straight line to any one hunger, but is an irregular path,

and a compromise going back and forth between the opposing hungers.

But ways that are nasty ways, that have no goodness in them, that are only of

destruction; thus do not have this hunger for goodness and life, as destruction

by definition, is acts against life. With no opposing hungers here; we thus

respond to these ways accordingly as to what they are -we act in a monotone or

single response a straight line response to satisfy the fleshly hungers here,

with no distraction or compromise to any opposing hunger, until complete

satisfaction of the fleshly hungers (at least for the moment) is obtained;

whence we then cease satisfying those hungers.

Thus we treat/respond to ways with some goodness, differently than evil or

destructive ways.

Let me go through more specifically how we respond to our hungers. With the

nasty ways, our response is this: We just act straightway to satisfy our

hungers here (with our unhindered part), (while holding still the appropriate

corresponding portion, of our held back part(for filling 2ndary vacuums)).

Perhaps the reason we make a distinction between nice vs nasty ways, is to

protect ourselves from the stagnation from the destruction in nasty ways. The

idea is to greatly shorten the process by which the evil a thing produces, is

returned back to it. You see, when something does destruction, that destruction

will eventually return to it, to be done to it (eventually). So, to shorten the

process (and thereby save ourselves a lot of wasted resources, effort and time

(an eternity in fact)); we take steps to shorten the process (which would have

occurred naturally anyway without our interference, eventually). We judge what

is totally depraved vs what has some good in it worth saving. And the nasty way

is totally evil with no hunger for goodness; but our judgment of the nasty way,

is a way that does have some good in it, or at least the hope for good.

What I am talking about, is the response to our response to nasty ways. You

see, when we respond against a nasty way, we often do (necessary)

evils/destructions of our own.

//(And if we respond against those evils, we may do even further necessary

evils, which themselves need our response to, on and on, in an endless chain of

evils. -The point being to treat only the first evil as a nasty way, with all

the following responses, as imperfect nice ways.

The filling of 2ndary vacuums and holding still in a portion of the held back

part, was a first attempt at dealing with the pain that destruction caused,

without requiring us to do destruction of our own. Now, we are dealing with

satisfying our fleshly hungers; which does involve us doing destruction of our

own (that is the unhindered part))//

Of course, the only necessary destructions we do in our response against nasty

ways, is to satisfy our hungers/desires(doesn't include the hunger for goodness

here). But we wish to treat our response-against-a-nasty-way, different than we

treat the nasty way itself, because the response is not a nasty way, and aspires

to be a nice way. Even so, both responses (both to nasty ways, and nice ways)

contain an initial satisfying of fleshly hungers at maximum fulfilling of the

need. Thus we at least initially, do to our response what it dishes out. After

thinking about it, I don't think our judgment of what is nasty vs a nice way, is

for the purposes of returning its evil to it or upholding an eye for an eye.

Instead, I think it is a recognition of what it is -what the facts are -that

nasty ways contain no opposing hunger for goodness, whereas nice ways do. -And

our recognizing this distinction, and acting accordingly -in one, to compromise

between the opposing hungers; !

but in the other response, NOT to compromise between hungers because no opposing

hunger for goodness exists.

And the fact is; our response/judgment of a nasty way, is itself, a nice way,

-to be treated differently than the nasty way. Never mind about further endless

chains of response, because all other additional (chain) responses are nice ways

(thus treated the same as the first (response to nasty ways)).

So now I get to the specifics of how we treat (respond to) nice ways -includes

our response to the nasty ways. Because wherever there is a hunger for

goodness, we should not ignore that, but bring it out in a compromise with it.

Otherwise it causes us pain to be hungry all the time (hungry when full).

Now for those specifics: How we satisfy our hunger for goodness, often has no

structure of its own, but is found within the structure of the other hungers.

