Hi,

I've just set up vanilla on my PC (hidden behind a firewall for the
moment) and everything seems to be working very well. Congratulations
on a very simple and uncluttered design.

I've only just begun peeking into the code. Can anyone point me to
where I tweak the setting that determines what language the date is
rendered in?

Cheers
Stephen Rapley

PS I love the buzz words especially "Vanilla is a thought-
flexibilitizer"!

Hi!

Saturday, October 13, 2001, 4:18:56 PM, you wrote:

> Does anyone know how to configure Apache's mod_rewrite to
> translate an URI like /space/xxx to
> /vanilla.r?selector=display&snip=xxx, just like
> www.langreiter.com?

    RewriteEngine on
    RewriteMap amp int:unescape
    RewriteRule ^/space/(.*) /vanilla.r?selector=display&snip=$1 [PT]


[usual no warranty disclaimer ;]

--
Best regards,
  Earl                            mailto:earl.walker@...

Hi,

Does anyone know how to configure Apache's mod_rewrite to
translate an URI like /space/xxx to
/vanilla.r?selector=display&snip=xxx, just like
www.langreiter.com?

Thanks,
Guan
--
Guan Yang / http://unicast.org/ \ guan@... | +45 7020 6916

--- In vanilla-pudding@y..., roland <ronsens@g...> wrote:
> I've just begun with vanilla and it's a pretty cool thing, I think.

It's nice to have you on board ;)

> - Is there a possibility / a dynasnip to include snips into others
> (I've seen include-unformatted, but this will not work - I don't get
> the content of the included snip)

{snip-to-be-included}
Def: Snips can be included by wrapping curly braces ({}) around the
snipname of the snip to be included.

> - I've seen on different vanilla-sites different dynasnips. Is there
> a place where I can get it or should I write to the author of every
> site if a dynasnip interests me?

Nope, not yet. Currently you'd have to write the authors. This will
(hopefully|most likely) change in the (near|middle|far) future.
(Choose the phrasing you prefer ;).

There's one key part missing at the moment, after that has been done,
vanilla itself, will be able to handle a public dynasnip repository.

> - user management is ok. But I wish I could make this in du-jour: To
> allow users anonymous comments if they want without the need to
> register/login.

Just to be sure that we envision the same: You want your space access
restricted (e.g. modification only for registered users) *but* du-
jour (the weblog) shall be open for discussion to everyone. E.g. a
non-authenticated user shall be able to post a comment, but shall not
be allowed to edit arbitrary snips.

If that's what you want and ask wether it's possible: Yes it is. The
modifications needed to du-jour and it's surroundings would be
trivial, but this has one implication:

At the moment, a user is able to 'revise' his comments, i.e. to
reedit (and repost) his comment after having it posted. Anonymous
users won't have the ability to do so.

If that would be no problem to you, you can do the modifications
yourself:
- comment-new-do.r: comment out line 11 (if = user none ...)
- comments-new-form.r: comment out the lines 4, 5, 6 and 9
(to comment out a line, prepend a ; to it)

If you don't want to do this yourself, I would be pleased to provide
the changed dyna's ;)
[usual disclaimer: the above is untested, no warranty that it will
work as expected ;)]

--
so long,
  earl (http://earl.strain.at/)

Hi,

I've just begun with vanilla and it's a pretty cool thing, I think.
After playin' around for a while with it, here are my first questions:

- Is there a possibility / a dynasnip to include snips into others
(I've seen include-unformatted, but this will not work - I don't get
the content of the included snip)

- I've seen on different vanilla-sites different dynasnips. Is there
a place where I can get it or should I write to the author of every
site if a dynasnip interests me?

- user management is ok. But I wish I could make this in du-jour: To
allow users anonymous comments if they want without the need to
register/login.

Thanks.
--
Roland J. Graffe
ronsens (weblog) - links und kommentare in angestrengter diktion
http://www.ronsens.de/

Vanilla is a simple hypertext system, essentially a cross between a
WikiClone and a weblogging system. Its potential uses, however, are
unlimited. It is currently used as department-level/small-company
Content Management System, project group communication tool, base for
Intranets, idea interconnector, Knowledge Management system, contact
database &c.

It's pretty easy to extend its functionality through small REBOL
programs, so-called dynasnips.

Version 0.5 has been a pretty big step forward. The news:

- User and Session Management
- New and Improved Template System
- New and Improved du-jour Weblog System (Calendar and Comments!)
- Dynasnip Caching
- Extremely Fast Backlink Generation

Read more at
- http://www.langreiter.com/vanilla/

Enjoy!

Hi!

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 6:50:36 PM, you wrote:

> space-accessor: "simplespace"
> space-param: "/public/mas/vanilla/space/"        ; e.g. "/c/vanilla/space/"

> ; styles and apps are resources - they can be shared

> resource-dir: "/public/mas/vanilla/"     ; e.g. "/c/vanilla/"
> resource-url: "/vanilla/"

> ; site-specific globals

> Does anyone understand what I am doing wrong??? Probably I should
> say that I am running everything in a linux system and the httpd
> server is an Apachi one.

first: i've not used 0.3.6 for a long time!

the config file has to stay in the same directory as the cgi
(vanilla.r) - the space-accessor is a path relative to the
cgi-location.

the space-directory must be read/writable for the user under which the
web-server (httpd) runs.

i think the resource-url is not used anywhere, but nevertheless you
should set it to some valid http-path ("/home/mas/vanilla/" for
example).

i hope that this helps ...

--
Best regards,
  Earl                            mailto:earl.walker@...

Dear Vanilla users (friends),

I am trying to start to use vanilla, but I have got some problems in
configuring it...

rebol seems to be working, you could check it by yourselves. There is an hello
(.r) script at the following address.

http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/cgi/mas/hello.r

Unfortunally I have not successed with vanilla.r

http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/cgi/mas/vanilla.r (try it)

I think the problem is my vanilla.r.conf file, which looks like as follows.

; 2000-05-14 for 0.3.6

space-accessor: "simplespace"
space-param: "/public/mas/vanilla/space/"        ; e.g. "/c/vanilla/space/"

; styles and apps are resources - they can be shared

resource-dir: "/public/mas/vanilla/"     ; e.g. "/c/vanilla/"
resource-url: "/vanilla/"

; site-specific globals

vanilla-html-link-prefix: ""

; a style consists of a site-wide header and a site-wide footer
; in one of those two files the navigation (and a stylesheet) should be included

style-name: "blue"

Does anyone understand what I am doing wrong??? Probably I should say that I am
running everything in a linux system and the httpd server is an Apachi one.

I thank you in advance for your help and reply.

Regards,
Massimo Felici

--
----------------------------------------------------------
Massimo Felici

Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science
Division of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh
James Clerk Maxwell Building
The King's Buildings
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
United Kingdom

Telephone:    +44 - 131 - 6505899
Fax:          +44 - 131 - 6677209
E-Mail:       mas@...
URL address:  http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/mas/
----------------------------------------------------------

What does it matter how a society is?  One theme in sociology is the
idea that how a society is, just reflects the whims of the present
leaders plus the cultural influences of past leaders. -That it is
possible for any type of society to exist, and, the specific way a
society is, doesn't make a difference overall in the larger scheme of
things.  -so that it is in the individual's best interest to conform
to the ways of whatever their society is, as it is only individuals
who care if they are rewarded or punished for obedience or
disobedience; and that whether they are rewarded or punished or
obedient or disobedient makes no difference overall.  However, this
is actually somewhat incorrect.  And the evidence for this
incorrectness is found in the existence of the social structure
called 'family'.
      Societal institutions are how essential societal tasks get
carried out in an organized fashion.  Producing the next generation
is an essential task.  But dealing with sexual activity and plus the
birth and care of children from sexual activity, are the essential
societal tasks carried out by family or kinship institutions.
Closely related is the institution of marriage.  Here in the US and
much of the world, we can come out and say that marriage is a
socially legitimate sexual union with the price that the partners
limit their sexual activity to only each other. i.e., a monogamous
relationship.  Thus the offspring produced can be tied to that
couple, and then that group of people are considered a family.
      Even without the institution of family, nature, through pre
history, has provided a means for social reproduction where the next
generation is produced, through the innate male and female physical
attraction, and a tribal community to raise the offspring produced
(unlike gorilla primates which live in nuclear family units).  If a
society tied the burden of raising offspring solely to the couple who
bore them, then this would discourage childbearing (to a degree) -
(compared to a tribal society where all members helped with the
burdens of child rearing).  With less offspring produced, this would
free up resources to make better the lives of the existing offspring,
as well as everybody else.  So that tribes who adopted the concept
of  'family' would achieve an improving standard of living, which
would allow them to dominate tribes with the natural tribal form.
And so, this is perhaps, (I would suggest) why most modern societies
have the concept of 'family' (where the burden of raising the
children is laid solely on the couple who bore them): and that
perhaps this has contributed to our higher standard of living
especially in developed countries.  Yet, what has all this wealth
gotten us; when today, those who have, use hunger and deprivation to
manipulate the rest of us?  What difference has (family) made?
      Not all things make a difference, but depending on how friendly,
nurturing and kind a society is to its members, does make a
difference.  One reason is, is because the human infant is so
helpless.
In a very nurturing society, an infant can survive and thrive simply
by being a member.  But in a harsher and colder society, infants
couldn't survive just being part of that society.  In order for
harsher colder cultures to survive beyond one generation, a more
nurturing but limited environment must be provided to that society's
infants. -hence a mother or couple can be designated to care for and
use their resources to provide a small nurturing enriched environment
for their infant; allowing the rest of society to continue on in its
cold negative ways. -otherwise harsh societies would cease to exist. -
hence the institution of family can be a crutch by which harsh unkind
negative societies continue to exist.
      The institution of the family has been given the domain of
socialization of the children as part of the essential societal task
it performs.  When the human mind is young as in an infant or child,
it has special learning abilities.  For example, at a certain young
age, a human easily learns languages; whereas when older, an adult
has great difficulty learning a new language.  It is well agreed
among sociologists that the early socialization of humans during
young childhood, has a marked effect in determining who they will be
and how they will act (as out of their culture) later in life.  In my
family when I was growing up, I went through this process where my
brain had a special ability to learn and be formed (programmed) that
as an adult I no longer have.  Of course the innate biological
ability to learn, by itself, is insufficient to cause socialization:
also present must be interactions with society.
      The trouble is, with children, a special artificial world is
created around them (the whole school curriculum, parental activities
geared to children), while the adult world is hidden away from them. -
So that they become socialized to the artificial world and not to the
harsher adult world because it is hidden away.  My parents would have
chores for me to do or encourage me to do my school work or send me
to camp or to music lessons (which I  never was any good at).  So
that as I was being socialized to this artificial world contrived for
children, the harsher world of adults remained hidden away and I was
not socialized to it.  Of course my parents were just trying to give
me a happy childhood, but because of it, I missed out on being
socialized to the nasty ways of adult society.  -thus the special
ability my young brain had to learn culture and be programmed, passed
without me learning the ropes of adult culture.
      What marriage and family meant to me as a child, although I
didn't realize it at the time, was that I exist in a society with a
fairly high standard of living, but that wasn't necessarily very warm
or nurturing but could instead be cold and harsh, that wasn't going
to allow me a leg up on it by letting my childhood mind have a crack
at it.  And also that I am still alive at all, because without my
family, I probably wouldn't be one of the skillful few who survived
socialization into a harsh society as it was self destructing.  (In
order to cause negative and harsh societies to expire naturally while
maintaining the nurturing ones: disband the family. -something that
seems to be happening already as a response to the new pressures of
specialization and globalization.  I suppose that wouldn't be the end
of it as some cloning program would be attempted.)

As part of an assignment, I was to analyze a number of songs.

     All these songs concern themselves with intimate love
relationships; and relate that with the traditional rules/norms of
society that base marriage and family on sexual exclusivity between
partners.  All reject these traditional rules/norms over
sexual/intimate behavior.



      An essential task every society must do, is raise the next
generation.  Institutions often form around fulfilling one of
society's basic needs.  However, even before organized society
existed, nature had developed a way to continue the species and
ensure the next generation.  Note that the act by a caveperson to
have and care for offspring did nothing to benefit his/her individual
survival; but did everything to benefit the future survival of the
species.  Thus nature (or God) caused there to be a physical (bodily)
attraction between male and female, so that individuals would do what
otherwise didn't benefit them, -that otherwise was an expense in
effort and resources.  So that the essential societal need of
producing the next generation already has a mechanism for being
fulfilled, even without the institutions of marriage and family.  -So
that the 3rd, modern meaning of marriage (that is, for personal
fulfilment of the body and mind provided by nature/God) is not really
new, but is instead, ancient and existed prior to recorded history.
As civilization developed more structure and organization, perhaps
the institutions of family and marriage then took over the task of
supplying society's need to produce the next generation.  -As ways
were found to slow the birth rate as run by nature, more resources
were left for the adults; hence arranged marriages for the purpose of
enhancing and preserving family property were the traditional way,
and represent a more traditional meaning of marriage -that of
pleasing society.
      Since the authors of these songs are African Americans we must
realize they've had their culture -a natural culture, that of a
tribal community (reference 'survivor'), where the task of
reproducing the next generation came from the natural way developed
over pre history -that of bodily/physical attraction between the
sexes; and where the burden of offspring was born by not only the
couple bearing the children, but by the whole tribal community -
humans of prehistory developed as tribal communities, not as nuclear
families, like gorilla primates. -Their tribal culture torn from them
and western culture imposed on them as a result of their forcible
removal to the US.  As slaves, the institution of family and
marriage, they were not allowed.  So that for an extended period, all
they had was the natural way.  And then after being freed, having to
endure the migration of their able bodied men to the North for
industrial work, away from their women and children, thus disrupted
families and extended families.
       Instead of being ethnocentric and thinking that one way is
better than another because it is our way and is what we're used to:
Instead let us view the different ways objectively.  In so doing  we
can gain insight into our own ways.  Looking at the task of producing
the future generation: since all of society is benefitted by its
successful completion, its reasonable to expect all of society to
bear the expense and burden of this task.  However, the institution
of family, ties completely, the burden/responsibility for offspring a
couple bears, to that couple, and frees the rest of society from any
responsibility whatever.  And this burden becomes especially intense
when the father steps out and leaves only the mother to bear the
whole burden.
   This doesn't represent parts of society cooperating and working
together to accomplish a common important social task.  Thus the
institution of family is not a part of the structural-functionalist
theory, at least not concerning the important (essential) social task
of producing the next generation.  Females have and raise kids for
the benefit of society having a next generation, but the other parts
of society give nothing in return for this.  The act to divide the
societal whole into parts, with each part assigned a task, doesn't
represent cooperation between the parts, but represents a shoving the
burden onto one group (which is exploitation); -when all parts should
be helping with an important task, in order to be in cooperation.
This represents a basic flaw in the structural-functionalist theory.
It is perhaps the foreignness of our culture's concept of focusing
responsibility for children onto the nuclear family unit, as opposed
to extended family, that these African American song writers are
expressing and rebelling against.  This Western way isn't even
logical.

      Looking at the task of producing/rearing the future generation:
those who must do this task are prevented from attending to the power
struggles of the present generation.  Because it is the women who
grow an embryo to a fetus and bear the children and are semi disabled
in being pregnant; because women have the equipment for feeding the
children; and have a mothering instinct: it is women who do more of
the task of producing the future generation than men.  Over history,
this has left men free to dominate their present generation (while
the women are busy taking care of the kids).  With men making the
rules, they became the order givers and women the order takers.  From
this evolves a situation where one group (the men) enriches their
life by shoving the burdens of life onto another group (the women).
But it doesn't stop there.  Half the population (the men) are still
fair game to be put to work for one's enrichment.  The situation
where women are subordinate, just gave ambitious men a taste of what
it was like to have someone do for them and how good that felt.  They
proceeded to subordinate as many as they could for their enrichment.
But in order to be dominant over others in more than just a temporary
way, the concept of property ownership must be established whereby
one owns things-and-people for use by themselves, but that others
aren't allowed to use.  Without the concept of ownership; if people
need something, they just take it and consume it, so that one is
unable to store up great piles of wealth for themselves which may be
use to control many others.  The rules promoting sexual exclusivity
allow for a nuclear family unit to be defined.  With the burden of
raising a specific child relegated to a specific nuclear family: a
child would be prevented from expecting help from the society at
large.  With Children (the next generation) not being allowed to take
what they needed from those who had, concepts of ownership could be
enacted.  Otherwise if children took what they needed from everyone
and from those who had, then this would defeat the ability to be
dominant or to amass great piles of wealth because the concept of
ownership would be greatly violated.  -(The expense of raising
children is real.  Just look how it holds single mothers down.)  And
the dominant cannot extract from children like they extract from the
rest of us.  A society cannot say to an infant "pull your own
weight".  A religion cannot say to an infant "if you don't work, you
don't eat".  If they did, they would in one generation, vanish,
because they would have killed all their children and thus their next
generation. So who decided it is the nuclear family who is solely
responsible?  It did not come from the natural method, as there in a
tribal community, the whole tribe shared the burden.  It is true that
when women have kids, it places a burden on the whole society that
that society may not wish to have placed upon it.  But note that if
that burden isn't placed upon it, that society won't survive  -it is
an essential to society.   So, the norms of sexual exclusivity from
which comes the institution of marriage; from which comes the
institution of family: serve the purpose to allow the dominant few to
maintain their place of dominance for more than just one generation.
Note that these structures of property and norms in marriage are
constructs of a symbolic interactionist type because they rely on
meanings in our minds to make the whole thing work. The songs by
these African Americans mostly do not share an adherence with these
ways of mind.  By not recognizing sexual exclusivity, they prevent
themselves from being defined into nuclear families, but instead,
pull together as extended families.  As extended families, they are
less subject to the specialization that has eroded much of modern
society in the pursuit of human greed.


I was in disagreement with most of my group on this issue.  My group
mostly felt families who can't support themselves are not entitled to
support (by others), but are instead entitled to only a job, or a
limited time of support.  My feelings centered around why are
families put in the position of needing support in the first place,
seeing that every family needs support by others because no family
supports itself alone but only as part of a group and a system. (thus
entitling needy families to a job).
I recalled that being part of a reward system had an effect on this -
that having families experience situations of being unable to support
themselves was useful in making them hungry: -that hunger being
useful in getting them to accept a meager place in the reward
system; -as the reward system always needs those who will generate
the economic reward for others and thus won't have much left over for
themselves.  So that our social system doesn't allow us to say 'lets
help needy people', because that acts contrary to the workings of our
reward system.  To not help needy families is destructive to their
lives, thus our social system requires we be destructive to others.
I see destructiveness as an evil and a folly, so my feelings are of
rejection of it and rejection of systems to the degree that they
require it.  So yes, lets help people, especially those who need it;
is what I feel, in opposition to an organized societal reward system.

Note that the sexual exclusivity interpretation of the Bible we have
in the US today, has functioned to serve mammon (money), and has
furthered the purposes of mammon at the expense of being able to help
our neighbor especially a needy neighbor.  We see the directives of
love, a central tenant of the Bible and God, being trampled upon by
the use of sexual exclusivity in an economic context as to who to
stick the burden of children, which is aberrant even from the natural
way of tribal care.  The Bible says:  you cannot serve both God and
mammon.  So, I suggest: cast one out.





   In the writing below, I will show how the pursuit of human greed
has caused much of our problems we face today.


      In considering what is the problem concerning the issue of
poverty, it makes a difference from who's perspective one is
looking.  To the poor person, the problem is: not having enough for
basic survival needs.  To the government, the ruling class, or the
larger society; the problems with poverty may be quite different.  To
be blunt, poverty serves a purpose and has a function.  One
possibility of dividing up the economic goods we produce, is to
divide them equally.  However, in order to generate big rewards which
are useful to motivate the masses to chase after them by doing the
ruling class's bidding: one group must accept less than the equal
share so another group can be enriched and receive a big reward.
Those who must accept less, (that is the reward given for menial
labor), are understandably displeased.  But to get them to accept the
menial reward in spite of this; a more dire alternative is shown
them  -that of abject poverty.  Poverty serves the purpose of
motivating those designated to receive the menial reward, to accept
this their place, in spite of its lack of luster.  So for the ruling
class, the problem with poverty in the US today is that there isn't
enough of it; as our current reward system depends on a certain
amount of it to help it run.  Hence poverty persists in the US, more
than in other industrialized countries like Canada and Western Europe
even though these countries are less wealthy than the US.
      When a person is unable to work, perhaps because they are
disabled, sometimes a society will pay for their living expenses,
although not every society may do this.  And if a person is mentally
unable to take care of their own needs, our society commits them to
institutions which provide that care.  And all expenses are paid by
the state, where everyone who is able is taxed and they help pay for
the benefit of someone else. (Just like the rich benefit from the
labors of the rest of us.)  All of us when we were young went through
a period when we were infants.  Infants are people.  And these people
are unable to work.  Note that if a society did not have some
mechanism whereby these infant people received the labor of others,
then that society would cease to exist in one generation.  In our
society, the organized effort we extend to disabled people is not
present for the infant people, and infant people are treated as a
special case where the sole expense of caring for them is placed on
the parents of infant persons.
And if the male partner steps out, our societal norms then place the
burden for the care of these infant people solely on the mother,
freeing the rest of society from any responsibility whatever.  This
comes very close to a society refusing to help, at all, these infant
people who can neither work nor survive without being spoon fed:
which if were to occur, would result in the inhalation of this
society in one generation.  This lack of help, and lack of LOVE,
shows an extensive erosion in this society's commitment to the
Biblical directive, Jesus' directive, to LOVE.