You see, when we satisfy our fleshly hungers, that often contains destruction

that we do. Such destruction is anti life and is against life. So, to satisfy

our life's hunger for life here, we just reduce the satisfying of our fleshly

hunger. So, the action to stop or reduce the satisfying of a fleshly hunger, IS

a satisfaction of our hunger for life. This is why I say the hungers oppose

each other. So in the compromise between the hungers, we start by satisfying

our fleshly hungers at their regular (maximum) rate, but do so just long enough

to take the edge off our (fleshly) hunger: whence we then reduce the doing of

our satisfying that fleshly hunger (that being an act to satisfy our hunger for

life). -we don't stop completely, we just reduce it slightly. But we don't keep

reducing. After a time, we stop reducing,!

and hold our position at that level. Then we reduce a little more, then hold,

then reduce more, then hold, etc. We keep on in this manner. Eventually we

completely satisfy our fleshly hungers (at least temporarily); whence we stop

all feeding (towards the fleshly hungers). This thus completely satisfies our

hunger for goodness here. The hungers are all satisfied, but the path has not

been a straight one to any one of the hungers, but a compromise between the

hungers. This is different than the straight path we take in satisfying our

hungers in a nasty way, where there is only fleshly hungers and no hunger for

goodness or life. That just about does it.

Don't forget to hold still, the amount in the held back area (this is the area

NOT involved in satisfying fleshly hungers) that corresponds to the amount of

each fleshly hunger satisfying. (Because we do our hunger-satisfying out of our

unhindered area, while hold still in our held back area; we cannot do both these

from the same place. Like, when satisfying fleshly hunger, we must reach

outside of that and into the held back area which does no fleshly hunger

satisfying, in order to 'hold still'. This is the ultimate 'gogr' concept.

Note there's a difference in our response depending on whether we're handling a

nasty way in addition to our nice ways; vs, if we are only handling nice ways.

When handling a nasty way, we continually hold still a substantial portion in

the held back area (except when it is so intense that we go totally unhindered

-but even here, we often cross back into maximum holding still). But in our

satisfying fleshly hungers we will express a difference, by gradually reducing

satisfying fleshly hungers in the nice parts, but continuing satisfying without

reduction in the nasty parts. Here, there is little connection between holding

still, and our gradual reduction of fleshly-hunger-satisfying-in-our-nice-parts;

as we already hold still a large portion of our held back area irregardless of

how we reduce fleshly hunger satisfying in our nice parts (because of the nasty

parts done simultaneously). But when only handling nice ways, our holding still

closely mirrors our reductions (or no!

n reductions) of fleshly-hunger-satisfying in the nice parts.

OK then. In an overview, we see that our life and our life's consciousness, is

often pulled into the tasks of fleshly hungers. It is curious to know that

life and consciousness can be more than that -that there's more to life. And we

can draw that out by toning down the satisfaction of fleshly hungers as we do in

handling our nice ways. To all life that exists, we give benefit of the doubt

that it is a nice way and treat it accordingly ( by gradually shrinking our

satisfying of our fleshly hungers in it), until it proves otherwise and proves

to be a nasty way, with no hope for a desire for goodness and life: whence we

then treat it as a nasty way -by satisfying our fleshly hungers in it without

letup and without shrinking or reduction in it, until they are satisfied.

 

Now I wish to rehash the subject of sexual tensions. What if in an imaginary

situation, -perhaps after we're dead, in an afterlife , we are all spirits, and

we are only our thoughts and consciousness; and that sexual feelings remain: let

us say that if the males are forced to have no sexual feelings towards the

females, then they are tormented, whereas if they have sexual feelings, they are

satisfied. But with the females; if the males have no sexual feelings towards

them, they are happy, but if the males have feelings towards them, they are

tormented. Here, not all can be happy. What I would say in this situation, is

that if torment is forced upon us, then we should all have to share in it and

share the burden: -that no one group should be allowed to go Scott free while

the other suffers. -whether that be between males vs females, or between

religious groups vs non religious groups.