      The most traditional meaning of marriage is that it is an
institution from God, and maintained by God.  -that God has authority
over all family matters, as administered by church officials; and
that the wants and needs of the individual person are secondary to
what God (as represented by church officials) wants.
      The next traditional meaning of marriage is that it is an
institution with norms and expectations to the social group -to
society.  Authority is rooted in one's kin group and overall
community. Here the emphasis is on upholding a respectable image in
society by conforming to the norms of one's specific community.
      The most recent meaning of marriage is that its purpose is for
personal fulfilment -that is, doing what feels good to one.
Authority over the meaning of one's marriage resides in oneself and
what one wants.
      These all exist in our society today -a pluralist array of
structures.
      I would discuss that the institutional goal of family/marriage
is procreation.  -That procreation of humans is an essential to
society  -otherwise the society and its traditions would end in one
generation.  Whereas, sex isn't an absolute essential for the
individual human as they don't die without it.  In today's world
where children have gone from being an asset (in farm labor) to being
an expense: if a society is to survive, there must be some
inducement, some reason to get a couple to have and raise kids,
because procreation fulfills a deep need of society.
      Some have taken a historical perspective, -looking at how the
modern family doesn't fill the functions that families of old, or
traditional families, did.

      In earlier days in history, in traditional societies, needs were
met by local and extended family people.  Back then, people were born
in the home, died in the home, cared for as children by extended
family in the home.  Now the supplier of all these functions have
been replaced by bureaucratic organizations.
Functions the family traditionally filled:
economic -today, the factory and office fills this function.
education -today, the school system and the day care facility fills
this function.
prestige and status -the family name doesn't mean that much today.
protection -police, firemen, hospitals, and other social programs
fill this function today.
religion -professional clergy fill this function today.
recreation -TV, movies, and sports leagues today fill this function.
affection and procreation -today's family still fills this function,
but competition from outside 'agencies' are close by: and if a
government gets a cloning program into gear, then this function also
may be lost.  However, I would think most governments would prefer to
continue receiving the free labor in this area they get from
the 'birds and bees'.
      In today's modern scene, we have the appearance of this 3rd
meaning of marriage (that is, for personal fulfilment).  In the past
the purpose of marriage didn't include this meaning and was for the
two previous traditional meanings.  Some suggest that this newer
meaning of marriage is a breakdown of morals and that it has been the
cause of the disintegration of the family functions previously
listed; and that we should go back to the traditional meanings of
marriage as a way to restore the family to its traditional place and
bring back the good life of old (the good old days), eliminating all
the modern ills.
However, just because 2 events are correlate together, doesn't mean
one caused the other -(that event 'A' caused event 'B' (often because
event 'B' caused event'A', or neither caused each other)).  Consider
that it is because of the changing nature of work over this same
period, from farm based to dual earner with requirement to put the
children through college so they can find a decent job; which has
changed the value of children from being an asset to being a large
expense: which has brought about the changes in the meaning of
marriage we see today. -Seeing that the unmistakable function of
family and marriage is procreation of the next generation.

Before Moses:  before Noah:  before tradition:  before recorded
history: people existed.  There had to be something to get people to
procreate and keep the human line going  -to get individuals to act
for the good of the (future) community (in having / raising
offspring)  even before much of a community organization even
existed.  Some traditions have announced that sex is for procreation
only and not for fun.  However, the reason sex is fun is solely for
the purpose of procreation.  The reason animal genetics and biology
have caused sex to be fun in individuals, was so that individuals
before organized society existed, would act in the benefit not of the
individual but in the benefit of the species (the whole group, as in
its whole future); by procreating.
Because the procreation of a new generation is a benefit to all of
society  -in fact it is an absolute essential because all societies
would be completely (but non-violently) anhialated within one
generation without their women procreating.
      I submit that the cause of much of the specialization,
fragmentation and disintegration of family function of our modern
world today, is caused by human greed  -by an economic system which
desires to subject one group to the economic service of another.
When bureaucratic organizations can position themselves to replace
what the family used to supply, they then have people over a barrel
and can extract economic subservience in exchange for their services,
according to how much they charge.  And when they have the monopoly
position of being the only source of what they provide, then they
charge plenty.
      Because the human animal, even the U.S. human animal, depends on
producing certain essentials (that is, food, shelter, and clothing);
the human animal can be coerced into all manner of economic servitude
in exchange for these essentials.  The story of giving a man a fish
vs. giving him a fishing pole is so often used in speaking in
capitalistic economic situations. It applies here as well. The way of
producing ones survival reward by doing what a reward giver tells one
to do in a job, is like giving a man a fish, because the person here
never gets any closer to the actions which actually/directly supply
ones survival reward.  The other way of producing ones survival
reward -which is doing the actual actions which directly supply one's
survival reward, is the fishing pole in this story. But in order that
many
people may remain under the control of, and dependent on, a
privileged few; this way is made unavailable to most of us.

Concerning the economic function:
      In the past, in traditional societies, families were
economically self sufficient, and they followed their productions
from beginning to end.  A large part of work was agricultural plus
there were from 20 to 30 major craft trades.  Work was hard, but
people had complete control over their day, and rarely saw a
bureaucratic official.
      In today's modern economy however, there are 20,000 different
jobs (notice the specialization), and few produce their own food,
houses or other things they consume, and everybody is very dependent
(interdependent) on each other.
      In traditional societies, people/families were economically self
sufficient.  Since the way of life of directly obtaining one's
survival has been eliminated (traditional ways are no longer
available), that leaves only the indirect way of doing what
management wants as a way to produce one's survival.  Because today's
methods are much more efficient, this means there is more to go
around; yet most of that extra is used to supply the rewards to the
fat cats, leaving those selected to generate the reward of the reward
system, little better off than they would be under a traditional
society; and now they have lost control over the work they do.
      One reason labor has been divided into component tasks and each
person given a task, is because it is more efficient, as in the
assembly line and mass production whereby large quantities of goods
can be efficiently manufactured.
      Another reason the division of labor (ie specialization) has
progressed to the furthest degree possible, I feel, is because it
supports a means to control workers. The more one specializes in what
they produce, the less useful that product is to anyone but the owner
that puts all the parts together into a useful marketable product.
Because of this and because each component part is so dependent (not
self sufficient), the owner can dictate how hard people work and how
they live their lives.
      Even entire countries can befall this set-up.  When a third
world country grows exclusively coffee to export, then they lack the
established means to directly generate other needed items, and are
thus dependent on others (multinational corporations) to provide
these things, -at the multinational's price. -They are forced to
accept the multinational's price paid for their specialized
production which they use to buy other items, because all other
traditional less specialized productions have been eliminated -
replaced by this dependent specialized way.
When a car is put together from component parts coming from all
different countries, then no country in itself has a product they can
sell to the public, then they are all at the mercy of the
multinational corporation in determining how hard they should work
and how much they should be paid.


      Concerning the education function:

      To describe education it helps to view it from an historical
perspective.  When people were self sufficient economically back in
the traditional society of our past, there was little or no
education.  People started helping with chores or went into
apprenticeship at an early age and soon learned the complete
knowledge of their trade.  But as people specialized more and more in
their work, education became more prominent. For most of history,
education was thought to be for self betterment, but only after WWII
was it considered essential for career advancement.  In the recent
past, a high school diploma was enough to get a decent job, but now
that requires a bachelors degree, and even that is often not enough.
As there became a division of labor, and loss of self sufficiency,
and as technology has increased, so has education and the need for
education.  If you think about it, education is an incomplete task.
The work students do in school is never used in any production but
only builds up a component part of what the student will use in their
job.  In recent times then, we educate ourselves for the benefit of
our future employer.  Aside from the basics, little of the stuff we
learn is useful to us individually outside of the industrial, job,
setting.
      Intelligence then is one of those fragments of the division of
labor that when put together with all the other components, creates
products in today's free enterprise system.  And discovering and
developing intelligence, is the business of schools and education.
But intelligence is itself the problem, because by itself it is
worthless until it is combined with other component parts.  It is
today's definition of what education is using (only) intelligence,
that is the problem.  In the past, a person's educational achievement
wasn't even formal but it was complete.  It included not only
abstract concepts of intelligence but also putting those concepts
into practice in the physical world.  There was a balance between the
concrete real world and the abstract.
      So that today, even if you do well in school and build up a lot
of the abstract thing called intelligence: if you don't get connected
with the other parts of the division of labor owned by the employer,
your intelligence is unusable.  This is convenient for the capitalist
reward system.  If they decide not to use you, then they have wasted
your time.  You could have spent that time developing something to go
into business for yourself, but instead you have nothing usable, so
you don't give the system any trouble with any competition in the
market place.  Thus your achievement remains low and perpetuates the
inequality and starvation that is supposed to make you hungry enough
to accept the menial reward.

   One can see that the functions filled traditionally by extended
family have been replaced by bureaucratic organizations, all to
uphold the power and place and economic servitude towards the rich;
and that unless that is changed, extended family functions aren't
coming back. -That the problem is far deeper than a claimed moral
weakening in modern times; which itself is just a reaction to the
intense specialization driven by human greed: -the desire to usurp
the labor of others through subjecting them to economic subservience.

One essential task a society must do, is raise the next generation.
Institutions often form around fulfilling one of society's basic
needs. However, even before organized society existed, nature had
developed a way to continue the species and ensure the next
generation. Note that the act by a caveperson to have and care for
offspring did nothing to benefit his/her individual survival; but did
everything to benefit the future survival of the species. Thus nature
(or God) caused there to be a physical (bodily) attraction between
male and female, and for mothering instincts so that individuals
would do what otherwise didn't benefit them, -that otherwise was an
expense in effort and resources. So that the essential societal need
of producing the next generation already has a mechanism for being
fulfilled, even without the institutions of marriage and family. -So
that the 3rd, modern meaning of marriage (that is, for the personal
fulfilment of the body/mind provided by nature/God) is not really
new, but is instead, ancient and existed prior to recorded history.

As civilization developed more structure and organizaton, perhaps the
institutions of family and marriage then grew into the main way to
supply society's need of producing the next generation. (Note, the
institutions of family have traditionally included arranged marriages
for the purposes of keeping wealth and family properties together and
prospering. -This representing a more traditional meaning of
marriage.)







Men have been running things since the beginning of recorded
history. -There has not been one woman US president or vice
president, yet women make up half the population. It is at this time
we tap men on the shoulder and say: haven't you had a long enough
turn? -that its time to trade places and let women have a turn? So we
politely tap men on the shoulder, ask them to step down and
relinquish the reigns of power to women.





Looking at the task of producing/rearing the future generation: those
who must do this task are prevented from attending to the power
struggles of the present generation. Because it is the women who grow
an embryo to a fetus and bear the children and are semi disabled in
being pregnant; because women have the equipment for feeding the
children; and have a mothering instinct: it is women who do more of
the task of producing the future generation than men. Over history,
this has left men free to dominate their present generation (while
the women are busy taking care of the kids). With men making the
rules, they became the order givers and women the order takers.







Looking at the task of producing the future generation of our
species: since all of society is benefited by its successful
completion, it is reasonable to expect all of society to bear the
expense and burden of this task. However, the institution of family,
ties completely the burden and responsibility for offspring a couple
bears, to that couple, and frees the rest of society from any
responsibility whatever. And this burden becomes especially intense
when the father steps out and leaves only the mother to bear the
whole burden.

This doesn't represent parts of society cooperating and working
together to accomplish a common important social task. Thus the
institution of family is not a part of the structural-functionalist
theory, at least not concerning the important (essential) social task
of producing the next generation. Females have and raise kids for the
benefit of society having a next generation, but the other parts of
society give nothing in return for this. The act to divide the
societal whole into parts, with each doing a task, doesn't represent
cooperation between the parts, but represents a shoving the burden
onto one group (which is exploitation); -when all groups and parts
should be helping with an important task, in order to be in
cooperation. This represents a basic flaw in the structural-
functionalist theory.





The major cause of people on welfare, is the expense of raising
children born by single mothers. But the priority of current policy
is for poor mothers to do better in the economic system (ie working
to accumulate wealth to the rich). This has nothing to do with the
priority of producing the next generation. In fact, now, this is even
more difficult, because now single mothers must juggle work plus
taking care of their kids. -Essentially an affirmation by society
that the raising of the next generation has no economic value, and
that mothers must do additional work in order to recieve money. But
is the raising of the next generation really of no value to society? -
That the society expects to recieve this for free? Since it is the
poor who have more kids: who will now have kids? It is now more
important to get established in the economic system and to put off
having kids. This only exacerbates the problem of too many old
people, not enough young workers.



-(The expense of raising children is real. Just look how it holds
single mothers down.) And the dominant cannot extract from children
like they extract from the rest of us. A society cannot say to an
infant "pull your own weight". A religion cannot say to an infant "if
you don't work, you don't eat". If they did, they would in one
generation, vanish, because they would have killed all their children
and thus their next generation.

Because the procreation of a new generation is a benefit to all of
society -in fact it is an absolute essential because all societies
would be completely (but non-violently) anhialated within one
generation without their women procreating. (Note that given today's
advances in biotechnology and cloning research, this may no longer be
true.) Because all of society benefits from a limited degree of
procreation (not overpopulation), then it is not unreasonable to
expect all of society to help shoulder any burdens involved with
raising children. So that we can correctly call it exploitation or
creating haves vs have-nots, when society designates family units to
bear the total cost/responsibility of raising children and absolves
the rest of society from any cost or responsibility.







When someone provides a benefit to society that is absolutely
essential to the survival of society, one might think society would
reciprocate. But in one area they don't, because there is a natural
process which provides this for free. As human beings we are
considered as "human resources" in the human resources department of
every business. Yet one area so basic to society has not been given
an economic value. The benefit to society from what women do in
producing /rearing the next generation, is so great that if women
were paid for what this was actually worth to society, they would all
be millionaires. Do you realize that women have the power to totally
(but non violently) anhialate a society by just refusing to have any
more kids?

What I suggest, is not an anhialation of the US, but a collective
bargaining whereby women ultimately recieve the monetary compensation
and the reigns of power befitting the benefit they provide society,
that they have been denied since the beginning of recorded history.

Now it is true that men have military power and are able to topple
any women ruled society easily; but what I suggest is a more equal
sharing of power where women have considerable more power and
economic resources than they command now; by having them organize and
excercise their collective bargaining rights in the area of receipt
of payment for the benefit they provide in having and rearing the
next generation. So what I ask poor white women to do right now, is
to have as much sex as they want, just to use contraception or
abortion and not have any more kids. And this great and powerful US
superpower society will be totally gone in one generation unless
things change and women are given more.





As for the idea for women to stop having children as a means to gain
power: Here in the US, minorities are poised to overtake the white
majority in number; and seeing that play out would produce more
immediate good; and that could not happen if minorities quit having
kids. In impoverished 3rd world countries where there is only one
group of people where there are just the very rich and the many poor
of one ethinic group: one might think this is where to apply the idea
for women to stop having kids to gain power and overthrow even the
most dastardly military dictator who ships all their economic wealth
to the US as part of globalization, who is unlikely to be deposed any
time soon by other means. However, birth rates are high in 3rd world
countries. In fact, high birth rates are used by these people as
another method to control their government -because if most of a
country's resources go to feeding an ever burgeoning population, then
there is little left over for guns or other economic development
(enslavement). However, the developed countries have already defeated
this strategy. -They provide the economic development (via
globalization) and supply of arms, so that the population of these
countries can fight each other and slave all day at cheap labor to
produce the wealth imported to the US. So, to help 3rd world
countries, and our own, we must enact this plan in our own developed
countries, and gain control of them, and then eliminate this
globalization and arms supplying and torture device supplying that
the US does. But minorities should be exempt until they gain a
majority. In China, where they have restricted the population growth
to one child per couple so as to allow for greater economic
development, my method would also work to overthrow that regim if
their population so desired.







Right now the women's union to accomplish this is yet to be created.
What I suggest is an organization without leaders where each member
has the ability to participate equally. The internet is an excellent
forum for this as it allows each member to 'speak', whereas in any
auditorium or physical place each member would have to take turns
speaking. We would vote on issues. All members could raise issues. To
make it so unscrupulous people couldn't come in and vote many times
for one person, we might have a system outside the internet where a
person would ID themselves with a drivers licence, and be given an
internet ID number, plus many 'transaction numbers' associated with
that ID number. Each transaction number would be used only once when
a person voted, and then they would have to go onto the next number
in their list to vote on another issue. That way it would be ensured
that it was that actual person who was voting, and not someone who
just used her ID surupticiously. When a person ran out of transaction
numbers they could get more by snail mailing a reserve number (also
included with the initial transaction numbers) to the understood
group organization where they showed their drivers license; whence
they would be snail mailed back another long set of transaction
numbers. There would be a place for any person to write up 'laws' to
be passed. People would vote for them over time. Only when a majority
of the organization had voted for them would they then be passed
after the central organization had verified ID and transaction number
(using a computer program of course).

But before this organization gets underway, one thing I would ask is
that white women, poor white women, middle class white women: please
delay having children, -or if you must have kids, do so with a
minority who has had a hard time becomming part of the accepted US
society ie African Americans.




Please forward this message to all you know.

Hiall!

In trying to set up a second space on my site, I must have changed
something I shouldn't have (or not changed something I *should* have)

Problems:

1)

For some reason, I had to change my conf file paths to look like:

space-param: "../v2/space/"

In my original version, I had it running for some time with paths like
"/v2/space/". strangely, now I've had to change the old version to make
it work too (like something changed regardless of version)

Ideas?

2)

This second space is a model for a friend who wants to run vanilla on an
NT server with IIS. IIS doesn't like the '+' characters as space-holders
in snip names, so I modified this copy of the files to use '_' instead.

Snips are stored properly: 	 Edit_Test.snip
Snip names are displayed properly: Edit Test

When I click on the link, I get "snip not found"

here's what I did: in simplespace.r I changed these two functions:

url-encode: make function! [ str[string!] /re ] [
     if re [ insert  opt-in  "%:/&=" ]
     rslt: make string! ( (length? str ) * 3 )

     foreach  chr str [
        either ( find  opt-in chr  )
          ; changed to use '_' vs '+'
          [append rslt to-string (either(chr == #" ")["_"][chr])  ]
          [append rslt
              join "%" [back back tail(to-string(to-hex(to-integer chr)))]
          ]
     ]
     rslt
]

deplus: func [str] [
	 ; changed to use '_' vs '+'
          replace str "_" " "
	 str
	 ]

Am I doing something wrong? is there something *else* I need to do?

To Do:

3)

I want to institute a login procedure (somewhat against the whole wiki
thing, I know). I changed my start snip to contain a login form* which
calls login.r, which, of course, doesn't exist (yet)

Heh. Has anyone done something like this? If so, could I check out how
you did it? i'm drawing a blank. *One idea I had was making the login an
apps entry and just putting {!display-login-form} in my initial snip.

(A far simpler way to do this, of course, would be to have the whole
authentication process outside of the space, using .htaccess, or
something similar.)

4)

I want to allow the user (logged-in) to pick the style of their liking,
and to store it to be used the next time they visit. so far, this is
what I've done:

changed the styles directory to look like

/styles/
/styles/styles
   (containing a block of active styles: [blue grey pumpkin])
/styles/blue/
   (containing the files for the blue style, without the 'blue-' prefix)
/styles/grey/
   (etc.)
/styles/pumpkin/
   (etc.)
/styles/red40/
   (a non-active style as it is not reflected in /styles/styles)

and I changed v2.r.conf (my new vanilla.r.conf) to include

styles-dir: "../v2/styles/"
style-name: "blue"

ie., where to look for styles, and what the default style is.

What I haven't done yet is:

   a) Create a script to display a radio-button list of _active_ styles,
get the user's choice, and save this data with their username/password

   b) Create an administrative interface for adding/deleting and
activating/deactivating styles, and some kind of an interface for
editing the style files themselves.

   c) Probably other things...

Any thoughts?


TIA!


Pete Wason
dayjob@...

HEY! Who is this bozo who keeps posting his junk to this list?????

Cut it out! We don't want to read your book!

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 being
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 materials 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 forces 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 accumulation 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 quasi 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 us 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
this 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 capability;
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 command
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. Because 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 interrelated 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 capability (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 the 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
alive 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 instead 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 necessary 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 allows 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?  Granted, 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?  ie 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 area.
  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
large 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
torture 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 eunuchs 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 lusting 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 there, 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 point 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 the 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 burdens.   (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 forces 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 our
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
discovered 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
insight, 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 sacrifice 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 the 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 reduced 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 sexual 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 this 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'll 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
focused 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 just 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 accommodate 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 this 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 singular 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 areas (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 itself 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.  With 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 action 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 capability 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 conjunction 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 low
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 levels 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 of 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 equilibrium 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 though 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 their 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 we
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 high 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 to
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
force (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
conscious 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 good 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 is 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
essentials, 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 separate 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 evil 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 often 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 government, 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 bodily 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 part 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 have 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 getting 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 bodily 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-escaping 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 something 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 bodily 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 an 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'send.  The remaining writing, is
miscellaneousmaterial:     The mating of two animals,
from the farmer'spoint of view, is an impassionate
action, whereas fromthe animal's point of view it is a
passionate action. Evolution has caused animal
reproduction to take therewards from other areas to
deliver to that. (So thatif we're going to take the
rewards from other areas,we need to share the rewards
of all areas evenlyinstead.)Because of death, animals
have developed a need toreproduce to replace what
death has taken away.  Andso these animals loose
(objective) control over theirreproduction.  But if a
group of animals overproducesthemselves because of
this directive-to-reproduce thenthey'll put a strain
on the resources they need tolive and feed on.  And
this will prevent sufficientquantities of young
animals from surviving after atime because all the
older animals are eating all theresources and food.
After the older animalseventually die off, then that
society of animalssuffers a marked decline for a long
time until the fewremaining young animals can
repopulate.  And so,evolution thus selects for a
timely death so thatanimals do not live forever, but
die after a time, soas to make room for the young.
Evolution selects apattern whereby cells die after a
time.  So that theold will be cleared away so young
ones can be born totake their place.  Evolution seems
to have createdkind of a vicious cycle.  In evolution,
death selectsfor animals that have a drive to
reproduce.  And inanimals that have a drive to
reproduce (who have lostcontrol over their
reproduction), evolution selectsfor 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 be 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 aconnection to
my ideas on separation of the forces,with an important
Biblical passage.  -Where usingseparation of the
forces imparts a great clarity andunderstanding of it.
  Romans 4, 15: Because the law worketh wrath: for
whereno 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
theworld: 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,
withor without the law.  But that what the law
provides,is separation of the forces.Romans 7, 8-13:
But sin, taking occasion by thecommandment, wrought in
me all manner ofconcupiscence.(Note the similarity in
pronunciation to'concubine').  For without the law sin
was dead.  ForI was alive without the law once: but
when thecommandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And thecommandment, which was ordained to life, I
found to beunto death.  For sin, taking occasion by
thecommandment, 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
madedeath unto me?  God forbid.  But sin, that it
mightappear sin, working death in me by that which is
good;that sin by the commandment might become
exceedingsinful.If we apply the idea that what the law
provides, isseparation of the forces; this all makes
some sense. When the forces are separated; instead of
there beingone type of mixed material; -two purified,
oppositematerials emerge.  We can see Biblical
reference tothis, partly in the above, where sin
becomes exceedingsinful (or more purified/-not mixed).
-And in thefollowing (observe the existence now of TWO
distinctforces):Romans 7, 15-17:  For that which I do,
I allow not:for what I would, that do I not; but what
I hate, thatdo I.  If then I do that which I would
not, I consentunto the law that it is good.  Now then
it is no moreI that do it, but sin that dwelleth in
me.Romans 7, 21-23&25:  I find then a law, that, when
Iwould do good, evil is present with me.  For I
delightin the law of God after the inward man: But I
seeanother law in my members, warring against the law
ofmy mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law
ofsin which is in my members./      . . . So then
withthe mind I myself serve the law of God; but with
theflesh the law of sin.  Here, the evil part still
exists, as it is stillpresent within Paul; but it is
now one of two distinctentities listed here.  Like it
or not, here is theevidence that the Bible uses
separation of the forces. And the end result is that
the purified good part issaved (while of course our
evil part, now inseparation, dies):Romans 8, 1-2:
There is therefore now no condemnationto them which
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not afterthe flesh, but
after the Spirit.  For the law of theSpirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free fromthe law of sin and
death.Actually, it is Jesus Christ himself who does
theseparation of the forces according to the
Bible:Romans 8,3-4:  For what the law could not do, in
thatit was weak through the flesh, God sending his own
Sonin the likeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin,condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness
ofthe law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
afterthe flesh, but after the Spirit.     Note that in
this separating the forces, both thegood and the evil
are done -that is, the evil is still present -(as
opposed to preventing the evil fromcoming out, or
eliminating it here).   In reference back to
essentials: the Bible saysChrist will provide for our
needs.  But what we doabove our needs, is presumably
sin.  (And, at first,we escape here.)  But our doing
of this causes us tothen need this, and then it is no
longer 'sin', andthus 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
quantity 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 paying 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
diversions 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 suited 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 controlling 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 hungry, 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
protect 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 than 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 alternative 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 eukariotic 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 they 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.  (Each 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.  (Although, 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 share 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 anunknown, undefined world.  We don't
know what's beyondthe next line of trees and so it
might be anything. Part of growing up is defining what
we see.  In thisway, we learn to recognize things,
place them intocatagories, and so know without seeing
what somethingis and often even what lies beyond it.  
   Yet, we are burdened with enforcing theboundaries we
set.  We must see what we expect, orsomehow reconcile
why we didn't.  The unexpected is athreat.  We fall
into fight or flight.  What we cannotfight, we flee.
We can't fight reality but we canflee it by denying
it.     The horizon extends around me for 360 degrees.
So it is because so it has been defined.  But how ifit
extended 400 or 720 or even 10,000 degrees?  WouldI
even know?     Look out a window at the familiar scene
outside. Look, knowing as you do, what is around the
corner orbeyond the trees.  Then look again through
the eyes ofa child, pretending for the moment that you
don'tknow.  Feel the wonder return.  Feel the joy in
livingsurge 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, that 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 citizens.
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 bestof both worlds instead of settling
for compromise inall areas -that is we put up with
some sexualfrustration in order to obtain some
reduction in thevariability of our reproduction
(during times ofstable environment).Perhaps we could
go back to only the dominant orchosen men siring
offspring.  But to eliminate thesexual frustration
this would cause; free sex would beallowed; yet no
offspring from such free sex would beallowed. -when
the environment is stable.  But whencatastrophes occur
then free sex plus offspring fromthat free sex would
be the chosen mode.Now, the idea of dominant males
fathering the humanpopulation is probably too barbaric
(and too much likethe animals) for most people,
including myself.  (Icannot guarantee that these ideas
are even the truth-they just seem to fit. -you have a
mind too.  Thinkfor yourself.  Mine is only to suggest
and makeaware.)So, we could have monogamy that we have
now, exceptthat marriage would now be a contract
between one manand one woman concerning the siring of
children, andwould not cover sex between individuals
that didn'tinvolve the conception of children (ie with
a condomor between partners where the woman was past
childbearing age).  With harems and dominant males,
there is maximumsexual frustration.  Previously I saw
no use orvalidity for any sexual frustration.  But
recently Irealize that it does have a benefit -that of
lockingin the best adapted animal for a current
stableenvironment, once the variability of
sexualreproduction has generated that best adapted
animal.   Even so: even though I now realize the
benefit andreasoning behind it: I as a thinking
intelligentanimal, believe that there is a better way
to obtainthis benefit, without the sexual frustration
(and itscorresponding stagnation from destruction
within ourbodies).  Animals have no other option but
this sexualfrustration way.  It has taken animals this
long togenerate capable and intelligent humans: who
now canobtain this benefit in better ways, not relying
on somuch 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 mind 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 matter. 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 stagnation 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 canbe more reserved and
held-back  -not snapping up everyaction that comes
along.  Or we can be unhindered inour action, doing
whatever we like, and being open toevery action that
comes along.  Now if we do all welike and are
unhindered, we do many actions, and thisrepresents an
overall growth.  But the force ofdestructiveness has
its way of being part of many ofthe possible actions
we can do:  -so that to avoid it,one has to markedly
limit the possible actions theydo.  But since we're
not limiting our actions but arebeing unhindered, we
don't avoid these destructiveparts of actions; but
include them.  Since we have agreater selection of
actions we have more options.  Wehave overall growth
and enjoy the benefits ofinterrelatedness.  We can get
things done faster, anddo/produce more this way in the
shortrun/individually.  But since the presence
ofdestruction is included, this becomes a
stagnantsystem at some level as what we built up a
short timeago, gets knocked down -and we keep building
up andgetting knocked down over and over.  Yes, the
presenceof destruction is the overriding factor.
Theinterrelatedness and overall growth, provide
forgreater achievements and higher growth rates,
butstagnation still takes hold -just at a
highercapability level.  There is always the
temptation toproduce/do a little bit more
(individually), by doinga way that achieves this but
that also does moredestruction (drive the slaves a
little harder.  crackthe whip a little more).Now then:
  alternatively, there is the mode-of-actionof being
more reserved and held back -of not doingeverything
you want.    If we restrain ourselves fromdoing some
ways because they contain too muchdestruction as part
of them, then we will have limitedthe number and type
of ways available to us.  We willdo less things.
Since we're  doing fewer things, wecan say we're more
focused.  We avoidevil/destruction, but have to put up
with lower(individual) growth.  Since we do fewer
things, we arethus unbalanced concerning interrelated
needs; so wedon't achieve overall growth,   But the
growth we doachieve is long lasting due to the freedom
fromdestruction.  So now I've presented two modes of
action.  Both havetheir advantages and disadvantages.
What I propose iswe use both, in hopes of gaining the
advantages ofboth.In the reserved/focused way, fewer
good things areproduced, and those that are, are of
lower quality›(at least at first)› -due to going it
alone whereinterrelated needs aren't met, and overall
growthisn't done.What I propose is to do things in the
unhindered way(which has higher short term growth and
can do moreindividually) until that generates
something good andvaluable and worth saving: and then
before thatvaluable something gets torn down, as we
continue withthe unhindered way: that we then lock
this valuablesomething in by being more reserved with
it and nolonger doing so many ways which contain
destruction inthem, with it.  Now this good and
valuable somethingthat we locked in and 'saved',
continues to exist andalso produce growth of its own.
But what it willproduce, will be of lesser quality and
of a lowergrowth rate.  The reason being, it now no
longer hasso many options of what it can do, because
it's nolonger unhindered, but is now more reserved and
heldback.  -Now doing only a few things, it doesn't
takeadvantage of the interrelatedness between things
andof overall growth: and  thus produces poor
qualitymaterial compared to what it could do as
unhindered. This poor quality material is then thrown
back intothe 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 itprovides some semblance of interrelatedness
andoverall growth)›.What I propose, is that out of any
production of anaction, there is some of it of
excellent quality someof average quality; and some of
poor quality.  -Wethen throw all but the best back
into the melting potof unhinderedness.  -Or; we select
the best to pullout of the melting pot of
unhinderedness into thereserved mode.Just remember
that most of what is produced by the›(early›) reserved
mode, is of lesser quality and willthus be mostly all
set to unhindered mode. -just theopposite of its
parent.Now then.  So far it seems like all the lesser
qualitymaterial will always be unhindered.  But this
is onlya method for doing essentials.  This will be so
aslong as we're satisfying an essential or some need
ispulling at us.  But when we're satisfied in
ouressential and we wish to rest; we then no longer
dounhindered mode with the lesser quality material,
butinstead, also do reserved mode with them.  You
see,unhindered mode includes destruction in many of
itsways.  Essentials contain destruction/evil in
themanyway, so this isn't introducing any new evil,
whenwe're satisfying essentials.  But when we're done
withessentials for a time and wish to rest, we get out
ofthis method of doing essentials, and put out
theflames of evil until our need (from us not yet
beingoverall enough nor interrelated enough in our
evilfree(reserved) way), pulls us back into doing
essentialsagain.Finally, lets not forget that an
additional functionof the unhindered material, is to
preferentially fillthe vacuum that destruction creates
-that is, both thedestruction within essentials; and
the destruction ofevil 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 mode
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 and 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 time
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 is, -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 period 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 satisfiedour
need.  As we continue, that material generates
newmaterial -with much low quality  (due to the
limitingnature of the held back mode).  That newer
materialkeeps accumulating and overwhelming the
satisfiedmaterial, and may cause the whole to need
again.Sometimes the action to satisfy need, is itself
awhole, made up of sequential precursor stages,
thatmust be redone all over the next time need is to
besatisfied.And there are further specifics about our
needsconcerning 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 needmay be small.  And it
may not be worth it to gothrough all the processes of
satisfying such a smallneed.  There's nothing
requiring us to satisfy a smallneed immediately as it
appears, with a smallunhinderedness; as we would be
constantly botheredwith switching back and forth
between held back modeand a small unhindered mode.
(We would have no rest.) The evil that destroys within
us due to our need ofessentials/quasi essentials isn't
our fault and wedidn't cause it and we aren't required
to satisfy thefirst little bit of it right away.  Of
course if wewait too long, its destruction will grow
too large andwill destroy us.  But the time we put up
with itbefore we satisfy it, is up to us.  So we
choose atime 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 switchingbetween held back and  a small
unhindered mode) -although we can do this if need be.
  -But a timewhich isn't too long either  -where the
need of theessential would do irreversible destruction
to us. (Recall that the need is continually
destroying, andthat an act to satisfy isn't
destructive in itself,but just enjoins new material
into the arena where theevil 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 religious 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 destruction 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 sacrifice 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 resurrect 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 earthly 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, but 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 ways
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 to 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 whereby
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 there 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 (parts 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 with 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, partially 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 exist 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
capability; 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 of 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 all).  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 obtain 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 purchased 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
things (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 of 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 destruction 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 separate 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 to 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 including 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 she 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 have 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 rape 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 needs.  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, caused by sexually intolerant
authority. What is needed, is the way to deal with
destructionand destructiveness.  The rapist doesn't
know how to deal with thedestruction in the quasi
essential of his sexuality;and neither does his victim
who cries rape, know howto deal with the destruction
the rapist does. Destruction is painful -(and you're
supposed to bearup under that to the end and not go
unhindered orresort to destruction yourself right?)
Well neitherthe rapist nor the victim who cries rape,
nor mosteverybody has been able to overcome their
destructions(destructions in general).  If crying rape
helps thevictim deal with the destructiveness, then by
allmeans, cry out and prosecute.  But I suggest we
makegood use of the method outlined here, so we can
avoidsuffering and also work our way out of
destructionwithin our ways.  That destruction exist,
is enough totry and find ways to undo it and overcome
it: in allsituations: from the victims situation; from
theoversexed 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
the 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 some
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 important 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 of 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 back 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 order 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 more 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 an 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
suffer 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 is 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 ofmaterial used to feed our essentials/quasi
essentialsso that we are brought to reduced capability
andsuffering.In my method, I claim the focus effort we
do upon theheld back proportion, keeps
thearea-infected-with-evil (the unhindered
proportion),at reduced capability.     One thing I
hadn't recently mentioned in the useof reduced
capability environments to separate theforces; is that
there must first be some good toseparate out for this
technique to work.  So that whenwe use (my version of)
the traditional method, we mustdo the essential fully
fed first, and then restrictthe essentials intake -to
reducedcapability/suffering.  -If we started with
restrictingthe 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 theintake of essentials: this doesn't cause you
to sufferright away (after you have just been filled).
  It isat this time when the evil-free good from a
theprevious cycle can truly be removed to high
capabilityenvironment.  Then as you begin to hunger
again, thereduced capability/suffering of the present
cycleworks its force separating effect on the
remainingmaterial here.Note also that after a time, we
must remove thereduced capability environment to allow
the separatedgood to then join other high good free
from evil andbe a part of the(and its) choice for good
only.  So,thus, we are then back to full feeding of
essentialshere.  Then the cycle starts all over again.
  Now, isn't this how we normally do things anyway?
Weeat, become full, restrict or stop eating, wait
tillwe get hungry again, then eat again etc.  We do
(myversion of) the traditional method naturally with
noneed of observance of any religious rituals to
achieveit.  This method is already a part of us
naturally.  Aproblem comes as we become rich, when
we're tempted bythe deliciousness of the 'food' so
that we seek tofeed continuously, and don't wait to
get hungry.  Whenwe disrupt our cycle of feeding,
waiting to gethungry, feeding again, in favor of
continuous feeding;we no longer free up material from
evil, and itremains 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 of 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 produces; *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 eliminated
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 Hebrew
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
coerced 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: don'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
cooperative).  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
required 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 on 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 'oneness'
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
alternate 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 (in 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 required 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 non 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 canencounter; to bring out
a point:Suppose you are enjoying one of your good (but
nottotally good) things, and you're interrupted by
anevil attack of some kind.  Isn't this the way it
oftenis: -we set down to enjoy something, and that's
wheneverything from barking dogs to kids
demandingsomething to old ladies or bosses yelling for
service,tries to interrupt us.  What's with that?
With theevil attack part alone, we have the
monotone(singlepurpose) and maximum satisfaction of
hungers, with itscorresponding large portion held
still in the outsideheld back area (outside of the
hunger-satisfying).  Wealso have our treatment of this
(our) response.  (Itexists alone* as a gradual
pullback inhunger-satisfying, and over time, a much
lesser,'daintier' satisfying of hunger;  *as
thecorresponding small held-still portion is
overshadowedby the large held-still portion from the
evil attack.) This response to our response is one of
the good (butnot totally good) things.  And it is a
good thingindependent of whatever good thing we have
chosen toenjoy at the moment that has been interrupted
in thisscenario/situation.  We must therefore share
betweenthese at least two good things.  If unable to
do themsimultaneously, we must share between them in
such away as to treat them both as good (but not
totallygood) things; and not treat them as we do
evilattacks.  -and we do so by not abruptly cutting
one orthe other off, but by cutting both off
gradually. Each needed good thing has its allotted
time durationand turn.  And we can alternate back and
forth.  Now, we usually don't have the luxury of
respondingagainst evil attacks when WE want to.But we
don't always/constantly need to satisfy ourhungers;
but can take a break from them when we'refull, till we
get hungry again.  We can thus actimmediately against
the evil attack, but postpone ourresponse to our act
against evil attacks, -by doing nohunger satisfying.
We can thus share between (aspreviously mentioned)
different good (but not totallygood) things, that we
have need of(each and all). Note that I do not
advocate gradualness in allcircumstances, as an
overall rule.  Like, if you havean intense need, but
are instructed to gradually workinto satisfying it.
In this case, I advocate noofficial position, and say
that one can do eitherquickly jumping in to satisfy
their need; or if theywish to experiment with
gradually satisfying it,that's OK too.  (Where I argue
for gradualness, (andagainst both abrupt movement and
no movement), is inthe removal of essential doing,
after one has doneessential doing at maximum.)Life
often has feelings.  Life often has the abilityto feel
good(or bad).  (Whereas inanimate objects donot.)  But
is feeling good beneficial to life? Or isit better if
life does not feel good all the time, butfeels bad
some of the time, or most of the time?  Isthe
satisfaction of hungers beneficial to life?
Ordetrimental? or neutral?  In any case, these
hungersattempt to control/direct life to produce
certainresponses to specific stimuli.    And since
feelinggood can be used as a reward; a system can be
set upto control life by only allowing those who obey,
tofeel good.  -Or as a means to increase
production;only those who produce the highest are
allowed to feelgood.  Thus in order to maintain
control and for thesystem to function; some must be
made to feel bad.  Tomotivate the group to produce,
only the top producersare allowed to feel good, as a
reward, thus the restare to feel bad (or not-good).
It is true life (andonly life) responds to feeling
good vs feeling bad;-and this is often used to get
life to perform someother behavior; but looking at the
reward itself: isit beneficial to life to feel good
all the time; or isthis detrimental; or neutral?  Well
I'd have torespond by saying that whatever is
destructive oflife, is to be rejected, because life
builds uponitself and is always growing.  If life gets
to whereit emphasizes the importance of avoiding
destructionof life, as an all important criterion;
then realitywill mirror man's version of the way
things are. Recall how at the beginning of this book
we showedthat only life in the evil-free mode was
worthwhile. -In this mode, life is often growing (when
not upagainst a barrier to growth) -and for sure,
suffers nodecrease in its life.  Feeling good is one
part oflife.  Life can feel good. Life can feel bad.
Feelinggood is one TYPE of life.  Feeling bad is
another TYPEof life.  Lets put these different types
of life tothe test. -examining each one individually:
Lifefeeling bad: -being a type or part of life; we
wouldexpect it to grow.  But life feeling more and
morebad, causes that life to have a desire to feel
goodinstead.  If life then responds to that desire
(acontrol/directive over living things), and feels
good;then feeling-bad-life will have suffered a
decrease. Feeling-bad-life; since it
inherently/intrinsicallycauses a desire or
directive(over life) to causeitself decrease; is thus
not part of the growingevil-free life.On the other
hand, feeling-good-life (or life feelinggood), has no
desire to stop feeling good and changeover to feeling
bad: thus feeling good life can bepart 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 withinfeeling-good-life itself
that would prevent it frombeing part of evil-free life
(like there is withfeeling-bad-life).As far as
satisfying hungers and desires that containboth good
and destruction: I've already gone over
thatextensively in my recommendations for
doingessentials.So keep on feeling good (when it hurts
noone) anddon't buy into the idea that you need to
feel bad tomotivate you to do more.  (Don't trade your
life awayfor the inanimate.)  -The inanimate doesn't
care thatyou didn't choose it, or that you decreased
itsdomain.And to those who try to take away the
feeling good ofothers -in order to control them (by
doling outtidbits of feeling good as a reward to those
you'vestarved out of feeling good, and who have done
yourbidding): to these I say, you are guilty of
causingthe stagnation of life option; which since I
seek notto be the source of such, I thus claim the
right to beseparate from that group, as prisoners are
keptseparate from the law-abiding.Note that having a
problem to rail against, is quite amotivator and is
indispensible in geting peoplemotivated and off their
keysters to do things (foryou).  So that if we solved
the problems, this neededmotivator would be gone.  So
we can't solve all theproblems, and we need a group to
hate, who we blameall things on, to rally us to
action, to get out andsupport our leaders.  So that if
there isn't enoughproblems, we need to create
problems, and turn theuproar against them around so as
to motivate ourfollowing to do what we want.-This
sounds like a stagnant system to me: and so itis just
as good if to sit on ones keyster: (much ofthe
political mudslinging and namecalling of ourpolitical
elections, and arguements over whatgovernment should
be doing, takes this form) -now,doing things outside
this system is improvement overboth. -That is, railing
against all destructiveness(whether it be from others
railing against anotherproblem, or whatever), in non
destructive ways; isnever 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 Romans.  
/(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 against 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 destructive 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 sequence),
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 all 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.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/

Subject: PartOne

Hi. Here is my book. It is too long so I send it in 2 parts, this being the
first. Please skip over any boring parts. Thanks.