 

But this concept of bearing one another's burdens and sharing the suffering that

we are forced to bear, is opposed by another concept -that of an individual's

responsibility for one's own actions. There is a lot of suffering in Hell: and

that suffering is unavoidable by those in it. So if we are all to bear one

another's burdens, love our enemies etc; then those in heaven should help

shoulder the suffering of those in Hell, if we are to apply the concept of 'bear

one another's burdens'.

Now, this dilemma has peaked my interest as well. The concept of equally

sharing a burden or suffering, seems reasonable to me. But the concept of an

individual's responsibility for their own actions and choices; also seems

reasonable to me. Where do we draw the line between these two opposing

concepts? It would seem that if a person is the voluntary (by choice) source or

cause of an evil; then they should reap the consequences of that which they do.

But what if that evil is forced on them and that they are tortured into it? In

this case, their choice for it is not a free, non coerced choice, but one they

were trapped into. In this case, I cannot see holding them totally responsible,

as we seem to do today.

A person eats. That is destructive to other life. But it is forced upon them.

Plus, we all eat; so that no one is more or less the source of this evil. Why

do we hold some responsible for this (by denying them welfare), while allowing

others (the wealthy and fortunate) to go scott free? Yes, just where do we draw

the line between the concepts of Love and bearing one another's burdens, vs,

individual responsibility for ones own voluntary, non coerced, choices?

Interesting question. I think in today's world, we have overemphasized the

individual responsibility concept to the nth degree; and there just isn't enough

Love.(for the purposes of segregating people into groups -one group to bear the

burdens and suffering of life (the have nots); and the other group to be free of

those burdens and suffering (the haves), even though they are equally (or more

so) the sources of that suffering.

The only validity for individual responsibility for ones own choices (ie,

segregation into heaven vs hell); that I can see; is to allow those who choose

against evil/destruction, to be free of those who choose for

evil/destruction(non coerced). But if the concept of individual responsibility

is applied to segregate people into the haves and the have nots:

If the concept of individual responsibility, (and returning the evil the

evildoer does back to them, more swiftly than would occur naturally, -without

dragging the rest of us into it (as would occur naturally)); is applied to

segregate people into the haves and the have nots; but where the haves are the

source of evil (either coerced or uncoerced): then that segregation has defeated

its only purpose. If the haves are the source of any evil, then by natural

means, they will be on the receiving end of that evil, eventually. So that the

segregation will avail no benefit; although it will take them an eternity to

discover this.

The only valid use of this segregation concept (ie individual responsibility),

is when one group is free from being the source of an evil/destruction; whereas

another group isn't. Otherwise, why do we lock criminals up and segregate them

from the rest of us, if we are just as bad (destructive)?

Do we all eat; do we all benefit from/need sex? If so, then these should not be

used as criterion for segregating us.

If someone, by working within themselves, is able to free themselves from being

the source of some evil/destruction; then they have earned (or now posses) the

right to be segregated (unto the haves in that area). But other than this; the

concept of segregation, and individual responsibility, has no meaning and is a

waste of societal efforts; and thus should be disbanded and give way to the

concept of Love and bearing one another's burdens, and equally sharing the

burdens and suffering.

In today's society, much of our efforts are being wasted in the useless

segregation and using the law to hold people accountable. Much like the

criminal or evildoer in a lawless society will eventually find themselves on the

receiving end of the evil they do and produce; but will waste an eternity

finding this out: so will the haves of our society see the laws and segregations

they think will keep them on top, fail them and they eventually suffer the same

fate as the have nots -(a fate worse for both of them than if they had loved and

born each others burdens equally); but will waste an eternity finding this out.

I don't buy into their program. I'm not going to waste my eternity on what I

see will eventually but certainly be a useless and failed expenditure of effort.

So that my little yelps and feeble attempts as an individual, will avail more

than their combined societal doings. In this case, joining the group and going

with the power of this group, is the poor choice. !

and I am rich. Talk about a segregation of the haves from the have nots that

really sticks. Its just the way it turns out. If I had my way, all would be

rich and happy. in love, bearing one another's burdens and sharing equally.

 

Let's review one of the more complex situations we can encounter; to bring out a

point:

Suppose you are enjoying one of your good (but not totally good) things, and

you're interrupted by an evil attack of some kind. Isn't this the way it often

is: -we set down to enjoy something, and that's when everything from barking

dogs to kids demanding something to old ladies or bosses yelling for service,

tries to interrupt us. What's with that? With the evil attack part alone, we

have the monotone(single purpose) and maximum satisfaction of hungers, with its

corresponding large portion held still in the outside held back area (outside of

the hunger-satisfying). We also have our treatment of this (our) response. (It

exists alone* as a gradual pullback in hunger-satisfying, and over time, a much

lesser, 'daintier' satisfying of hunger; *as the corresponding small held-still

portion is overshadowed by the large held-still portion from the evil attack.)

This response to our response is one of the good (but not totally good) things.

And it is a good thing independent o!

f whatever good thing we have chosen to enjoy at the moment that has been

interrupted in this scenario/situation. We must therefore share between these

at least two good things. If unable to do them simultaneously, we must share

between them in such a way as to treat them both as good (but not totally good)

things; and not treat them as we do evil attacks. -and we do so by not abruptly

cutting one or the other off, but by cutting both off gradually. Each needed

good thing has its allotted time duration and turn. And we can alternate back

and forth.

Now, we usually don't have the luxury of responding against evil attacks when

WE want to.

But we don't always/constantly need to satisfy our hungers; but can take a break

from them when we're full, till we get hungry again. We can thus act

immediately against the evil attack, but postpone our response to our act

against evil attacks, -by doing no hunger satisfying. We can thus share between

(as previously mentioned) different good (but not totally good) things, that we

have need of(each and all).

Note that I do not advocate gradualness in all circumstances, as an overall

rule. Like, if you have an intense need, but are instructed to gradually work

into satisfying it. In this case, I advocate no official position, and say that

one can do either quickly jumping in to satisfy their need; or if they wish to

experiment with gradually satisfying it, that's OK too. (Where I argue for

gradualness, (and against both abrupt movement and no movement), is in the

removal of essential doing, after one has done essential doing at maximum.)

Life often has feelings. Life often has the ability to feel good(or bad).

(Whereas inanimate objects do not.) But is feeling good beneficial to life? Or

is it better if life does not feel good all the time, but feels bad some of the

time, or most of the time? Is the satisfaction of hungers beneficial to life?

Or detrimental? or neutral? In any case, these hungers attempt to

control/direct life to produce certain responses to specific stimuli. And

since feeling good can be used as a reward; a system can be set up to control

life by only allowing those who obey, to feel good. -Or as a means to increase

production; only those who produce the highest are allowed to feel good. Thus

in order to maintain control and for the system to function; some must be made

to feel bad. To motivate the group to produce, only the top producers are

allowed to feel good, as a reward, thus the rest are to feel bad (or not-good).

It is true life (and only life) responds to feeling good vs!

feeling bad; -and this is often used to get life to perform some other

behavior; but looking at the reward itself: is it beneficial to life to feel

good all the time; or is this detrimental; or neutral? Well I'd have to respond

by saying that whatever is destructive of life, is to be rejected, because life

builds upon itself and is always growing. If life gets to where it emphasizes

the importance of avoiding destruction of life, as an all important criterion;

then reality will mirror man's version of the way things are. Recall how at the

beginning of this book we showed that only life in the evil-free mode was

worthwhile. -In this mode, life is often growing (when not up against a barrier

to growth) -and for sure, suffers no decrease in its life. Feeling good is one

part of life. Life can feel good. Life can feel bad. Feeling good is one TYPE

of life. Feeling bad is another TYPE of life. Lets put these different types

of life to the test. -examining each one individ!

ually: Life feeling bad: -being a type or part of life; we would expect it to

grow. But life feeling more and more bad, causes that life to have a desire to

feel good instead. If life then responds to that desire (a control/directive

over living things), and feels good; then feeling-bad-life will have suffered a

decrease. Feeling-bad-life; since it inherently/intrinsically causes a desire

or directive(over life) to cause itself decrease; is thus not part of the

growing evil-free life.