Chapter 1/INTRODUCTION "Nurture" GROWTH OF GROWTH RESOURCES, WHEN WE WANT MORE
Some of us like our work; some of us like parties, food, drink, sex, religious
expression, exercise, good music, etc. But to be able to enjoy any of these, we
must be alive. (Inanimate objects are incapable of these.) The actions which
bring us life/resources; aren't necessarily the same as the actions of
enjoying-these-project-things, (with that life). Thus to be able to enjoy all
these good projects, we need a balance between actions that (a)supply us with
life; vs, (b)enjoying our projects with that life. I think most would agree we
can't make much of a life by ourselves living totally independently; and that we
need to join some group or system to have any form of decent life. The big
question is; which system? In one, growth is destroyed. In the other, growth
isn't destroyed. When a boss expects one to produce something and work; aren't
they expecting one to grow? -to provide/produce something !
that wasn't there before? (Why sure.) LIFE CAUSES GROWTH Employers never
consider hiring my pet rock for a job. No, rocks/inanimate objects are not
expected to produce growth. It takes life and living things to cause change and
produce growth/ -The more 'alive' something is, the more growth it can cause.
The idea of nurturing life to get it to produce more growth, forms one side of
an argument/counter-argument: On one hand, we can say we should nurture life to
the max so it will produce more growth. But on the other hand we can point out
that if we make life too cushy, there'll be no motivation to work; people will
take advantage of our good nature; sit around, relax (slacker), and won't do any
work. We must let them know we mean business, and reward only when the job is
done, or even punish for work not up to standards. (argues those in favor of
rewards). But nurture is needed to edify life: -life which enables us to produce
the required growths. -Two conflicting arguments. W!
hat shall we believe? Realize that just because you failed !
to produce the growths they want, doesn't mean you've done a destructive act.
But they may do destructive acts to you for not producing the growths. Enter the
factor of destruction: There is usually more than one way to do a thing. Some
ways involve taking shortcuts and disregarding the harm they cause. But out of
all the possible ways; there is still usually one way to do a complete job,
without destruction. -A way that contains no harm. -And, It takes more resources
to do something in this 'right' way. We live in a world with both good and evil.
Why couldn't we have had a world with good only? The reason we have evil along
with the good in our world, is because evil is one of the POSSIBILITIES -that
living things can do. (Without life, no actions (good or evil) are possible. But
with life; both good and/or evil are possible actions from that life.) Given a
world of both good and evil; our actions thus then contain (both) some good
-(growth) as well as some evil -(destruction!
). Thus when we do actions to obtain a desired thing, we as life usually do some
of both good and evil, in obtaining this thing. There is usually more than one
way to do a thing; and many of the possible ways include evil (harm) as part of
them. For us to obtain this thing without evil; our actions would have to be
free of harm; and this would eliminate many of the possible ways from
consideration. To obtain the thing without harm, we'd have to neutralize the
harmful parts of ways containing evil, (Or, we could severely limit our
possibilities and reject all ways containing harm). This would require more
effort than if we did the thing the way it came naturally -(with both good and
evil). Thus it takes more capability-power-life to obtain things with a purity
in our actions (that is, free of harm). Again: -The limited selection we have
when we reject ways containing harm, often means we loose the easiest ways, just
by probability. -Plus, it takes more resources to neutralize a!
  harmful aspect of a way and do a complete job, than to jus!
t let the harm happen. So we can do much more individually with what little we
have when we're open to all possible ways irregardless of the harm they cause
(in our search for the most productive way), and don't 'waste' resources trying
to neutralize the harm of our ways. So when we're short-on-resources, this often
forces us to use ways containing harm. When short-on-resources we may not have
enough resources to do a thing evil free, BUT we can still usually do it if we
lower our standards and allow harm in our ways. (Because we can do more* in the
short run/individually/locally if we allow harm in our ways; (*with our scanty
resources).) Unfortunately, this harm we allow catches up to us. As a collective
group we find ourselves trapped at being short on resources because the
collective harm from our ways lowers us all and keeps us short-on-resources;
since harming destroys resources. The harm we allow as we strive to be the best,
win the competition, and produce the absolute!
  most; catches up to us, collectively. When someone builds up life, but then
another person knocks it down: and when life/things keep(s) getting built up and
knocked back down over and over again; a system of stagnation takes form. And
this stagnant system traps us, because collectively we cannot get ahead. Like a
process may make a good product and income for a few, but also pollute the
environment, and overall cause more harm than good. We can usually do more and
be a bit more productive in the short run/locally/individually if we allow harm
in our ways. But this harm we allow, keeps us all short-on-resources in the long
run. ((Statement #1;)-And being short on resources forces us to accept ways
containing harm.) And doing this harm destroys resources and collectively keeps
us all short on resources. Go to Statement #1. As we can see, This is a trap.
That once fallen into, cannot easily be gotten out of. So we should not be so
concerned with winning in competition and who ca!
n generate the highest production as a sole criteria. We sh!
ould more importantly look at how evil free a 'production' is. So we should
nurture life as much as possible, so we are at as high capability as possible
and are not short on resources, so that we do things with much less harm in our
ways, -and thus avoid this trap of evil. It is important for us to be well
nurtured (loved) and at high capability to have the extra resources needed to
grow evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil free way); that we
do advance and grow overall. We thus overall provide escape from the trap and
system of destruction, which is the stagnant system. EVIL FREE GROWTH VS GROWTH
LADEN WITH EVIL Since you are always growing, (You are alive.); there is a
property associated with 'growth': -That there are always areas of you at
present that are lacking that you need to grow into, to gain approval in this
area. It takes life and living things to achieve growth, and the growth that is
required of you. You are a living thing. The thing you MAY!
  have chosen to nurture the life that is you, is the 3rd party stamp of
approval. You need life to cause growth. You have chosen the 3rd party reward to
nurture your life. At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from
you(r life). But you don't have the 3rd party approval for this as of yet.
Without this approval, your life is not nurtured, and thus you're less alive.
WITH LESS LIFE YOU PRODUCE LESS THAN ADEQUATE GROWTH. You thus fail to receive
the reward or approval. Your counselor or boss, bitch at you for doing such a
lousy job. Without nurture you cannot hope to produce the growth requirement.
(Abbreviation: fogoHC = force of good of High Capability) Let's look at an
alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of (good) things to nurture
your life; what's important isn't the inanimate objects or meager skills you
posses or can manipulate, in doing things on your own, outside of a program of
expectations; (independent of rewards a 3rd party gives for tho!
se actions; but instead, valuing the actions for their own !
merit). No, it's the life you can join with (that is the fogoHC). It is life
beyond what you ever were in your undeveloped self. And from this abundant life
comes abundant growth. Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your
reality. The more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make;
and nurture all of you. The unconditional love from the fogoHC nurtures you and
puts you at high capability. Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because
the high capability growth is evil-free. This is unlike the success you must
achieve (and thus lack at present). That type of success has growth laden with
evil, because it expects growth before it dispenses the nurture (of its reward).
Without the nurture, one has less life, and is at reduced capability. At reduced
capability; necessary evils must be done to achieve the same growth. The
necessary evils done, destroy gains made, and stagnate the group. (This is the
trap of evil you are in.) Again: Joining with the f!
ogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil
free growth, (instead of being forced to allow harm in your ways to achieve the
required growth). Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You
have already succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart.
Success is a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us
now love. It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high
capability to have the extra resources needed to grow evil free: -to neutralize
evil parts of our ways, and to use ways that may not be the most productive (or
are more complex) but that are evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in
an evil free way); that we do advance and grow overall. There's no destruction
destroying the gains we make. And so life just keeps on growing. This is the
alternative system and it's not a stagnant system. (the tortoise and the hare
story?) The reward system thus looses the argu!
ment counter argument, because it forces us to grow at redu!
ced capability, in the trap of evil. Since it is important for us not to operate
at reduced capability, we should depend on the fogoHC to fill the function of
whatever we do, and not depend on what we can do or produce. But just because we
depend on the fogoHC to full the function and our needs, doesn't mean we stop or
reject what we ourselves can do. It's just that we do not depend on it, but
instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can do. That still exists; is
valuable; and represents growth. But it is no longer burdened with supporting
us, and is now free; free to grow evil free. CHAPTER 2 "The Beginning" CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION: This chapter proves the most probable existence of a benevolent
"God", or that there will be one in the future if there isn't one now. It points
out some basic and inherent differences between good and evil. It proposes a way
to defeat evil for all time (for good). It shows some basic natural
philosophical laws existing in the universe. Capa!
bility is a very general term. What I mean by it, is being able to do something
-anything. Something that gives you capability, is something that enables you to
do something. Lack of capability then, is not being able to do something. If you
think about it, capability is what separates living things from non-living
things. Living things can do a lot, whereas non living things cannot. Expanding
on this area (because some have questioned it): The living world is more
powerful than the inanimate world, because 1) A volcano is big only because a
human has conceived in their mind that it is big -it takes life to give it its
largeness. 2) The growth potential of living systems (which the inanimate does
not have), allows life to someday control, manipulate, and harness, the
inanimate: therefore which is more powerful -the powerful inanimate
volcano/nuclear reaction, or the future civilization which harnesses that
volcano/nuclear reaction, to do its bidding 99% of the time (less 1% fo!
r accidents)? I have to go with life over the inanimate in !
the long run in a life system that is not stagnant. Note that pound per pound,
matter associated with living things, can do more than matter associated with
the inanimate. It takes evolution (ie: the inanimate) millions of years to form
a human being. It takes a living mother 9 months to do the same. Men are also
quite ! able to kill each other, whereas inanimate objects find this difficult.
One point touched upon that I wish to make clearer; is that there are two
reasons the force-of-good has an edge over the force-of-evil: 1)That although
there is a 'bottom', where one absolutely can't go lower than nothing in terms
of the level of capability; there's no absolute limit or ceiling to how much
capability/life can be put into a piece of matter. Over time as we advance, we
become able to put more and more capability into a piece of matter. (Who knows
if there's a limit to how much we can put in, as we continue to advance.) (This
represents quality.) 2)That, capability is the key!
  to crossing barriers. It enables one to cross barriers to reach new supplies of
raw materials (to make improvements upon). (This represents quantity.) If a
force of good is stopped by a barrier it can't cross, it builds up the quality
of what materials it does have. It puts more and more capability, life, and
power into the matter it does have, until it can bridge the barrier, and get in
touch with raw materials further away or otherwise unavailable due to the
barrier. An abbreviation used in this chapter, is fogoHC, which stands for force
of good of High Capability. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION. We can categorize the
universe into that which has capability/power/life; and that which lacks
capability/power/life. For example, a person may be capable in some areas, but
may lack capability in other areas. So, we can divide whatever we're considering
(a person, the world, etc.) into capability vs. lack-of-capability. We can
divide the universe into capability vs. lack of capability a!
nd make a record of this. But the universe does not stand s!
till, and after a time, our picture of the universe would change. Some things
would have gained, and other things would have lost, capability. What I want to
concentrate on then, is change in the universe in terms of capability; and not
(so much) on a static picture of the universe (in terms of capability). And
there are two directions of change possible: there is increase-in-capability;
and decrease-in-capability. I want to state that only CAPABILITY can cause these
changes. Lack-of-capability cannot cause either change. For example, a living
person can either help or hurt; increase capability or decrease capability. But
a dead person can do neither. Has empty space or nothingness done anything? (to
help or hurt you)? (If it did, then it would be capable of that. This thus also
reflects the definition of capability./ But whatever capability and life is; if
we destroy that, then what is left over cannot do anything: neither helping nor
destroying. -(Don't you find this to be t!
rue?)) Not only do we have 2 directions of change (increase and decrease (in
capability)), (which I will now call forces); but we know that these changes (or
forces) have capability behind them. They are caused by capability. The
lack-of-capability cannot support or cause either (change) force. Next I want to
establish is that capability is the key to crossing barriers. For example, if
you are on an island, there is the barrier of the ocean that keeps you from the
rest of land. But if you have more capability in the form of a boat, then you
can cross the barrier of the ocean. I hope you will agree that capability is the
key to crossing barriers. Certain capabilities allow one (us) to cross certain
barriers, but in general, capability is the key to crossing barriers. Now we are
ready to consider the 2 forces (increase and decrease in capability) in
different situations. The situations are: 1. The force-of-increase only; 2. The
force-of-decrease only; 3. Both forces are present.!
  Let's consider the situation where only the force-of-decre!
ase-in-capability is present. What this force is, is capability used to destroy
other capability, (or even itself). Well, the force-of-decrease goes about
destroying capability, and there is less capability. Where capability once was,
there is now a lack-of-capability (a hole). Since forces are made of capability,
(and not lack-of-capability), this force isn't a growing force because it
destroys what can support it. And if it destroys the specific capabilities
making it up, then it is a shrinking force. Pretty soon all the capability in
the immediate area is destroyed and there is no more capability left to destroy.
When this force runs out of capability, it can't destroy (capability) any
longer. Thus it ceases to exist in an active sense. But this force could
continue to destroy capability, if it could get in touch with that (capability)
which was further away. -or in some way separate from it. To do th! is would
require the crossing of barriers (to reach the more distant or !
not-so-obtainable capability). The force of decrease in capability, however,
cannot cross these barriers, because it destroys the key to crossing barriers
-capability. The force of decrease thus boxes itself in and ceases to exist in
an active sense. So, this possibility of just the force of decrease alone, is
unworkable. Now, let us consider what happens when the
force-of-INCREASE-(in-capability) is by itself and is the only force around.
This force takes lack-of-capability and produces capability in its place. Pretty
soon, everything is so capable, that this force begins to run out of
improvements to make. -Lack of capability becomes in short supply. If no more
improvements can be made, then no increase can be done, and this would stop
active existence of this force of increase. This force could keep on existing if
it could get in touch with lack-of-capability that was further away or in some
other way, separated from it. To do this would require the crossing of barriers.
Si!
nce this force produces the key to crossing barriers -capab!
ility, it does continue to exist in an active sense. (-Whether it be barriers to
putting more capability/life into a piece of matter, or reaching more distant
raw materials; the force of increase has the key to crossing these barriers, in
capability/po! wer/life.) ›It is easy to see that one can go no lower than
nothing in terms of the level of capability. What is not so certain in my mind
is; is there a ceiling, a limit that you cannot put anymore capability into a
piece of matter? Being of higher capability would allow one to put more in.
Well, maybe there's a limit and maybe there's not. But no matter.› (-See chapter
introduction.) So, the force-of-increase can exist in an active sense, when it
is the only force around. When alone, not only does it exist, it grows and
builds itself up to very high levels of capability. It is a growing force,
because what it produces -capability, is also the stuff that forces are made of.
And with nothing to knock it down, it just keeps on g!
rowing. (It can always cross barriers so it keeps growing (forever).) Then there
is the situation where both of the forces exist together. Here on earth, this is
the way it is. When the two forces are together, one produces capability and the
other destroys capability. The force-of-increase doesn't grow because the
capability it produces is destroyed. The force-of-decrease doesn't shrink
because it has a continued supply of capability to destroy. This type of setup
can go on indefinitely, and the force of decrease does not burn itself out here.
But the 2 forces oppose each other in what they seek to accomplish, and a medium
or mediocre level of capability results. The force of decrease can exist
indefinitely, even forever. The force of increase exists here also, but only to
supply capability for the force of decrease (to destroy). It exists in a cramped
or limited sort of way, as it doesn't grow.) For example, suppose there is a man
trying to build a house, but vandals keep de!
stroying it. And suppose there is another man building a ho!
use but who is separate from any vandals. With the time and effort and resources
that the first man puts into trying to build his first house, the 2nd man can
build many houses. So, from the force-of-increase's point of view, it's not so
important how much capability it starts out with. What's important, is being
separate from the force of decrease, the force of destruction. Even if a
force-of-increase starts out very small, it will grow to very large size and
have lots of capability, IF it is separate from the force of destruction. The
reason is growth. (Here it can grow.) The largeness it obtains is dependent on
the degree it is separate from the force of destruction. And as it grows in
capability, it can use that capability to obtain greater separation. Speaking of
evolution: if a small amount of capability develops out of the muck and mire,
and both forces are present in equal amounts, then it will stay small, and not
grow. If more of the force of decrease makes it up, the!
n it will consume itself and disappear. But if more of the force of increase is
present, it will grow to be large and very capable. So, if at any point in the
past or future, a force of increase no matter how small, appears from the muck
and mire, and is separate from the force of decrease in capability. -or if a
force of increase at any time and no matter how small, escapes from a system
where there are both forces:: then it can grow, and grow to a very large size.
Because of this, it is very probable that there exists now, or there will exist,
a force of increase (in capability) that is of high capability, an infinite
amount of capability, and that is completely separate from the force of decrease
(in capability). And also, that this force is a kin! d benevolent loving force,
not a stern vengeful or mean force. So, I will include the existence of such a
force in my considerations. This wraps up my thoughts on the 3 situations
involving the two forces. The conclusions are: th!
at the force of decrease cannot exist by itself, while the !
force of increase can. And when it does, it builds itself up into high
capability. When the 2 forces exist together, things stagnate. -The
force-of-increase ceases to grow and the force-of-decrease ceases to shrink, and
the situation can go on forever. The advantage of the force-of-increase, is that
it can exist alone and do very well, while the force of decrease cannot. The
force of decrease-in-capability has specific characteristics of its own, which
cause problems. These characteristics, problems and solutions are what I want to
discuss next. An important idea that fits here, is that being at mediocre
capability forces one to destroy and decrease capability in some areas, to
obtain increases in capability in other areas. Whereas if one had more
capability and was at high capability, they would not be forced to destroy
capability (to obtain these increases). For example, we have to eat to survive.
Having enough to eat increases our capability. But we must kill animals or pla!
nts to obtain food, which decreases their capability. Now, if we had more
capability and technology, we could synthesize our food chemically from the
energy of the sun. -And no one's capability would be decreased. The reason we
are forced to destroy and decrease capability, if we are at low capability, is
because we are incomplete. Let me explain. In obtaining a good, or increasing
capability, there is a task at hand. The doing of this task requires a certain
amount of capability, and certain types of capability (depending on the task).
If one has enough of the needed capabilities, they can perform the task period,
and no capability is destroyed. But if one is at low capability, then they
probably don't have enough capability to perform the task. Now you would think
that the task would go undone, and that would be the end of it. But not so. If
you have a collection of life forms all at low capability; if you consider the
total capability of them all, then (if you have the righ!
t collection of life forms); there is enough capability to !
perform the task; but it is divided amongst many life forms. For the task to be
performed, the capabilities must all be together, in one unit. -And not divided
up. If the many life forms cannot merge into a single life form and assemble
their capabilities into one unit (which ! is doubtful since they are all at low
capability); then the only way to put the smaller amounts of capabilities
together into one unit, is to remove them from the individual life forms and put
them together. -The act of removing the capabilities from the individual life
forms, is where destruction and decrease in capability/power/life occurs. Also,
the less capability one has, the less complete and the smaller the task, one can
do. Like, to burn coal does not take much equipment. But to burn it cleanly does
take a lot of sophisticated anti-pollution equipment. So, if one is at low or
mediocre capability, they are forced to do destruction to obtain some increases
in capability. But if one is at high capa!
bility they can obtain these increases without having to do destruction or
decrease in capability. The situation of both forces together, results in
mediocre capability. And being at mediocre capability causes decrease and
destruction to be done, which keeps the group at ! mediocre capability; so that
the force of evil is not easily eliminated from this situation. There is one
unfortunate result or symptom of the fact that being at low capability forces
one to do destruction to obtain many goods. -That is, a circular process that
keeps one at low or mediocre capability. For example, if a group of life forms
are at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do destructions as part of
obtaining many increases in capability. These destructions balance any increases
obtained, and keep the group at low or mediocre capability. Being at low or
mediocre capability, forces them to do more decreases in capability. This keeps
on and on, and there is no escape to high capability from !
within. It is a trap (of evil). Outside action is needed to!
  break the cycle (on any kind of a regular basis). Let me describe an example.
Let us take a group of life forms, that are all at high capability, but are also
ignorant about many things especially destruction. They are learning about life
and the universe (from a vantage point of being at hi! gh capability). Then
along comes the idea of destruction. Here is something to try out. So, one of
them tries it out and clobbers one of them over the head (or themselves). Now
one of the life forms is at decreased capability. Being at decreased capability,
this person can no longer obtain many of the increases-in-capability without
doing destruction. This person does not give up these things, but obtains them
now with an accompanying decrease in capability. Other life forms have their
capability decreased and are now at less than high capability. They in turn must
decrease capability to obtain the good things they have been used to. More life
forms fall from high capability, and this ke!
eps snowballing until all life forms that are in contact with the system fall
from high capability, unless they get separate from this system. -The
interesting thing is that high capability in itself, is no protection against