On the other hand, feeling-good-life (or life feeling good), has no desire to

stop feeling good and change over to feeling bad: thus feeling good life can be

part of the evil free life and choice for good only. Now this doesn't mean all

feeling good is evil free: it just means there is nothing inherent within

feeling-good-life itself that would prevent it from being part of evil-free life

(like there is with feeling-bad-life).

As far as satisfying hungers and desires that contain both good and destruction:

I've already gone over that extensively in my recommendations for doing

essentials.

So keep on feeling good (when it hurts noone) and don't buy into the idea that

you need to feel bad to motivate you to do more. (Don't trade your life away

for the inanimate.) -The inanimate doesn't care that you didn't choose it, or

that you decreased its domain.

And to those who try to take away the feeling good of others -in order to

control them (by doling out tidbits of feeling good as a reward to those you've

starved out of feeling good, and who have done your bidding): to these I say,

you are guilty of causing the stagnation of life option; which since I seek not

to be the source of such, I thus claim the right to be separate from that group,

as prisoners are kept separate from the law-abiding.

Note that having a problem to rail against, is quite a motivator and is

indispensible in geting people motivated and off their keysters to do things

(for you). So that if we solved the problems, this needed motivator would be

gone. So we can't solve all the problems, and we need a group to hate, who we

blame all things on, to rally us to action, to get out and support our leaders.

So that if there isn't enough problems, we need to create problems, and turn the

uproar against them around so as to motivate our following to do what we want.

-This sounds like a stagnant system to me: and so it is just as good if to sit

on ones keyster: (much of the political mudslinging and namecalling of our

political elections, and arguements over what government should be doing, takes

this form) -now, doing things outside this system is improvement over both.

-That is, railing against all destructiveness (whether it be from others railing

against another problem, or whatever), in non destructive ways; is never wasted

effort.

 

Of all the destructive acts man does to man, and that all living things do

to each other (in their survival of the fittest); there combined sum, is quite

insignificant in terms of actual matter; although it does represent some effects

on matter. The matter in the mirread stars including our sun, goes through much

more wrenching, stretching, bending, contorting, and transformation than

anything the matter making up life goes through. So from matter's point of

view; the difference between human suffering even lifetimes of suffering and

death, imprisonments, executions torture forced labor vs lifetimes of pleasure

and absolute control over other people; or just enjoyment of life (not even to

mention the possible difference between abstinence vs promiscuity), is merely a

barely discernible tickle, compared to the other processes matter naturally

undergoes. The universe does not remember Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Gengas

Kan, or Napoleon, or any of the pharaohs, or the R!

omans. /(But a life-system ever growing in life; would remember these losses.

But a stagnant life system would soon forget.)/ So that our suffering or

pleasure mean very little here (the inanimate universe). But to life and living

things, these things do mean something and are important -very important. And

although we have little effect on the world of matter; the world of matter has

had quite an effect on life. The limited nature of food/resources (an effect of

matter), has resulted in living things having genes which program an

individual's death after a time (for the good of their bio-community); and has

caused living things to first become scavengers, then predators -doing

destructive things to life (in response to hard times and overpopulation of one

species).

But now, I've shown that even from life's point of view, the difference between

life and death -destruction vs growth of life; is small, and within even the

weakest of our grasp's: to change death into life, or life into death; depending

on our choice. What someone else intends as destruction of life; even the least

of us can turn around and turn into life, if we are wise to it. A trick is to

recognize what is inanimate vs what is for life (inside us) and not get stuck

trying to make life in what is for the inanimate. There is a thin line dividing

what is life vs what is inanimate, which is easily crossed. Because life is

often up against barriers of matter; the actions of life itself often become

detrimental to further life. So that life needs to be partially limited for the

sake of life overall. And this can be done in ways of your/my life, or of

your/my death. Lets take any act of destruction done to you: you as life then

do whatever action of response that you can. !