this. And once everyone is at mediocre capability, they ar! e trapped there, and
cannot get back to high capability. So now, these people know about
decrease-in-capability, but the price we pay for knowing about it, is being
trapped by it. Some of the properties of decrease-in-capability, is that it is
very infectious, -that it spreads through a set of life forms that are within
each others grasp. And that once it traps us, we cannot get out. Some of us like
decrease-in-capability by choice. Others of us are against it by choice. But no
matter what our choice is we are forced to do it, and are trapped by it. When we
must decrease capability to obtain an increase-in-capability, this kind of
decrease is forced upon us. It is not by our choice. An increase i!
n our capability would allow us to obtain the goods without!
  destruction, and we would then cease to decrease capability. I would call this
'necessary evil'. But there is destruction that is caused by choice. I would
call this 'unnecessary evil'. Destruction can be shown to be 'unnecessary evil',
by the giving of capability. This type of destruction is not caused by
lack-of-capability or being at low capability. -Because the person already has
the capability to avoid doing this destruction, but does the destruction anyway
(by choice). (It is interesting to note that the doing of one unnecessary evil
causes a long chain of necessary evils to be done, ! long after the initiating
unnecessary evil is gone). If all of us liked the
force-of-decrease-in-capability and chose it as what we wanted to do with our
lives, then it'd be OK to let the force-of-decrease feed off of a
force-of-increase, and we'd live this way forever, with the 2 forces being
together in our lives. But that's not how it is. Most of us don't choose the
force-of-decrease B!
ut even so, it traps us. How shall we get out? Who will help us? Well, it would
have to be a force-of-increase, separate from the force of destruction, and thus
of high capability, that helps us out. But I submit, that just helping us out
will not solve our problem. For example; say that the force-of-increase-of-H.C.
(High Capability), is helping. He is giving everybody lots of capability and
bringing us up to high capability equal with him/her self. But the
force-of-decrease is present also; and now has access to much capability. (Those
with the force-of-decrease, use their lots of capability to do lots of
destruction). Thus th! e force-of-decrease becomes nearly as powerful as the
force-of-good-of-H.C. that is present here, helping out. All are brought down to
mediocre capability in the togetherness of the 2 forces, where we started from.
But now we are minus one force-of-increase-of-H.C.. This force is still a
force-of-increase, but of mediocre capability like the rest of u!
s. This does not solve the problem. The force-of-increase-o!
f-H.C. is unable to help until the force-of-decrease is dealt with. What is the
solution to our predicament? Take a look at this plan: First the force-of-good
(increase in capability)-of-H.C., divides into 2 parts; each of which are of
very High Capability. One of them stays back and remains separate from this
whole situation. The other confronts the problem and comes together with us, and
uses his lots of capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas of life, and
in all areas. (-even if we wanted to, we couldn't separate the 2 forces in all
areas, here on earth, because we don't have the capability to. And we never will
because we're trapped at mediocre capability.) But both forces-of-good-of-H.C.
do have the capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas; and the
confronting HC force-of-good DOES, (or at least provides for, in the area of
choice). With the force-of-evil (the force-of-decrease-in-capability), alone and
separate, it consumes and destroys all capability wi!
thin its grasp. And because of its infectiousness, and that this
confronting-force-of-good-of-H.! C. is here within its grasp; it destroys it
too. Because capability is life, lives are lost and people are killed. The force
of evil thus self destructs and brings itself to an end; but everybody is dead,
or many are dead -even the confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who came together
with us and did the separation of the 2 forces, was killed. What occurs next, is
the other 'stayed back', 'stayed behind' (represented by '*')
force-of-good-of-H.C., who has been away and separate from all this, comes into
action. Since the force of evil is gone and has burned itself out, there is no
danger to this *force-of-good-of-H.C.. And this *force-of-good-of-H.C. sorts the
remains of those who like increase-in-capability into one place, and the remains
of those who like decrease-in-capability into another place (and gives them what
they want). This *force-of-good-of-H.C. then does what forces of!
  good do - that is to increase capability, and brings these!
  people back to life. And not ju! st to mediocre capability, but to high
capability. The confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who provided for all this and
was killed; was brought back to life of high capability too. Those who like
decrease in capability are in a place where they can do that. (This is what
makes hell so unpleasant -everybody goes around hurting each other with their
high capability (that keeps on being replenished). -This is what they like to
do, and thus want.) But they are kept separate from us who like to do
increase-in-capability. This solves the problem. -Those of us who know about the
force-of-decrease and who don't like it, are no longer trapped by it. We are at
high capability, and are not forced to do it. -And since we know about it and
have decided against it; we don't do it. So now we see that the
force-of-good-of-H.C. has a sure fire way to defeat the force of evil for good.
The nature of hurt, harm and pain is a strange one. If you cut off and incine!
rate someone else's finger; you may say that it didn't hurt you, because you are
not the capability-and-life that received the destruction. But the only
capability and life that received destruction was the person's finger. It no
longer exists, and so does not feel anything or any pain. What feels pain, is
the remnant part of this person that received no damage, but that (who) was
connected to the lost capability (the finger). The only reason you wouldn't feel
pain, is because of the separation keeping people as separate entities. But as
evil seeks to bridge separations, so as to harness forces of good and burn down
capability/life within its grasp (so as to feed); then the pain and suffering
will be felt throughout. So when you hurt someone, it will most surely come back
on you as well as everybody else who is connected to this system who does not
have separation from evil. I hope you s! ee the futility of hurting people, even
to punish people (especially non destructive rule!
  breakers/victimless crimes). It just makes all of our live!
s who are connected to this system, a living Hell. It really doesn't matter
whose fault it is or who is to blame. (With the exception of stopping those who
are presently destructive, who themselves are more destructive than good. -then
it's a tradeoff) It is not the capability that was destroyed, but the remaining
capability that was connected, that reacts to the loss, and feels* the pain -as
it tries to carry on, now at reduced capability, now without the help from the
destroyed material it had previously depended on. It must obtain the same good
it used to get evil-free, now with chains and chains of accompanying necessary
evils. It has just been thrown into reduced capability, the trap of evil; from
its previous vantage point of being evil-free. And that doesn't feel very good.
That's what pain is. *(There has to be something there, something alive to be
able to feel.) GOOD VS EVIL IN GREATER DEPTH: ATOMIZATION,, AND STAGNATION'S
PRECARIOUS BALANCE. There is the 'inconsiste!
ncy of the trap of evil' in my writing. If the trap of evil traps everything it
comes into contact (togetherness) with, because of its infectiousness: How then
can anything once trapped by evil, ever get out (to achieve separation of the
forces in all areas)? How sturdy is this trap of evil? What I am trying to
examine, is raw evil against raw good; with these forces on equal footing,
without outside interference (that is, before a fogoHC is created), to see how
they turn out, and how well good fares against evil. We have already noticed
that stagnation sets in when the forces of good and evil are together, and that
this stagnation can go on forever. I want to examine this situation more closely
here. How sturdy is the trap of evil? Can it be proved impossible to get out for
anyone over all time? Well, first of all, since evil (at best) is at mediocre
capability, it would not be able to contact and control all the life that sprang
up in the universe (randomly). And because of !
randomness, it is probable that some life systems spring up!
  with mainly the force of good as their make-up. Now, because of the statistics
of randomness, they would be in the minority; but that doesn't matter; because
all it takes is one to succeed. These life forms of good, do not need to be
successful at getting in contact with other life forms to succeed: only to
overcome any remnant force of evil that is within them. They need to work within
themselves to obtain complete separation from evil (by using (some of) what
they've gained from previous separation, to accomplish more separation). For the
force of evil to succeed on the other hand; it must get in contact with all life
in the universe. Its success requires this contact of other life forms to make
sure no force of good outgrows it and becomes greatly more powerful than it;
(and not so much doing work within itself). But the force of evil is unable to
contact all life forms due to its own trap of mediocre capability. Now, let us
examine this trap of evil more closely, to see i!
f it really is 100% effective in trapping everything it touches. The thing is,
it has to be 100% effective to even have a chance of overcoming the force of
good. 99.999% is not good enough. 99.999% means that one out of 100,000 will
escape. And all it takes is one. The trap of evil is that one is at mediocre
capability, and is forced to do a large proportion of necessary evils just to
survive, or obtain many of the good things they are used to. These necessary
evils done, then negate any gains made, and keep the group at mediocre
capability. This is how the trap of evil is proposed to work. But there is the
area of 'good things we are used to'. If we refrained from some of these good
things with much necessary evil; but instead obtained some other good thing with
less necessary evil, with the resources, then we might be able to work our way
out of this. So what we do, is to expand areas that do not have necessary evils,
while we get by with as little as possible in areas that !
are loaded with necessary evils. (There are some processes !
that are not diminished by their use, while there are others that are. Like the
use of a library does not diminish its ability to be an information center. But
the use of a bag of cement for one! building, diminishes its use for anything
else, (unless you happen to be at a rather high capability).) So we work with an
emphasis on areas that are not diminished by their use until we build up enough
capability to get into other areas in this non destructive way. When we are
forced to do an equivalent amount of necessary evils just to survive, what then?
But my question is, what is an equivalent amount that will exactly negate the
gains produced by our survival? It seems to me that stagnation is a pretty
precarious balance: -that we would tend to either go down in flames; or grow
larger. ›This train of thought will be continued from the paragraph with the (*)
in front of it. But for now I need to explore some background in some other
areas; like the tendency towards atomization in !
systems with the forces of increase and decrease together.› What I want to state
now, is this: it is a conceptual impossibility to do both good, and evil, in the
same area at the same time (to the smallest most specific unit of capability).
Take any specific capability. What does it mean to increase and decrease at the
same time? This is impossible. At any given point in time, a capability is at
some level. This level is either increasing, decreasing, or constant. It cannot
be both increasing and decreasing simultaneously. There may be a force trying to
cause increase; balanced by a force trying to cause decrease; acting
simultaneously on this one thing. But there is no movement in the level of this
thing. Take for example a rocket ship. The force of gravity pulls downward on
it. The thrust of the rocket engines pushes upwards on it. But the rocket itself
can only have one direction describing it. We can say the rocket is increasing
(if the thrust overcomes the gravitation). W!
e can say the rocket is decreasing (if ! the gravitation ov!
ercomes the thrust). We can say the rocket is constant (if the gravitational
pull equals the thrust). But we can't say that the rocket is increasing at time
t1, and then turn around and say the rocket is also decreasing at time t1. ›If
the rocket rose and fell at the same time, then at t1+5 seconds, it would be in
two places at the same time. (It would have to expand to do this.) And this
expansion (a byproduct of the togetherness of rising and failing), has no
shrinking to counteract it.› Now, if the rocket blows up, then some parts may go
up and some parts may go down; and then we can say the rocket is increasing and
decreasing at time t1. But if we are at the most basic and specific unit of
matter or capability (in this case a rocket fragment); then there can be only
one description of its motion (or lack of motion). What does this lead to? Well,
if we are forced to do actions that contain both increase and decrease, then
that increase and decrease must be upon different (s!
eparate) areas, to have both increase and decrease be done. An action that tries
to do both increase and decrease on the same area is likely to break it apart
into smaller units; separate and divide it up. If it is not blown up (divided
up), then no increase-and-decrease will have been done. Forces of increase and
decrease done on a unit, often act on different component pats of the unit; and
have a tendency to blow that unit apart if it is not strong enough to hold
together. We live in a world where both good and evil are heavily together. As
we have just seen; systems with the togetherness of good and evil, cause all in
their grasp to be divided up, blown apart, or 'atomized'. Since these fragments
are all of less capability than the whole, they are less able to overcome the
trap of evil (that forces them to do necessary evils, as a result of being at
low capability). This isn't where the magic occurs. The magic occurs when these
fragments attempt to grow back together. Ther!
e are so many actions that do both good and evil, that ever!
y unit of life is atomized and fragmented. Those parts that happen to have more
good done to them, and that are themselves good; are better able to grow. And
they are better able to grow together to form groups-of-fragments. Thus the good
grows together leaving the evil (and the disadvantaged) behind, still separate.
(Separation itself isn't bad, but if something is evil it will consume itself in
separati! on.) So in this coming together of the fragments, there's a tendency
of the good to come together; and there's also an element of randomness. I want
to state that, that element of randomness cannot completely be eliminated (or
even nearly be eliminated) by the ruling forces of evil, Because of evil's
mediocre capability. ›When things are coming-or-growing together after being
fragmented; this is the problem or barrier of necessary-evil. -The problem of
many life forms assembling themselves into a single life form, and thus being
able to pool their resources without doing dec!
rease in that pooling.› SEMI TANGENT: In my description of necessary evil, I
suggest the barrier of many life forms being able to assemble themselves into a
single life form so as to pool their resources without decrease. But the journey
of escape from the trap of evil (necessary evil), contains many barriers and
milestones, of which this is just one (albeit a major one). END S.T.
(*)-STAGNATION IS A PRECARIOUS BALANCE CONT.- Although there is variation in the
resulting size (of the fragments coming together before they're atomized again);
there can be calculated an average size. The ruling forces of evil could then
base the amount of destruction they allow, on this average size; so that the
evil done, just destroys the gains made; as a way to maintain stagnation. The
trap of evil is that on average, as much destruction is done as increase, so
that no net gain is made. When low-capability-fragments with more good and
growth are coming together; there's an element of randomness!
  that neither these fragments nor the residing force-of-evi!
l can totally or even mostly eliminate (due to their low or mediocre level of
capability). This means there's a variation in the amount of capability that can
grow together before its atomized again. Most of the time, a certain average
size is observed. But once in awhile and more INfrequently, larger group size! s
and power are obtained. It's these less frequent but greater capability-groups
that can be able to achieve their nearest milestone (to escape from evil), and
eventually work their way out and escape completely from evil. You may say all
the ruling force of evil would have to do would be to increase the mix of evil
(in the actions that contain good and evil) so that not even these infrequent,
larger powered groups would be able to grow to reach their nearest milestone.
But if evil did that, there'd no longer be stagnation! The smaller and more
common group size would not be able to take it, and would shrink/vanish (die).
If conditions were such that the infrequent, m!
ore powerful group was only able to hold its own; then the more common (average
sized) smaller groups, would get blown away by these harsher conditions; and
it'd be a shrinking universe with evil on its way to self destruction; (thus
making room for some other life system to evolve). All it takes is for one ! to
escape evil, for them to be able to come back and rescue the rest of us who are
trapped by evil. Thus if there is not a fogoHC, there's a good chance there will
be created one. And if there is a fogoHC, we can depend on him/her to rescue us
from the trap of evil. What we've just seen, is that due to variability,
randomness, and that some do better than others; a few will be able to escape
the trap of evil. It may take a long time, but a few will be able to escape.
Once this has happened, things do not continue on like this with only a few
escaping evil over a long time period. Now, with the existence of an escaped and
powerful fogoHC; this fogoHC then does the plan to !
rescue all of us who want to be rescued; and now, everybody!
  who wants to, escapes evil! ›A tangent: Given an action that has the
togetherness of good and evil closely knit together within it; the results of
that action, have both good and evil present, but the good and evil are now
separate from each other to a greater degree (when this action blows something
apart). So we see that the natural result of actions containing the togetherness
of good and evil, is that they decay to produce good and evil that is more
separate.› End tangent. As an aside, I might note that atomization is a way of
providing separation. The acts that contain both good and evil together; are a
way of doing and providing separation. (This argument might be posed.) But this
type of separation doesn't separate (just) the forces. It divides up whatever is
in front of it, into little pieces. This type of separation does harm, and traps
its subjects in the trap of evil. There is one unfortunate problem with using
this way of separation: it never achieves separation (!
complete), because it depends on the togetherness of good and evil to provide it
(just what separation sets out to eliminate). Once free from the trap of evil,
we no longer need to depend on the uneven distribution of resources to enable
some to escape from evil (to come back and rescue us). Equality can then be
instituted without the detrimental effects of stagnation. Chapter 3 Dependence
on God, the Nesting Problem, and Time" Since its important for us not to operate
at redued capability, we should depend on the fogoHC (to fill the function of
what we do), and not depend on what we can do/produce. But just because we
depend on the fogoHC (to fill functions and needs), doesn't mean we stop/reject
what we ourselves can do. Its just that we don't depend on IT, but instead
depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can. That still exists/is valuable.
But it's no longer burdened with supporting us and is now free to grow evil
free. There are the things we can do. And there's the f!
ogoHC. The fogoHC can fill in for and substitute for our ac!
tions of these very things. This creates a dual structure. When we depend on the
fogoHC, that itself is an action too. Our depending on the fogoHC while letting
OUR doings go free -not burdening them, is itself also an action, and a 'thing'
(#1). We treat this 'thing' (#1) do different than all the other 'things' (A-Z),
so we also depend on the fogoHC to supply the function of this thing(#1). But
our action to depend on the fogoHC for this, is also a 'thing' (#2). Thing #1
and thing #2 are very similar in that they both involve depending on the fogoHC;
but there may be some slight difference in that thing#2 is part of a nested,
repeating set of awarenesses that is one order higher than thing#1. But it is
mostly the fogoHC Himself, and not our action to depend on Him that gets things
done and actually fills the function (of everything we're depending on Him to
fill). It's the versatility of the fogoHC that allows Him to do this (His
infinite versatility comes from being at high!
  capability) Though, its still true that the
action-to-depend-on-the-fogoHC-to-fill-functions remains a bona fide action.
When the fogoHC does an action, that action is a part of Himself. These actions
by the fogoHC (to fill the functions of things) are at high capability growing
evil free because they are (part of) the fogoHC. They need no additional action
of dependence-on-the-fogoHC to provide this because they are (part of) the
fogoHC. It's only actions not done by the fogoHC that need the help of the
fogoHC (to escape reduced capability the trap of evil). The action/awareness
that we are to depend on the fogoHC, is the closest an action can get to the
fogoHC while still being an action done by us. All the other actions and things
done by us are further from the fogoHC. So all these other actions often come by
this dependence action in their path to the fogoHC. All things make their
journey to the fogoHC (or the fogoHC to them). And this may or may not include
additional a!
ctions/awarenesses of dependence on the fogoHC. When (if) i!
t gets to nested actions of: depending on the fog! oHC, (to provide dependence
on the fogoHC for, the providing dependence on the fogoHC) for, filling the
function of all our other actions; -it is usually easier for a dependence action
to finally find the fogoHC than to create another order of nesting. (another
order of nesting doesn't add much of anything new.) What I kind of mean by 'the
journey to the fogoHC' is that these things grow so they have an awareness that
the fogoHC is filling their function and to depend upon that and not themselves
(so as to grow evil free). What I really mean by the 'journey to the fogoHC', is
that these things grow eventually to become part of the fogoHC themselves. The
bottom line is that things experience evil free growth. The fogoHC plays a
prominent role in this, as it is He who provides it. A disclaimer: I have no
love for organized religion either. In the past they supressed Galelao. And they
still heavy handedly suppress those who say w!
hat they don't like. For all the concerns by the Church against violations of
human rights: they themselves lack a very basic human right -freedom of
speech/expression. As for belief in God, I am perfectly content to have you
believe how you see fit concerning God; and also to have me believe how I see
fit concerning God, even if it means that I believe and you disbelieve, or
whatever. The Bible it is said, is divinely inspired. Do not settle for second
hand inspiration. Demand your own personal inspiration from God. (Why would God
change His method -of personally inspiring people, in mid stream? by then
leaving people to rely on 2nd hand inspriations) I think that God would reveal
himself to you clearly, and that you would not have to strain to percieve Him. I
would recomend that you search for God only when you want to, not because of any
idea that you should or are supposed to. Let me list a concrete fact: We know
for certain that if God exists, He has taken a hands off app!
roach, and has not directly, visibly, absolutely revealed H!
imself to us. What if someone wrote some stuff about God, and claimed it was
inspired by God, but that was in reality, inaccurate or even a lie. Would this
be enough to cause God to break His silence and set the inaccuracy straight?
Well, I can see the possibility/probability that such a God would continue to be
silent. So that just because the Bible is a book aboout God that claims to be
true and from God; doesn't actually make it true (It doesn't make if false
either. It could also be partly true or partly false). If God inspired these men
who wrote the Bible; then He is entirely capable of inspiring each and every one
of us in the same way. To accept anything less than your own personal
inspiration from God, (such as second hand inspiration), is to allow possible
inaccuracy in how God is really like. Each and every part of a writing about
God, then requires an independent confirmation from God (in order to eliminate
the possibility of human error/deception). Anything that i!
nvolve! s men, I am suspicious of. In my experience, men lie. Men deceive. Men
can be inaccurate. And the Bible has man's influence, as the hand of God did not
visibly come down from heaven to pen the Bible. Man was involved in its writing,
so much so that God's participation in such is visibly obscured. So that I have
more problems with interpreting the Bible, than with the existence of God. I had
at one time asked why should God need any help in spreading the Gospel. But I
think I overstepped my logic. Actually, it is OK for people to express their
human desire for a God yet to be. Or it is also OK to help God in the area he
needs help -that is in communication with humans without revealing himself
completely. However, I was just dissapproving because of the great harm that has
been done by nations of old taking along the mission to spread the Gospel, but
what they actually did was to stamp out the native cultures they visited, and
commit genocide. THE NESTING PROBLEM There !
is a central recurring problem I keep stumbling on; especia!
lly concerning common actions needed to be done to all things. In general form,
the problem is: "Given things need to be acted on to fix or empower them; the
action to do so is also a thing, that also needs to be acted on likewise. And if
we then so act; then even this action is also another thing that too needs to be