If you are still alive (note that only life in suffering is eternal death, and

life cannot be in suffering unless it is still alive) -so that the most

important task of life, is to deal with the suffering of life, especially in the

present moment. In your response to the absolute death / destruction in the

action against you; you do your essentials at maximum. You respond against the

outside action as you can. If you are still alive, you have thus brought the

outside action, inside you; and it is now represented by the actions you do in

response. This maximum response of your essentials (plus corresponding holding

still in your held back area), is an inanimate part within you, and you need to

recognize this and let it 'die' , and not try to make your life here. -(But to

make your life right next to it.) The actions you do in response to the outside

destruction, do not directly satisfy your other needs -in fact they often make

you need more, as you expend your resources a!

gainst the outside destruction thus neglecting your other needs. But whatever

size your needs are, you have the key to life in satisfying them -this is where

you make your choice for life - it is in the satisfying of your needs. -The

action of response against the outside destruction, are hot and activated: now

use them and do more of them to satisfy your needs (at maximum at first); but as

your needs are satisfied, do not continue to do them at maximum,(as that is the

choice for death), but ease off as your need becomes satisfied (as I've outlined

in my method) -and this is your choice for life. --Just as outlined as how the

unjust steward first gave a big break, and then gradually reduced it, as his

'need' was satisfied.

This is how you can sculpt life out of your response against an outside

destructive act (any outside destructive act). This can be your contribution to

society -life -your life. The difference between suffering in life vs enjoying

life, is a slim one -it is just a matter of consciousness and your consciousness

can make the transition -by choosing it (as previously outlined, not only by me,

but by the unjust steward of the Gospel.)

Note that there is very little difference between gradually easing off an

essential action vs abruptly stopping an essential action: or stopping after you

are filled vs stopping before you are filled. -In both cases, the feeding

action stops. But it is a difference between life, and the inanimate; and these

things make a big difference to life and living things.

 

The concept of owing someone, or doing something because you think you 'owe it'

to someone else; is, I feel, an invalid concept. There is no such thing as

owing anybody. If someone does something nice and good to you; that builds up

your life. Let that stand on its own. Let the reason and motivation for doing

that, be that alone, (itself). Why does a person do good things to others and

help them? One reason is, is so that greater and improved life, can be more

alive; be itself; and out of that, hopefully, continue the 'tradition' of

helping and improving, and increasing life; not for any external reward, but

because increasing life in itself is good, and is itself the reward. In this

way, we avoid a stagnant system. If someone does good to others, and expects

something in return, then they are trying to take over another person's will

with their own. That is destructive to life and this person's life

consciousness. Such destruction perpetuates a stagnant system. If !

a person does good to another, and expects something in return; then it is true

that this person cannot afford to freely do the good in the first place, because

they need something in return. If that is the case, then they should be up

front about it. We barter and sell good things all the time in the marketplace

and in our work for our jobs. It is something we are forced to do, as we are

forced to do our essentials. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But we should

recognize it for what it is: it is part of the stagnant, buy and sell system.

But what good is given freely, is above this stagnant system. What one does in

response to receiving good done to them; is inescapably, out of their own will

and choice and who they are. So, to think you are doing something in return,

out of a feeling that you owe it, and that it is not you that has done a good in

return, but a duty that is expected of you -ie you receive no credit for

returning the favor, because it is expected of!

you, because you owe it: No. Any good you do, is from you and is inescapably a

part of your persona and consciousness, and has your name on it. And if you did

it, asking nothing in return or expecting nothing in return; then that good you

did, is part of the growing system, above the stagnant buy and sell system;

irregardless of whether you did it thinking you were paying off a debt that you

thought you owed; or not, or whatever. Each of us must decide whether or not we

like to do good things to each other and build up each other's life; for the

results this itself produces. ie do we like the results that building up life

produces? And each of us must decide how much we are able to give and do

freely. For someone else to try to decide these things for us, or to force us

to do; is a destructive act against our consciousness life, and is not an act to

build up life. First they do something good to us; then in trying to force us

to do in return, they do something destruct!

ive to us. This is the forces of good and destruction together, and is a

stagnant system. I preach to escape the stagnant systems. So that what good

you do in response to the good I do to you, is not for me to judge, but is for

you to judge, because it is YOU. And vica versa. (What good I do, is ME. What

good you do, is YOU.)