acted on likewise. Etc. etc.. This keeps snowballing with an infinite chain of
nested actions each regulating the one before it. It's impossible to completely
finish this task, and attempting to will exhaust all resources in useless,
nested, regulating of regulation actions. In my previous writing, I sidestepped
the issue by saying a thing becomes part of the fogoHC and no longer continues
in these nested actions. (The idea is not to bother wasting resources trying to
accomplish an impossible task.) Now, my final thinking concerning this problem:
When we're successful at something, it interests us, it generates new material,
and we tend to work with it. But when !
we fail at something, we may tend to be frustrated and work all the harder; but
eventually if we keep failing, we loose interest and don't do anything in it but
move on to other things. We tend to let go of our failures, not wanting to
remember them (and also unable to work with anything new in them because they
didn't grow anything new). We'd much rather dwell on our successes and work with
what we do well at. But whether we succeed or fail, it's wonderful to realize
there's an almighty God (fogoHC) out there who loves us. Given such a God who
cares about us; we can understand how He might desire we grow and advance in
power and love, to also eventually be forces of good of high capability. To be
able to advance and grow like this, a basic requirement is that we are able to
make good choices for ourselves. If we're unable to think and decide, but need
s! omeone to do this for us, then we haven't grown much (above inanimate objects
or instinct driven animals). Some believe we !
should be as little children in that we let someone else th!
ink and decide for us and blindly obey (although little children never blindly
obey anything). That's not what God has done. Look around you, at what is self
evident. God has for the most part, stepped back and allowed us to have our way
with this world. God hasn't interfered with man's will. Just look around you and
on the news all the pain and suffering and all the wrong things in this world.
Why has God allowed all this suffering? Do you see a throne in the sky, or a
glowing building where you can talk with God and here Him talk back audibly, and
where He enforces his laws? (No, God deals/talks with each of us in the unseen
ways through His Holy Spirit.) This world around us is not the finished work of
perfection wrought by an almighty God where we are all living in harmony and
love. ! No, what we see around us is dirty rags: a world in travail waiting to
be born. Obviously, God highly values the development of our ability to think /
make good choices; because He has let us!
  have our way and our freedom (to screw up and make a stagnant mess of this
world). An almighty God could step in and put a stop to this. But a God who
loved us would value our development and advancement to grow in life and to
think and choose well. It's like the non interference directive on Star Trek.
Look around you. Has God stepped in visibly to rule here? It's obvious, that if
there is a God: He has stepped back and let us humans have our own way. He thus
must value our advancing into the ability to choose well and think and not just
blindly obey. So when we're working with things, the fogoHC may be able to do so
much more, but He stays out of it, because He doesn't want to violate/interfere
with our will or what we're trying to do here. When you try something; just by
the law of probability, sometimes you're going to succeed and sometimes you're
going to fail (even when doing the same thing repetitively). When we fail, we
realize we can't hope to depend on or succeed in!
  what we've done (for we've done nothing). Since the things!
  we fail at are permanently out of play (they can do nothing on their own, and
are so far gone that only the fogoHC can do anything with them); then there's
nothing to interfere with the fogoHC's workings; for the fogoHC to gain
permission from, or be free from evil from. Thus the fogoHC has a free hand here
and creates wondrous results; far greater than the successes we create. We thus
depend on our failures for the mainstay of our existence. Since we've no
preoccupation with depending on what we've done, (neither are we presently
working with it): We thus have no hesitation to removing our will from
most-of-us (giving our will-resources to a small-part-of-us); so that the Lord
will have a free hand over this most-of-us, and can then come in and do
wonderful things with it. The reason we take resources-of-our-will away from
most of us and give them to only a small portion of us that's most likely to
succeed, is two fold. First, as just discussed, such an action clears us out !
of the fogoHC's way as we turn that part over to Him. But secondly, this action
concentrates resources upon what small part we do give our will to. This is
important so what we do, isn't at reduced capability, but is at as high
capability as we can muster. The purpose of our successes, isn't to be depended
on for the mainstay of our existence, but to provide new ideas, new areas, and
new growth for the fogoHC. We ourselves are the new growth. WE are the product.
The fogoHC is advancing and developing US as living thinking intelligent beings
able to handle more freedom and make good loving choices. However, we only need
a small part of an area to do this. We don't need to take up the whole area. Our
successes and our will only represent US, not the supplying and satisfaction of
OUR needs. We depend on the fogoHC; not our own strength. (Look at your hand.
It's made of meat. But you don't eat your hand even though it's meat because
it's part of YOU.) If you try to put more of a b!
urden on what-you-are, than just being you, you'll drive it!
  to reduced capability. Remember, it's just barely making it being YOU, and
pales in comparison to what the fogoHC is doing right beside you. We should move
out of most of an area and inhabit only a small part with our will. We need this
degree of concentration into an area, to put US out of reduced capability; and
to allow the fogoHC to produce as much as possible (since the fogoHC can do so
much more). In any case, there's a fixed proportion where we move our will out
of most of an area and into a small remaining part. When we do this action
(called the #1 action) to take free resources of our will from most of an area,
and give them to only a small part of this area: this is also an action/area.
Who does this action? Well, this area is treated as all other areas; and free
will-resources are taken from most of it and given to only a small part of it.
The end state (just like in all other areas) is that the fogoHC oversees/does
most of it, while our name's only on a small par!
t of it. We're always growing and new parts of us are always being created. When
a thing is first created (MAINLY FROM WHAT IS THE FOGOHC'S): When it is first
created, it is all US 100%. Then 'we' do an action to move US out of most of
this part and into a small fraction of this part. (This I call the #1 action.)
Once the fixed proportion is achieved, the task is complete and no more of this
#1 action is done on this part. When the #1 action is complete, each part of us
has 2 representations. One is run by the fogoHC and is very powerful -a source
of power for us; and is always free from evil. The other contains our will and
just barely lives up to the glory of God and is often vulnerable to evil. The
Nesting problem: It is the fogoHC representations which are powerful enough to
create and grow the new actions we do. But the new things created by the
powerful-fogoHC-representations, aren't powerful because the #1 action hasn't
been done to them yet. Only after the #1 action ha!
s been done, do newly-created-actions join the fogoHC repre!
sentations and become very powerful. So all newly created actions need the #1
action done to them. But the #1 action is also a newly created thing that also
needs it done to itself. So if we create a #1 action-(1) (from our powerful
fogoHC representations) to be done upon the #1 action we did upon some other
thing; then that #1 action-(1) is also a newly created thing that also needs the
#1 action done to it. As we can see, this goes on and on and we'll never be able
to catch up and do the #1 action to all newly created actions. This is the
nesting problem I had spoken of earlier. What shall we do? Any solution first
recogniz! es that the task of doing #1 action to all newly created action, will
never be totally completed. But we can't live all our life at once either. This
gives us a way to keep time, as we live out our lives. The solution I propose,
is to carry some over from the past. We need to realize there'll always be
carryover from past actions. So what I do, is create!
  a desired project action from my powerful fogoHC representations. I also
simultaneously create a new #1 action(a) upon this newly created project action.
And I also create a new #1 action(b) upon all past actions that have not yet had
#1 action done to them (which happen to be old #1 actions themselves, in this
setup). Note that #1 actions (a) and (b) are new actions, but that I allow them
to go without doing #1 action upon them AT THIS TIME. When #1 action(b) is
finished being done upon all past actions; I make a mark here in time by
creating a new #1 action(b) (now free from #1 action upon itself) and is
directed upon all past existing (#1) actions ((a) and (b)), that before I had
let go without #1 action upon them, but now am doing it to them. All actions
which had been allowed to go without #1 action, now have #! 1 action done to
them; with only the newly created #1 action created after this point now being
allowed to go without #1 action. This goes in cycles. Each time #!
1 action is finished on the old 'past' actions, a new cycle!
  is started, and all which was free of #1 action up till now, is now the new
'past actions' and now has (b) #1 action done to it in a new cycle. 'I' or (my
powerful fogoHC representation), can vary the time it takes between cycles. By
adjusting the proportion of project-action-and-#1-action(a), to, #1 action(b),
that 'I' create, 'I' can change the cycle time. When I do lots of #1 action(b),
then the past actions have the #1 action completed upon them much faster, thus
spurring a new cycle much sooner. (This I usually do when evil is around and I
am dissatisfied.) But when there's a project I have interest in, which takes a
certain time, and there's no evil attacking; then 'I' can do more project
actions-and-#1action(a) and less #1 action(b). With less #1 action(b), it takes
it longer to finish with the past actions. And 'I' can adjust this so when my
project is done, then my c! ycle's also done. But if my good project of interest
has no time constraints and can be done in any !
quantity in any length of time, then 'I' can just do equal amounts of
project-and-#1-action(a), vs, #1 action(b). PERMISSION Before the #1 action is
done on a newly created part of us; that part is still US, and the fogoHC needs
to get permission to do the #1 action on it. Since the fogoHC representation
created this part; it creates in with it, the permission needed. When our will
is moved out to make fogoHC representation, none of our will is found in fogoHC
representation. So 'we' never act out of our fogoHC representation (as an
individual will). Our fogoHC representation is balanced as it includes all non
evil things. If we focus on something of interest, we may leave out things. This
action is OUR will, and not fogoHC representation. So what we create, doesn't
automatically have permission created with it. WE must also create permission
via 'our' meager representation. And we must emphasize creating-permission,
until our complete obsession has permission; so we can then !
return to the (balanced) fogoHC representation's way of cre!
ating. The permission we create within what we do, has its permission for itself
right there, and doesn't get into the nesting problem. But the permission we
must create in our already-existing-self (for present actions), does have the
nesting problem. (Since the person and the permission aren't the same entity
here (the person was created long ago: the permission for a current event has
just been created); then distinct permission actions are needed for each of
them.) The permission we create as part of each new action, can keep an
instantaneous tab on things. And since this permission doesn't need any complex
past/present cycling, we can carry on quite simply for the most part. When we
periodically update permission in our main self, just remember to also do some
of this permission for past permission not yet 'permissed' for. In 'our'
representation; or US before the #1 action has been done to us, we can easily be
too overloaded to do these complex things. Note, I no longer !
consciously do this mental cycling. I include this only to illustrate a solution
to the nesting problem. CHAPTER 4 "Gripping" CHAPTER INTRODUCTION: This chapter
is the one referred to as 'the chapter on gripping' at various points in the
book. This chapter describes a struggle between good and evil as to which will
get to neutral capability first. After this, we spend a lot of this chapter on
the reasons why we need a balance with the actions that give us life. The
discussion is centered around avoiding (the concept of) 'overextension'. END
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION. There is a fallacy in my arguments on the separation of
the forces in all areas. First I described what it'd be like if only the force
of good totally alone and separate, were present. -That the force of good would
grow forever and become very powerful. Then I described what it'd be like if the
force of evil were the only fore around. -The force of evil would consume what
could support it, and would shrink and burn its!
elf out. It would come to a stop. Then I described how one !
fogoHC did an action of separation that would separate the forces in all areas.
I assumed that action of separation would bring about this absolute separation
of the forces, as if they were in universes completely by themselves. I went on
to say that only forces were separated, But what about neutral capability?
Neutral capability is neither force of good nor force of evil. Do we put it with
the force of good, or the force of evil, or in a place by itself separated from
both forces? (Force! s of evil do not themselves produce capability; and only
forces of good produce capability including neutral capability.) We decided the
action-of-separation didn't guarantee protection of neutral capability. If the
fogoHC were to protect all neutral capability, then there'd be no possible way
to have any destruction or force of evil. With evil being impossible, there'd be
no ability of choice; no ability to choose between good and evil. Because
intelligent life does exist, this would preve!
nt us from having a choice. Our capability-of-choice would be decreased or
prevented from advancing. As we'll see later, it's imperative that the ability
of choice even in this area, be advanced into; and this is why neutral
capability isn't guaranteed protection. The big problem is: if the neutral
capability (produced by forces of good) is destroyed by evil, then what is
expected from the action-of-separation (that is, a universe with only the force
of good), isn't achieved. -If evil destroys the neutral capability the force of
good produces, then the force of good doesn't grow. There is stagnation just
like with the force of good and evil together. Good doesn't grow, and evil is
fed and doesn't shrink. Effective separation then, is up for grabs. Since
neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection (because of free choice); evil
can then destroy neutral capability. If evil destroys all the neutral capability
a force of good produces, then there'll have been no increase in cap!
ability. With no increase done, the thing here can't be cal!
led a force of good. The former force of good is now neutral capability. It can
then be destroyed by the force of evil as neutral capability, as it no longer is
protected by force of good status. (In future writings, 'undeveloped capability'
is synonymous with 'neutral capability'). FogoHC life may not be aware of what
everything is, but it certainly is aware of what it grows into and comes in
contact with. Any evil parts it comes into contact with are not allowed
entrance. Anything non evil that comes into contact with this fogoHC life,
becomes a part of this life, together with the fogoHC, and becomes fogoHC life
too. So, this fogoHC life can grow into non evil areas just be coming in contact
with them. And when a neutral capability(1) becomes part of a force of good(2)
by being in contact-together with it(2); it(1) becomes protected due to its new
'force of good' status. When undeveloped capability comes in contact with the
min (minimum) fogoHC (through the contact growth o!
f gripping), it becomes a force-of-good and fogoHC life. To be a force of good,
means capabilities are increased. What capabilities does this new force of good
increase? Well, it only takes one capability increase to be a force of good;
(but this would mean choosing one capability over another), so all capabilities
are increased. A tighter grip on the parent materials (which produce new
capability) won't cause what's yet to be created, to be fogoHC-life before it's
created. A tighter grip on the parent materials, however, will put what is
created, closer to the fogoHC life, so it is transformed into fogoHC life much
more quickly. Let's look at the parent materials that are being held or gripped
by the fogoHC life: Since thse parent materials are being gripped, they are in
contact with the fogoHC life, and are thus made part of this fogoHC life (#1
action and togetherness). This is then fogoHC life gripping itself. And yes, the
tighter the gogoHC life can hold itself together, !
the more quickly it can come in contact with the new capabi!
lity it creates. If an undeveloped life isn't being attacked, then it feels fine
and feels no pain. Eventually it is touched by the fogoHC life and becomes
fogoHC life (#1 action and togetherness). But if the force of evil steps up its
attack, then evil may catch undeveloped life before it is touched by the fogoHC,
and destroy it. The response or reaction by fogoHC life is to grip tighter so
the fogoHC-life touches the undeveloped-life before destruction gets to it. We
must realize that there's a struggle going on, and that pain is just the battle
report for what area needs reinforcement. It's a contest to see who can get to
the newly created neutral capability first. We must realize the cause of pain is
from the force of evil, which acts independently of the fogoHC. It's a struggle
that's not yet over, but that victory is in sight. Effective separation is
gained piecemeal, in the play by play, in the 'nitty gritty'. Gripping is only
part of the reaction I've been speaking of,!
  to enact effective separation. What the fogoHC grips (and joins together with),
is as important as the gripping itself. All fogoHC life has awareness of what is
good, evil, or neutral. FogoHC life grips selectively from the undeveloped life
only that which is non evil. Anything evil is not gripped because forces of evil
are always separated from forces of good (of HC). This selectivity is actively
pursued, and every non evil part is ferreted out and gripped, while the evil
parts are not gripped. Even with an individual action or person that contains
both non evil and evil: there is found a way to grip all the possible non evil
there; while leaving the evil parts alone. This selectiveness in the gripping
works hand in hand with the gripping itself to provide effective separation. The
action of separation does not separate undeveloped capability. This is provided
by gripping and selectiveness in gripping.! Note that the pain from evil need
not lead us as to our path of growth. !
Gripping (#1 action and togetherness) isn't only useful in !
keeping effective separation when under attack by evil: it's also a pleasurable
thing to do even when not under attack. At first contact, undeveloped life
becomes fogoHC life and is thus protected from evil. But growth doesn't stop
here. It continues on and includes tighter and tighter gripping, and advancement
of the new force of good. A by-product of this is that it protects newly created
undeveloped life from evil. Also note that forces of good are what produce
(neutral) capability. And if the producing force of good is separated far away
from evil, then the neutral capability produced will also be away from evil.
When the joint venture of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping on
itself; there's a circular feedback created that produces tremendous quantities
of growth. When forces of good are producing capability; they can either produce
new forces-of-good; or new neutral-capability. Forces of good are made of
capability. And for one force of good to produce a secon!
d force of good; is a force of good producing a force of good. A force of good
can also be a force of good, by producing neutral capabilities. There are great
advantages for forces of good to produce more forces of good, as opposed to
neutral capability. For one thing, the newly created force of good can in turn
produce force of good of its own; and an exponential increase in the production
of the force of good will result. Whereas, with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of capability increase is achieved, and no new
force of good is produced. For another thing, the forces of good are protected
by the fogoHC, while neutral capability is not. Thus forces-of-good producing
forces of good, is more advantageous than forces of good producing neutral
capability. However, before something can be a force of good, it usually has to
have some minimum level of capability. Like, it might help if something were
alive, so it could reproduce itself; or that it be intellige!
nt, so it could rise above random action, which produces de!
crease(destruction) as well as increase(growth). Thus even though the forces of
good may want to increase force-of-good capability right away, they have to go
through an increase of neutral capabilities to reach a minimum level, before
forces of good can start increasing forces of good. (And, a neutral capability
cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it is produced. ›But when it is
produced/created; who says it has to be a separate entity from the fogoHC? Isn't
the fogoHC in contact with it to create it? Yet this is not necessarily so, if
only a f.o.g. (especially if not together with the fogoHC), creates it.›) When a
force of good that is able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact
(together) with neutral-capability produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of the fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a
picture of the fogoHC going about gripping forces of good and gripping the
neutral capability that all forces of good initially pr!
oduce. After the neutral capability has been contacted and is a part of the
fogoHC; it is no longer neutral capability but part of the fogoHC. Being a part
of a force of good, it thus begins to increase or help in the increase of
capabilities. With more neutral capability being produced; those forces of good
who can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC), have more neutral capability to
grip, and thus turn into force of good capability. As we can see, there is
always more and more neutral capability (to grip) that is being produced. But
where does the capability go after it has been gripped and is a marginal f! orce
of good? Well, there are 2 possibilities: A) it goes no further and serves to
produce neutral capability for the fogoHC. it remains at about its original
level of capability and fails to advance: being frozen at some level of
advancement so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it advances no further.
or possibility B B) it could advance in its abilities to first b!
ecome alive; then advance in intelligence; and finally beco!
me a fogoHC. it continues to advance and eventually becomes a fogoHC itself.
With possibility A, more and more neutral capability is produced. The amount of
it increases exponentially. But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There is no growth
in the fogoHC because no lower capabilities are allowed to become fogoHC. For
the fogoHC to produce more of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is
taking lower forces of good and advancing them to be a fogoHC. This is not
example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do this. It finds itself with an ever growing
supply of neutral capability to make contact with. It might get swamped by the
size of it. It needs to grow in size to match the growth of the neutral
capability. It could try and make itself more powerful and become of higher
capability within itself. But whether it could do this or not is uncertain;
whereas the creation of itself has been proven possible by its own existence.
The fogoHC must increase its own power at an exponential rate jus!
t to keep up with the neutral capability. But this is unlikely as the fogoHC
would be increasingly more busy trying to handle the exponential growth of the
neutral capability, that it would have less and less time to work on its own
advancement. Also, it is into uncharted areas, as it has never been that
powerful before. It is a driven and desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up
a growth output and is driven by growth needs, if it c! an keep up at all. In
this picture of a universe, it is easy to see how a fogoHC could become
overextended and how the marginal force of good and neutral capability could
overgrow a fogoHC, and eventually become unmanageable. It could cease contacting
the neutral capability, but that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus the
force of evil would step in and stagnation would result after some point of
expansion. Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe where the basic forces of
good produced, do advance to finally become a fogoHC. With possi!
bility B, there would be more and more fogoHC to keep up wi!
th the more and more neutral capability being produced. There would be no
problem of the fogoHC getting swamped. Here, the contacting of the ever-growing
neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC that is also growing exponentially.
Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in uncharted areas; only in the
replication of more of itself, which by its existence, has already been proven
possible to do. So it's very probable that not only does the fogoHC contact
neutral capabilities and turn them into marginal force of good capability; the
fogoHC also advances these marginal-good capabilities to be very intelligent,
capable, alive; and finally to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.) As
forces of good are advanced, eventually they become alive. They develop the
ability to think and make choices and have a will. When the fogoHC contacts us
in gripping as a human being; that contact creates a force of good self. The
fogoHC wants to also contact the neutral capability our force of g!
ood self produces. If the fogoHC were contacting a force of good that had no
mind or will; it would also contact the neutral capability it produced. But when
a minimum level in the force-of-good is reached, so that the capabilities there
represent the basic minimal human being, then the fogoHC must now take into
account and partnership, this basic will self, for gripping of the neutral
capabilities to occur. For the fogoHC to come in and grip the neutral capability
that this living thinking force of good produces, without permission, would be a
decrease in capability. When a force of good had no ability of thought and no
mind; there was no will for the fogoHC to get per! mission from. So the fogoHC
could come right in and grip the neutral capability produced. But now that this
force of good has advanced to possess the ability to think and have a will; what
then? Well, if the fogoHC jumped right in and gripped the neutral capability
produced by this living thinking force of goo!
d; then there'd be no choice for evil. Everything would be !
all good. Goodness would be insured and the only thing available. The reason we
have evil, is because some have chosen evil. To be able to advance and develop
the ability of choice; it must be possible to actually produce what we choose.
The two valid and possible choices are: good alone, vs, good and evil together
(with evil feeding off of good). To have choice in this area, it must be
possible to obtain either of these as a result of our choice. Otherwise there's
really no choice yet (in this area). The fogoHC wouldn't yet have advanced these
forces-of-good to the ability of choice; as they'd never be able to demonstrate
a single choice in this most important area of choice: the choice between good
and evil. The fogoHC himself, has and exercises the choice between good and
evil. For humans not to have this choice means that the advancement of
forces-of-good stops short of becoming forces ogoHC. And this is just not so, as
it would create a difficult bind for the fogoHC (as w!
e've seen). When the joint venture capability of GROWTH and gripping, does
growth and gripping upon itself; there's a circular feedback that produces
tremendous quantities of this specific growth and gripping capability. When the
capability-of-growth-and-gripping does growth and gripping on some other area,
(or on a whole that contains much in addition to itself); less or none of the
growth-and-gripping-capability is produced. There is no circular feedback that
provides for greater growth. In both cases (circular feedback, vs, other
things), growth and gripping does produce protected groth of what's being
gripped. Growth/gripping done on itself, produces growth, or growth resources.
Contained within our growth resources, is our basic self and our ability to
choose. Choice and our will come from here. Concerning 'growth resources': in
our real world, we almost never can be so general as to call something a 'growth
resource' to start out. Usually it is only a growth and increase!
  of specific products, in a narrow and focused way. For exa!
mple, a process and equipment that cans tomatoes would be of little use in
trying to make nuts and bolts. Only as we advance, can we be involved in
producing more versatile and universal growth resources, that have the potential
to do increase over a wide range of areas. For example, robots (industrial), can
be programmed to do a number of different tasks. But before a society can build
robots, it must have an industrial and manufacturing system already in place.
Our ability to choose, our will, and our basic self; is centered here in these
potential-growth-resources and the activation of them. For example, if there's
something you want to do but don't have the resources to do it, then you can't
do that thing. -And you really don't have choice in this area. What you spend
your (potential) growth resources on is what your choice is. The conversion of
potential-growth-resources to active-growth-resources; is what choice is. So,
the more versatile-potential-growth-resources (and !
the ability to activate them); the more choice we have. To have choice we must
have not only the potential to go one way, but also the potential to go other
ways. --(If we have the potential to go just one way, there's little choice in
that.) So the versatile-potential-growth-resources are the center of choice, and
are choice. A SUPPLY OF (POTENTIAL) GROWTH RESOURCES (WHICH IS CHOICE), COMES
FROM A CHOICE TO ACTIVATE GROWTH-RESOURCES TO PRODUCE MORE GROWTH RESOURCES:
(OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'GROWTH, OF GROWTH RESOURCES') When you spend your growth
resources in different areas that you want to do (and choose to do), these areas
grow. But these areas of project or pleasure that you want (and that are
growing), aren't in themselves your basic self. Remember, your basic self and
choice and your will, is your supply of versatile-potential-growth-resources;
not the projects you choose to activate. Without these growth resources you'd
not be able to make choices. And your projects and pl!
easures do not necessarily produce growth resources. They j!
ust produce the growth of the project or pleasure. Because your
versatile-potential-growth-resources are versatile, they themselves are best
suited to produce more of themselves. The production of your project or pleasure
is more narrow and is not so versatile. Note that growth of growth resources
(which is choice of choice), is also referred to as the growth/gripping done on
itself in a circular feedback. THE CONCEPT OF OVEREXTENSION. We would think that
if a person achieved all their goals and had everything they wanted, they'd be
happy. But this isn't the case. Humans go berserk when they actually achieve and
receive the good things that life has to offer. For those who are able to obtain
what they desire; they find that these things become their torment. It's like
Star Trek's garden of Eden where all the fruits were poison. Because of this,
deliberate barriers are put in our way so we cannot obtain much of these things.
Our jobs, our government and our system are deliberat!
ely designed to frustrate our attempts to achieve any goals or pleasures we
might have. This is done not against us, but in compassion to us and for our
benefit. Now, you say, how can the achievement of good, wholesome, kind, gentle
and loving things be detrimental to me? Well, good things have to do with
growth. Good things are growing things. -forever getting better. So the good and
pleasurable things in life, are growing things. Well, something has to grow and
increase then. It is our growth resources that grows and increases them. Growth
itself causes no problem. It is our ability to focus the growth on selected
areas that causes our pleasure problem. In many cases, that focus is forced upon
us; as the narrow range of our beginning 'growth processes', (as mentioned
previously). When we apply our growth-resources to the areas of a project or
pleasure, obviously these areas grow. Since there can be much more than just our
basic will self, we're often apt to get into projects!
  and activities we enjoy. These areas grow and keep growing!
. But since we're not focusing on our basic will self / growth resources; these
don't grow. The greater size of our projects and enjoyable activities pulls us
to do more gripping on them, as they keep growing, needing more attention,
resources and concentration to manage them. We thus become more absorbed in our
projects / enjoyable activities. These continue to grow but our basic-will-self
›(and our even increase of all non evil things including the uninteresting low
levels and that which doesn't benefit us)› stays the same, as we don't increase
gripping on our basic-self/production-of-growth-resources. Pretty soon we're so
frantic, busy and absorbed in our projects and pleasures, that we don't have a
spare mome! nt to grip our basic will self / growth resources. Our
projects/pleasures keep growing while our basic self and consciousness stay the
same. We find ourselves swamped by the size of it. We've overextended ourselves,
and from now on I'll term this state 'overextensio!
n'. The torture of it is that we see all the wonderful things that are out
there, but we're too small to enjoy hardly any of it. This is a great emptiness
that is just hard to take. It's motivation enough to do destruction. Once growth
resources are spent growing the project or pleasure area, there's little left to
grow the growth resources, to provide more growth resources. There's no circular
feedback that provides a supply of growth resources. With a neglect of the
production of growth resources, the growth resources soon run out, leaving the
person hanging at a standstill (and at reduced capability). Perhaps the Growth
Resources aren't consumed in their use. Then the application of a growth
resource causes a continuing, endless production of what it was applied to.
These project and pleasure areas then grow increasingly faster, while the growth
resources and the person's basic self grow at a constant and much slower rate,
since the focus is toward the pleasure or project; !
and not the production of growth resources and the person's!
  basic self. It is then the out of balance growth, and our absorbing focus
solely on the project or pleasure, (over our basic self / production of growth
resources), that causes our problem. When a person finds themselves busier and
busier just to keep up with the expanding project area, they could do some
gripping on their basic self / growth resources so that these grew also; but
after a certain point of no return, the project areas absorb the person so much
taking all their energies) that they can't find a spare moment to do this. One
might ask, why don't they put down what they're doing when it starts to overgrow
them? Well, once one starts something non evil; to put it down would be a
decrease in the growth of that capability. It would be a decrease of a growth
capability. This overextension happens in our force of good self. Most of us
like to think of ourselves as good people, successful people (growing all the
time); so we are reluctant to stop or put down our project !
area. ›(Doing so would generate Godly parts needing to be halved.)› Also:
Because this action is a decrease and all, we might fear that the fogoHC, who
casts away decrease and evi! l, will cast us away. The fact that stopping and
putting down the project area interrupts/halts the overextension; is often
misinterpreted to mean, evil and the force of decrease is a needed and valuable
part of life. This occurs when people find through living life, that doing this
decrease and evil helps here, in spite of their desire and idealism to be all
good with no evil. Destruction in the mild form, can be to stop growing the
project or pleasure. (This is a decrease of a growth capability). Destruction
because it is so unlike pleasure and growth, can be used to take our minds and
focus off our pleasure long enough to restore our basic self, (when in transit
between pain to pleasure, or, pleasure to pain). Destruction can also be used to
cut down the size of the project or pleasurable area so!
  as to be more manageable ›(and at red cap for separation o!
f the forces)›. Destruction can be used to cut down that non evil part within us
that keeps stimulating us to do the pleasure or project. This is otherwise known
as self discipline self denial or repression. The presence of destruction causes
a world where the forces of good and evil are together. There is a balance
between pleasure, joy -vs- pain. Even the person in overextension has the
togetherness of good and evil. As their project or pleasure gets out of hand and
becomes too large to be manageable, the person is no longer able to protect it
from the force of evil. The person grows to some large size, and at that point
their growth is stopped, as evil easily picks off any further capability
increase (that is of course, when refusing to accept help from the fogoHC).
Growth is halted, stagnation sets in, and its a classic example of the forces of
good and evil together. If you have grown up in a structured world where your
life is regulated and you have been prevented from a!
chieving much enjoyment or pleasure; you don't know that there's a danger in
achieving your desires (whatever they may be -because you've never been allowed
to achieve your desires). You would think these people are just exploiting you
for your share of pleasure for themselves; or that they are somehow diabolically
evil, and why are they doing this to you? But actually they are preventing you
from the sad fact that too much pleasure can kill. You see, with too much
pleasure, the active working of the force-of-increase is stifled because there
are no more improvements-to-be-made in the immediate vicinity. We need to seek
out those areas that need help, with our high capability, so that the force of
increase may continue. They balance pleasure with pain so that you may survive,
to carry on just about the only existence possible: a very meager and ragged
existence. History and societal evolution has proved that other paths are out
gunned. Human minds have the marvelous ability to!
  provide solutions to problems much quicker and much more e!
fficiently than evolution can. "Human life can transform the single celled egg
into a living human person in 9 months: where it took evolution many millennia
and a lot of waste to do the same." Being aware that there is a pleasure
problem; that there's a problem with pleasure; allows us a better chance of
solving the problem in ways that improve the quality of life, as opposed to us
being unaware of the problem and stumbling through life, allowing evolution to
solve this problem for us. A problem with overextension is the problem of focus.
The action of focus contains inherently within it, both a decrease and an
increase. When we focus our growth; we take growth away from everything but the
area of focus (this is a decrease), and deliver it only to the area of focus
(this is the increase). Any overall growth of everything the human is,
(including the growth of their basic self and their growth resources); would
eliminate the unbalanced growth of overextension. In other words, !
if we refrained from focusing growth, and did non focused growth, then we'd be
OK. But often focus is forced upon us because of poverty or our beginning. And
there are also advantages to focusing. If we did not neglect the growth of our
growth resources and devoted an equal focus to them, as well as our pleasures;
this would solve our problem. Now that we know about these things and these
solutions, perhaps we can enjoy life without being harmed by such enjoyment.
These ways of providing for balanced growth are much better than some of the
solutions developed by societal evolution. Some of the archaic solutions provide
for our survival but leave an undesirable quality of life as the only option. It
almost seems that we need pain and suffering and destruction in order to
survive! ; and that we can't do without it. (Our projects are not alive. If we
produce too much project without also producing life, then there won't be enough
life around to enjoy the project; and so what's th!
e use of producing so much project?) Before we get into the!
  solution to the decrease of focus that allows us to do focus without decrease,
and neutralizes focus's intrinsic decrease; and also why we need focus at all
and what useful benefits it provides: I want to discuss some of the coping
mechanisms societies have used to combat this very same problem of
overextension. I wish to continue on with my discussion of these coping
mechanisms. What good is pain and suffering in solving the problem of
overextension? We can choose to live a life in the absence of pain or pleasure;
or we can experience pain and pleasure. The more pleasure we do, the more pain
we receive to pay for it. Because children are ignorant about the world, they
will outgrow their toys many times. What they like to do will change many times,
as they grow and learn about the world around them. Because of this constant
change, they do not have time to become overextended in their pleasures. Thus
childhood is a time we can naturally be happy. Anyone who spoils the happine!
ss of a child is cruel indeed. Anyone who sexualizes a child is also cruel,
because that is one pleasure that will not change, and leads to early
overextension. This is also why we have so much change in our society. The
action of change is a mechanism where we can deal with the problem of
overextension in a positive way and a way that doesn't involve much destruction.
If our projects and constructions become obsolete before we put them to much
use, then we may not accomplish much as we keep switching from project to
project; but at least we save ourselves; using this change as a tool to deal
with the problem of overextension. Even when change does not represent any
change (advancement or decline) in the technology, but just a different way of
doing the same thing; it still helps us over our problem of overextension. There
is much more pain in the world than pleasure because it's easier to get
overextended by pleasure than by pain. Pain has inherently in it something we
don't !
like. Since we don't like it, we won't do anything to overe!
xtend ourselves in it; and when we're not forced to do anything about it, we
drop it. (It is self ending.) This overextension problem is why we have so much
senseless violence and unfairness. The violence and unfairness takes our minds
off our pleasures for awhile. Take a look at the societies around you today, and
then look at history. The societies in existence today are the result of many
generations of societal evolution. Only societies with a balance of strictness,
pain suffering, and a prevention of pleasure, have survived. We duck in and out
and between buildings so as to protect us from the beauty of nature. We sleep
indoors every hot summer night to protect us from the beauty of the heavens at
night. We pollute the environment to eliminate some of the beauty to make room
for us to have a place to live. We wear cloths to protect us from the beauty of
our bodies. This paints a pretty bleak picture of human life on earth. We cannot
enjoy life only, and survive. If we are!
  to survive, we must live a life without much quality. But good news. There's a
solution free from destruction and suffering that also allows us to survive and
prosper. Now that we realize the problem of overextension and have a better
solution to it, we can live our lives with better quality and we don't need the
makeshift solutions anymore. So when we encounter stress or a stimulus for
growth, we get more into gripping on gripping (as opposed to gripping on a
project area). The tremendous growth produced in the circular feedback of
gripping on gripping, in our will self, will then overflow into our project
area, and provide the growth we desired. And we'll be in a position to enjoy it,
as our basic self will be big enough to enjoy what's around it. Well, of course
we must test this new and claimed-to-be-better solution, to see if it works. Try
it in your life. The alternatives aren't really worth it to me. Now I return to
an analysis of focus; the act of focusing our resourc!
es: In our focused and extremely specialized society; it's !
difficult for us to get away from focus and do unfocused, universal growth. When
gripping is focused; the action of focus, takes gripping from all areas (except
the area of focus); and delivers it to the area of focus. The action of focus is
thus both an increase and a decrease of the gripping-growth capability (or
potential for growth). When we focus gripping (and growth) on too limited/narrow
an area; this leads to our problem of unbalanced growth, or overextension. We've
said that if we could do a simultaneous gripping-on-the-growth-resources (which
is gripping focused on gripping itself); then we could balance the growth to a
large degree. However, a problem with the narrow and sharp focus, is that it
doesn't include an intelligence or common mind to coordinate between
gripping-on-a-project vs gripping-on-gripping; there's no balance.) Thus the
area of focus must be widened to include a common mind in each focus unit. (The
focus on project would actually be a focus on proj!
ect-plus-common mind. And the focus on gripping would actually be a focus on
gripping-plus-the common mind.) The common mind coordinates simultaneous equal
gripping in these areas so there's balanced growth. There's a contradiction to
sharp focus gripping. Since the intelligence (which did the sharp-focus) isn't
in the area of sharp focus; it is taken away from (All the growth goes to the
sharp focus). When this intelligence that does the sharp focus is completely
emptied by the sharp focus itself; then there's nothing to do sharp focus, and
sharp focus comes to an end./ We eliminate the decrease from focus, by putting
it in an equilibrium, a tug of war, with itself. If we focus on one area, this
takes gripping and (growth) from the surrounding areas and delivers it to this
area of focus. But if we simultaneously do focused gripping on all the other
areas, then the gripping lost by an area through focuses on the other areas, is
returned by the focus on this particular area. Th!
us no gripping or (growth) is actually lost (or gained). In!
  a large focus gripping equilibrium, that encompasses all of ourselves, all
areas are represented. But the area of gripping-on-gripping is special, because
it determines whether there'll be growth or not. It's possible to have an
equilibrium that stagnates. But since this is like the result of the forces of
good and evil together, it's not a desirable option. Thus the gripping on
gripping is given a superior position in our equilibrium so there's as much
gripping-focused-on gripping as on all the other focus areas combined. This is
needed because all the other areas consume growth-resources, while only the
gripping-on-gripping area produces them. In intermediate focus, we include our
mind to direct the equilibrium (and balance) between our individual
intermediate-focus units. We may not be aware of the details of other focus
units from within our common mind, but these detailed awarenesses still exist
outside our common mind as part of the larger equilibrium in the individual !
focus units. An inclusion into our common mind that 'there's more', might not be
a bad idea. But the beauty of intermediate-focus-gripping is that we don't have
to be aware of everything to enjoy a few simple pleasures. The purpose of
intermediate-focus-gripping is to preserve and enhance the individuality of each
individual capability-and-focus-area; so the benefits of each doesn't get lost
in the combining together of all the capabilities and areas as a whole. When we
combine individual capabilities together to form a whole, each individual
capability often looses something to the group, and conformity to the group
norm. The intermediate-focus-gripping is a way to retain the individual
qualities, while still reaping the benefit of the group. What's the sense of
this focusing equilibrium if it causes no change in the gripping capability for
each area? The answer is that it provides separation. There's more separation
for each area; and the loss of mixing all these areas toget!
her into one unit, is eliminated. When we mix colors togeth!
er, they become a drab brown. There is something lost in the mixing. Consider a
chemical production sequence. If we do a sequence of reactions separate from
each other, we get the desired product. But if we mix all the reactions and
chemicals together all at once, many of the reagents will neutralize and negate
each other, and we end up with a mess. Take a look at large and small political
groups: In small groups, more extreme and detailed positions can be found. But
in large groups, the extreme positions neutralize each other and compromise
leaves a more moderate and general platform. When we bring individual, separate
capabilities together to form a whole, opposing parts of the individual
capabilities negate and neutralize each other, and something is lost. It's this
intensity and individuality of the individual capabilities, that this focus
equilibrium restores. Each of the b.i.f. or (balanced intermediate focus) units,
aren't bogged down by the operation of the other b.i.f!
. units. The whole purpose of these separate focuses (that all include the
common mind), was to bring out the individuality of each unit. An individual
unit has a link (the common mind) which only contains general instructions of
the other units. It's not filled with the intricate details of the other units
as this'd hinder the individual expression of this particular unit. The
intricate details of the other units are contained in their respective areas of
b.i.f. focus. Because of focus; when we're acting out of one unit, we may be
unaware of the other units to a degree. We're aware of an abbreviated presence
of the other units through our common mind; but not of the other units in
detail. This we must 'take it by faith' that these other units are working
simultaneously and as intricately as the unit we're in at the moment. (To be
intricately aware of t! he other units would spoil the very individuality we're
trying to preserve.) Our mind is divided up into different focus un!
its; the detailed parts of which don't come together. We hav!
e both the abbreviated version of a thing, and the detailed version of the thing
simultaneously. There's no need to be confused over which one is correct to
have; they're both correct in their respective areas. CHAPTER 5 Our Sequences
Chapter Introduction: The first part of this chapter further develops the idea
begun in the last chapter, about preserving the intensity (and individuality) of
things. These are the segments on unresponded-to-happenings (or urt.happenings
for short). The rest of the chapter is divided into two parts. Part A develops
the concept of choice-from-versatile-potential-resources. Part B reveals growth
of growth resources (or gogr for short) as the source of growth and versatile
potential resources; and that the growth from gogr is shared with project. These
ideas take the form of the refraining action (representing gogr), and the
altering action (representing project). Also introduced, is the idea of our
repetitive generational sequences, for gogr and p!
roject. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION. THE GENERATION OF, AND ACCUMULATION OF,
UNRESPONDED-TO- HAPPENINGS, IN WORKING WITH OUR GOOD THINGS. When we're working
with our good things; our work has results and those good things grow. These
good things always remain with us as they're never separated away, like evil
things are. The new good things (that have grown from the original good things);
exist as unresponded-to, because they didn't yet exist when the original good
things were being worked with. As we can see; when we respond to and work with
our good things, they grow and generate more good things that need to be
responded to. There are a number of things we could do with the new happenings
that are generated. We could respond to them as soon as they're created. Or, we
could, not-respond to them right away. If we don't respond to them right away;
we experience an accumulation of unresponded-to happenings. In working with
these accumulated good happenings, we will vary our states!
: cycling in an accumulation phase, and a response phase. W!
e want to allow these generated happenings to accumulate for a time as
unresponded-to; and then we want to respond completely to that accumulation. The
reason we want this cycling and variation instead of responding to these
happenings as soon as they're generated; is to allow them to come together out
of atomization. But if we let them accumulate too long, negation is the
undesired result. As mentioned: our good things never end, and it's up to us to