 

There is one area where owing has validity. One might think from my words

above; they'd never need do anything they didn't want to. But that is

incorrect. The area I refer to, is in treating good things well (responding to

both hungers), in the sharing between good things. We often must divide our

attention between many good things, and thus we must share between our good

things in such a way as to treat them well -(as good things), and not treat them

as we treat evil attacks. And here is my formulation, or rules (made up by me),

to do this: When first we get a desire to do one good thing, we go and do that.

But if in the middle of that, we get another desire to do another good thing, we

interrupt our first good thing, and go and do that. Then in the middle of that,

if we get another desire to do a 3rd good thing, we interrupt what we are doing,

and go and do that. What I am saying, is that any good thing we are doing for

the first time (or the first time in that sequ!

ence), has the right to interrupt what we are doing. And where it is done this

first time, determines its position in our sequence. But after it is started,

it no longer has the right to interrupt, and must wait its turn. Each good

thing, has an IOU period, where we must come back and do it some more (after we

have (temporarily) left it, even if we want (desire) to do something else. Once

that IOU period is done, then we are free of it and go and do what we want in

the present moment. Often, we desire to continue to do what we did in the IOU

period. Since that is what we want at that moment, we do that. If we do so,

then this creates another IOU period we must fulfill later, by coming back to

this good thing, if we leave this good thing to go to another good thing. These

IOU periods create a kind of structure, as we otherwise go and do what good

things we want at a particular moment; and represents sharing between the good

things we have a need for, so that we treat al!

l good things with respect, and as good things, and do not treat them as we

treat evil attacks.

Now then; I wish to free you from my methods, under some circumstances.

Not all our acts are from doing essentials. Some are evil-free acts that

require none of my methods. The crux of my method has been to eliminate

suffering caused by secondary vacuums (in the held back area), caused by our

responding against destruction. To deal with this; held back type material was

held still (in order to fill 2ndvacuums of its type). However, if there is no

suffering in the first place, then one needn't as a blanket policy, hold

material still. And if one is doing the method correctly, they do not hold

material still when there is no suffering (no secondary vacuum). And if one

isn't holding material still, then they are doing no method, as they are only

doing the base action, without any added regulating. So, one needn't do any

method, until there is pain and suffering. When there is; then one can do my

method. But when pain and suffering are dealt with and gone, one can !

at odd intervals, revert to no method at all.

And, if (or when) an evil attack doesn't cause us to need the sharing with its

good part (which is from the goodness of the response against the evil); then we

need only do the casting out evil part (of maximum essentials consumption with

its large corresponding holding still: -with this being discontinued as one no

longer needs).

Recall that superior positions of power and high capability over others, is

no protection from evil/destruction. High capability and power have their

usefulness, but just as puny David slew giant Goliath, if power and high

capability don't get away and separate from evil/destruction, evil/destruction

will eventually bring it down. So that snobbish institutions of power or higher

learning, which only allow the smartest or best in, (and thus suggest that the

rest of us don't have what it takes); and by their actions, are themselves

sources of destruction and thus operate in a destructive environment: these

accumulations of power, are folly. We realize that we needn't work to make the

cream of the crop or even close; to be quite effective in these stagnant systems

of survival of the fittest. We realize that higher achievement has its place;

but that that place is only after freedom from destructivenesses has been

achieved, first. So pay it no mind that you may not be up!

to snuff: just let em have it with both barrels (with what you've got) anyway

in these stagnant destructive systems; and chances are good you'll succeed

anyway.