pick a size and duration to respond to. If we pick too small of an interval and
amount of good things, then we'd be doing lots of switching, and would interrupt
basic tasks. We would also atomize the generated happenings. If we pick too
large an interval and wait too long to respond to the accumulation; then
negation would occur. Opposing motions would collide, neutralize each other, and
become spread out and dissipated; thus loosing their intensity and
individuality. We want to avoid negation. AVOIDANCE OF ATOMIZATION AND NEGATI!
ON, GUIDES AS TO HOW LONG WE ACCUMULATE UNRESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING (THAT IS
GENERATED FROM RESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING), (BEFORE WE RESPOND TO IT). Note: I
abbreviate 'unresponded-to-happening' as urt.happening. When I speak of the
optimal accumulation of urt.happening that avoids atomization and negation: I
mean this only in a time context. If we wait too long in a buildup state to
respond to the happening; the happening will have passed. Let's say we light a
fire, but show up after it has burned out. All the heat energy still exists in
the air molecules that were heated up. The energy still exists and hasn't been
destroyed. In a sense, the fire continues to exist. But the intensity of it is
gone. This is the negation I speak of. After too long a time, the surrounding
elements dissipate the intensity of the fire, and cause negation. So we need to
respond to the happening within its own time frame (internal limitations
permitting). Concerning atomization: If we respond to a happening!
  in small bits and pieces as soon as those small bits of th!
e happening are created; then these responses can only be directed at the
happening that exists, and not the rest of the happening that's yet to be
created. This atomizes and interrupts the happening. The small bits of
responded-to-happening start to generate their own small bit size of
urt.happening, that are out of phase and not coordinated with the other small
bits of urt.happening; (which thus makes it impossible for those small bits at
different stages of development to come together out of atomization and share
their resources in a balanced and cooperative way). Atomization describes the
situation. Now, if instead, we do less response project; each generation of
urt.happening would have the time to grow together into its full intensity
before being responded to. One may ask, how does responding to a happening
change anything, and stop negation? Well, one of the actions of our intelligent
response is to keep individual things separate so that their opposing motions do
not!
  neutralize one another. Also; when we respond to groups of the optimal time
(that avoids both negation and atomization), then this group of happenings has
had time to come together out of atomization and develop its full intensity
before being responded to and generating a new group of unresponded to happening
that is also in phase. PART A IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING; WE ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE
CHOICE. I may choose to live in a castle. But if I do not have the
versatile-growth-resources to make this happen; then I cannot obtain this
choice. -I really don't have choice in this area. Thus choice is the presence of
versatile potential growth resources and the activation of them. Before we do
anything, we need versatile potential growth resources; before we can activate
those potential growth resources. Thus choice comes first. We have choice before
we have anything else. Thus we are always able to do choice choosing choice, if
we are able to do anything. (This assumes our growth resources !
are versatile.) THE CASE WHERE OUR GROWTH RESOURCES ARE NON!
  VERSATILE, DOESN'T ENTER INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF CHOICE; BECAUSE THE FOGOHC
COMPLETELY HANDLES AND ADVANCES NON VERSATILE AREAS: SINCE NO PERMISSION IS
NEEDED WHERE THERE'S NO WILL OR CHOICE, (WHEN GROWTH RESOURCES AREN'T
VERSATILE), THAT IS. Without versatile growth resources we have little choice;
although we can act narrowly. But without a will or choice there's no
intelligent life to get permission from, so the fogoHC comes in and runs this
completely. There's no unbalanced growth here. But the fogoHC advances this
state in versatility so it develops a will; which could then choose unbalanced
growth if it wanted: it now has choice. PART B GOGR IS SPECIAL. Gogr is the
source of all growth. This means that everything else, as projects, aren't the
source of (versatile) growth. This means things you are told to do may not be
gogr or sources of growth. You have a mind and can think. And already have some
idea as to what gogr are within you. Only you know how you feel and It's y!
our feelings that effect your life. And only life causes growth. When your
environment requires growth, run to gogr, not these other things that are
claimed to be the solution to your lack of growth. If your environment requires
growth from you in an unfriendly way; since gogr delivers growth; why not do a
little more growth and cast out the unfriendliness and overthrow it? If we place
gogr and the fogoHC in the position of supplying growth, then we need not put
Mao, our boss, or some technology, in that position, or depend on them for our
growth. Note that only gogr and the fogoHC delivers the growth sought for. Mao,
our boss, or some technology all fall short of being suppliers of all sorts of
growth (versatile gogr); and fail to deliver. Realize the connection between
gogr and choice-or-choice within you, (that choice of choice within you is a
large part of gogr). Note: there's nothing wrong with runaway 100%gogr because
it is self supporting and needs no outside resources.!
  But there is something wrong with runaway project because !
it doesn't produce the resources it needs to supply its ever increasing growth
requirements and resource consumption. OUR REPETITIVE GENERATIONAL CHOICE, (OUR
SEQUENCES). When versatile potential growth resources(1) are activatied to
produce more growth resources(2); growth resources are produced. And when some
of those growth resources(2) are activated in a choice to produce even more
growth resources(3); and when some of those growth resources(3) are activated to
produce more growth resources(4): we can see that we have a growth engine that
produces generation after generation of growth resources in an exponential
growth. And if we share some of the growth resources of each generation with
project, then we have a project 'sequence' that mirrors this gogr 'sequence'.
From the exponential growth engine of gogr; we can see repetitive generations of
potential growth resources (and choice) being produced from this. I call them
'our sequences'. A CHOICE TO GROW GROWTH-RESOURCES IN!
STEAD OF WORRYING OVER A BLEAK SITUATION (SO AS NOT TO BECOME OVEREXTENDED). If
someone has actually absolutely no awareness; then a person cannot be aware of
their emptiness and bareness. But with the awareness of emptiness and bareness;
is an awareness of this. We had to have resources and choice to be able to
choose this. So we can instead, do choice choosing choice. There are many things
we can do. One of them, is to be aware of our emptiness and bareness. Another
thing is, we can worry about not living up to expectations placed upon us. But
these actions are not the growth of growth resources. So these actions are
projects. This project consumes our growth resources, and we can become
overextended in it. Since we are able to do these actions, (since we are able to
activate potential growth resources towards these things): we are also able to
NOT do these things. We are able instead, to choose choice with these potential
resources. THE 'REFRAINING' ACTION IS THE MEANS BY W!
HICH WE ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN GROWING GROWTH-RESOURCES,!
  VS. GROWING PROJECTS WHICH CONSUME GROWTH RESOURCES. The simplest choice we
could have (even with non versatile growth resources), would be either to do, or
not do something. But the choice not to do something, isn't much of an option by
itself. There is something they can be activated to. These potential growth
resources can be activated in a choice-choosing-choice action (as choice is
always present first), instead of for project. What is done then, is to have a
balance between what produces growth resources, and what consumes growth
resources. We do not completely shut off our project activities, but make room
for more growth-of-growth-resources-choice-of-choice, by only partially shutting
off (new growth in) these project areas. This I call the 'refraining action'.
Even though we transferred resources intended for project, to instead grow
growth-resources (via our 'refraining action'): in the long run, there is no
decrease in the project's new GROWTH; only a decrease in t!
he PROPORTION of those projects; (as well as the increased
growth-of-growth-resources). The greater growth-of-growth-resources proportion
provides for greater actual GROWTH of the projects even thought he project
proportion is smaller. This transfer action of refraining, is also a project
action. Thus to be consistent, we also (partially) refrain from refraining. -As
this refraining action can also get too large in proportion, and needs to be
applied to itself and also rolled back. We move ALL our projects back to make
room for choice of choice and growing the growth resources. STATEMENT AGAINST
CANNIBALIZING OUR OLD ACTIONS. Let's not do new actions over top of our
previously established actions. When we cannibalize our old actions to do new
actions, then our old-established-actions have suffered decrease. The addition
of new action then, wouldn't represent growth, but just rearrangement. So it's
best not to cannibalize our established actions, so our efforts won't be lost
in!
  rearrangement. We often need to depend on our established !
actions along with our new actions; and if we cannibalize them, they won't be
there for us. (Of course sometimes we can't afford to do this and must
cannibalize.) Chapter 6 "Important Concepts" Chapter Introduction: Here's where
we enlighten the (early) important concepts of this book. END CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION. A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT: OUR INDIRECT METHOD OF RESPONDING TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT REFERRED TO THROUGH THE BOOK. When we
want something, or when we want to respond to our environment, the simplest most
direct thing we can do is to just DO the project thing or (response) that we
want. But as we've seen; doing this direct method brings us to overextension
when we go overboard with it. A second method, is to indirectly seek what we
want by doing something else, in order to obtain what we want. This is the
category our balanced way falls into. There are many things we can do instead of
what we want, in hopes it will indirectly get us what we want. !
Like we could work hard at a job, saving every nickel, to be able to go back to
the blue bijou vacation spot. However only one indirect-action delivers on the
hope of getting what we want; and that is growth of growth resources. (This is
because everything else is project; and other projects have enough trouble
finding resources for themselves when on their own, let alone provide for some
other project.) The only action worthy of commandeering the new growths of other
(project) actions for its own purpose; is the refraining action for delivering
new growth to gogr; because gogr is the only action that delivers, (and produces
versatile growth resources). And we will be replacing a lot of
project-new-growt! h with 100%gogr, as a means of responding to increased
intensity in the environment. This is our indirect method of doing more gogr, to
produce more response project. TWO DIFFERING METHODS OF GREATER GROWTH THROUGH
INCREASED PROPORTIONS OF GOGR: A FAST INCREASE IN GOGR, VS, A!
  GRADUAL INCREASE IN GOGR. GRADUAL IS BEST. Now, there is a!
nother factor to consider. If we put all our action into producing more growth
through increased 100%gogr, then we wouldn't have any left for project. If we
all of a sudden made a large increase in the gogr proportion (say from 50% to
99%), then it would take a long time for the greater-growth (produced by greater
gogr) to translate into greater project new growth, at the 1% delivery rate.
This would leave a long period of time we'd be unresponsive to our (project)
environment. But if we increased the gogr proportion GRADUALLY, so the
greater-growth (from '100%'gogr) was able to produce
greater-actual-growth-in-project (in spite of the lower percentage delivered to
project); then we will be able to increase growth of both 100%gogr and project.
-Greater growth of project does occur even though a lower percentage is
delivered to project because of the much greater overall growth from increasing
the 100%gogr. The greater growth from gogr outweighs the lo! wer percentage of
that g!
rowth delivered to project, after a certain amount of time. After that point in
time, both 100%gogr and project experience greater growth. SO if we gradually
increase the proportion of 100%gogr, we cause both greater growth of project and
gogr. We are thus able to respond to increased intensity in the environment. And
we don't have to wait long. Whereas if we suddenly increase the gogr proportion
drastically at the expense of project-new-growth, then, although a higher growth
rate is obtained; that growth is not shared much with project for a long time,
and project growth and output suffers markedly for a long time. Thus it's best
to do only a short pulse of greater 100%gogr and then bring it back to normal.
Once greater growth is produced from this pulse, it gives us something to work
with, to then gradually increase 100%gogr. INCREASING GOGR TOO FAST, INSTEAD OF
TOO SLOW, AS THE WAY TO SLOW OUR PROJECT'S GROWTH. This is extremely important:
All through this paper, I have imp!
lied that the way we slow our (project) growth rate and rel!
ax, is to do a greater proportion of project (down to the minimum gogr
proportion). However, a better way to slow our project growth rate, is by doing
TOO MUCH gogr. The idea has been to gradually increase the gogr proportion in
order to speed up. There is an optimal rate of increasing-the-gogr-proportion
that causes growth of both project and gogr. If we deviate either above or below
this; the growth of project suffers. Now, if we deviate by increasing the
gogr-proportion too fast, we end up with a lot of gogr as the byproduct of
slowing the project growth. While if we deviate by doing greater project
proportion, we not only cut down the growth of project; we also cut down the
growth-of-growth-resources. (With the doing of too much gogr, we have an excess
supply of gogr to show for our efforts.) These extra gogr can grow unregulated
and bridge barriers within us. (There are two ways to relax and slow our project
growth). WE INCLUDE EVERY EXISTING NON-EVIL THING IN OUR INCREAS!
E SO AS TO BE AT HIGH CAPABILITY (AT ALL ANGLES), AND THUS OUT OF REDUCED
CAPABILITY. An important action secondary only to the balance of
gogr-to-project, is that we spread our growth-of-growth-resources, to ALL good
things; when an interest in one-good-thing motivates us. When an interest in
one-good-thing motivates us to do more of that thing; we then increase all good
things as our response. We spread the increase to all good things. Since gogr is
the source of growth-and-increase; if we 'spread' gogr evenly to all good
things, we will cause even growth of all things. The reason we increase all good
things when we want one good thing, is to avoid the trap of evil. Including all
good things (in our increase), keeps us at high capability, (and we also enjoy
what we wanted). But if we just increase the one good thing we want and leave
the other good things behind; we set ourselves up for being at reduced
capability at some angles/situations.* The trap of evil, IS being at red!
uced capability. So we include all good things to avoid the!
  trap of evil, and stay at high capability. This is implemented by the
'spreading project' which will be discussed shortly. * A good thing is a good
thing because it helps us out. And we can use all the help we can get in staying
at high capability. IMPORTANT: A MAJOR REASON WHY UNEVEN GROWTH DELIVERS US TO
REDUCED CAPABILITY: ›The growth of one good thing way above the others, results
in greater production of that thing, but also great needs (by this large good
thing), for other INTERRELATED good things; which the other, lesser, good things
are hard pressed to supply due to their smaller size. This is the major cause of
the reduced capability I speak of from growing just one good thing above the
others. You see, there is a good degree of interdependence, where each depends
on other related and surrounding good things. And if the related items aren't
similar in size, then interrelated supplies and needs of these things don't
match; resulting in local shortages and oversupplies!
; the shortages bringing the whole system to reduced capability. So, we're
reluctant to tap into the tremendous growth potential of gogr unless we know
what to set the gogr at for uniform growth of ALL non-evil things.› ALL GOOD
THINGS ARE INCREASED EQUALLY, IRREGARDLESS OF HOW WELL WE KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
THEM OR ARE INTERESTED IN THEM, SO AS TO AVOID UNEVEN GROWTH. With doing
everything, we don't need to understand or know what something is in order to do
it: we do it without knowing (except to know it is non evil). When there is a
good thing that we do know what it is; then that's all the more reason to do it.
thus we don't hold up our growth be requiring ourselves to understand, as we
would if we only grew what benefited us. There are two groups of non evil good
things: -the type we know about and understand; -and the type we don't know
about other than that something is there. If we are to increase every good
thing, we include both groups (and thus take advantage of their i!
nterrelatedness even before we understand it). But if somet!
hing doesn't exist; we aren't bound to increase something that's not there. OUR
MOST INTERESTING GOOD THING DETERMINES HOW FAST WE INCREASE. STILL, WE INCREASE
ALL GOOD THINGS EQUALLY. When we're enjoying one good thing, and have and
interest in it, we don't think about increasing other good things outside our
area of interest. But what I want to say, is that it doesn't hurt to increase
everything. Our specific interest may have been the reason motivating our
increase-of-everything (non evil). And our increase-of-everything may be to
satisfy a need in just one area. But that's OK. The reason we do equal growth of
all good things; is because we choose not to leave almost everything behind,
just because we are interested in one good thing. Why should we make it
unnecessarily difficult for us in pursuing one of our good things? We choose
otherwise. "They" keep asking us to cut back again and again. And the idea is to
get by with the bare minimum. But a good thing is a good thing !
because it helps us along. Why should we give up something just because we can
get by without it in some situations? Why should we keep trying to prove the
bare minimum? Going with the bare minimum when we don't have to, is operating at
reduced capability. And being at reduced capability is the trap of evil. There
are times when our interest level is low; when we're not doing much of anything;
when even our fun things are low. Since we aren't doing much that interests us,
we also don't do much uninteresting work good things; in our equal increase of
all good things. Our low interest will mean that we won't fill quotas of growth
that may be expected of us. But the thing is that even when we disobey those who
would have us do all work and no play; or even when we don't fill the quota: we
won't feel guilt or worry or pain in going our way, because our way is still
balanced and even. With no pain to deter us, or to indicate that our way is the
wrong way; then we'll leave these oth!
er ways behind and go with ourselves. Our way will diverge !
from the taskmaster's way and we shall not meet each other again. THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF QUOTAS OF GROWTH THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILLED, INDICATES THE
PRESENCE OF EVIL. When the force of good and evil are together, the force of
good is forced to produce enough just to keep up with what the force of evil
destroys. Because the presence of evil requires that a certain amount of growth
be produced in a certain time, (to make up for what's destroyed): the existence
of a structure-and-system with growth requirements and a boss who is adamant
that these requirements be met; is an indicator that evil is present and is
behind this. Now, there may be necessary evils that we're under because we're
caught in the trap of reduced capability; but we shouldn't mindlessly fill these
growth requirements and call the job done; but should act to escape or cast out
these evils. If we've chosen against evil; then filling the growth requirements
isn't so much what we should do: Casting out the evil !
is what we need to do. So the mere presence of somebody standing over you
bugging you to get done faster, indicates there's evil out there wasting growth,
and that growth from you is needed to replace what evil has destroyed. So why
put up with the hassle? The result is the same to do nothing. It's better to
pass the time as dead (if the evil would kill you for not producing to feed it)
where you'd not feel the passage of time; instead of spending an eternity in
drudgery. Attempting growths before you're ready, causes you to do necessary
evils to obtain these growths on time; thus eventually putting you at reduced
capability and in the trap of evil. Don't participate in growth that is forced,
because it causes you to do necessary evils. MOST EVIL IS FROM WITHIN. A large
part of our problem with evil, is within us. Without food, our bodies consume
themselves and kill us. We have biological drives and instincts, needs,
reinforced by evolution, to reproduce the species. (If we di!
dn't have these drives, we wouldn't reproduce, and our spec!
ies would die off.) We don't feel complete unless we are fulfilling these
drives. Thus our bodies may have evolved to deny us piece of mind or other
things our bodies need until we fulfill these needs. (Once fulfilled, we get
back what our bodies were capable of without the interference.) So; when we're
motivated to cast out evil; there's a lot to be gained in casting out all evil,
especially that which is within us. Because if our attention is activated to
cast out an external evil, we may overlook casting out our large internal evil;
and it will then step in and smother us. This is why the men working on the
chain gang feel punished, because in their attempt to deal with the large amount
of external evil they put up with, they neglect their internal evils, and their
internal evils then consume them. We can avoid this pain and overcome the
tactics of correctional institutions of the movies (and perhaps reality), by
increasing our casting out of all evil when motivated to cast!
  out any particular evil. (Of course we also do temporarily, initially, cast out
the particular evil.) A dangerous and insidious evil to cast out, is not
including sleep in our gogr; or leaving some other component out of gogr (since
it is so repetitive and small mistakes are amplified). When casting out an evil,
it's important we do so right away, as fast as we can, so as to minimize the
destruction evil could cause. If we wait around, the evil might destroy us or
our growth engine, and we could no longer cast out the evil. FIGURING OUT HOW TO
GET LONG TERM INCREASES IN OUR PROJECT OUTPUT RIGHT AWAY: WE USE THE BEST OF THE
INDIRECT AND THE DIRECT METHODS; AND WE DEPEND ON ACTIONS WE ESTABLISH EARLY ON.
(OUR 'COMBINED METHOD'.) As we recall, our indirect method of increasing our
gogr proportion works quite well in the long run to deliver increased growth of
both gogr and project. But in the short run (initially); our indirect method has
an initial shortage of project output. T!
o remedy this, we could do increased project for an (initia!
l and) immediate increase in project output; but this would lower our growth
rate and reduce both gogr and project in the long run. Still, we'd have obtained
immediate response to our environment without delay, with this direct method.
Now, we could try to include the best of both methods. This is just what we do
in our casting out of the urgent evil. We have devised our 'combined' method of
responding against urgent evil: In this, we first do more project (but not so
much as to put us in overextension). This gives an initial boost in project
output, followed by a decline. (This boost is just what we need to respond
immediately against the evil.) Next we gradually increase our gogr proportion
until the evil is all cast out. -(This further aggravates a shortage of new
project (that follows the initial boost).) I state that during this period of
shortage, we depend on what we established in the initial boost. The thing is
that our initial project against the evil, has establishe!
d a casting-out-evil action. And we depend on that to protect us until we get
our growth rate up, in the long run. I wish to add that we should gear our
initial response to be all inclusive, and at the maximum output our environment
will allow. We do this because we'll be fairly unable to respond to new changes
in the environment. By this technique of just producing the maximum output we
can, we bridge this time where we're unresponsive to changes in the environment,
with no losses. THE IMPORTANCE OF CASTING OUT ALL POSSIBLE EVIL IN A BROAD
ACTION. Another problem that ties right in with this, is in the
casting-out-evil-project itself. When we cast out evil, we can act to cast out
all conceivable evil; or just what evil is bothering us at present. Only the
evil bothering us at present is of immediate concern to us. But if we only
respond against the evil of our present moment; then evil can change its attack,
and each change will bring another urgent need for us to respond. Bu!
t if we act to cast out all evil, then we will be prepared,!
  and will not be under such an urgent need to respond. If we include some
casting out of all possible evil, then evil's changing attacks won't be so
urgent. This is the thing: Because it's not so urgent, we need not lower our
growth rate to respond immediately. We can then do our indirect method (of a
greater gogr proportion) with its higher growth rate. This gives us time to
cast-out-all-evils; (and allows us to use the indirect method (of greater gogr)
to produce it). WE NEED A BALANCE BETWEEN CASTING OUT ALL EVIL, AND CASTING OUT
THE PARTICULAR EVIL. When evil steps up its attack, I have said we respond by
increasing our casting out of all evil. But we could respond much faster if we
just cast out the particular evil, instead of spreading our resources this with
casting out all possible evils. If the threat of the new evil is urgent, it
behooves us to respond against it quickly so it won't destroy our growth. Here
again we have a balancing of the need for urgency, with the !
need for growth. So we also cast out the particular evil in the beginning,
because it offers immediate protection of our growth (-deals with the urgency of
the situation). But we don't continue to focus on casting out the particular
evil. Once the urgency is dealt with; the best plan for maximum growth, is to
move toward casting out all evils. With subsequent attacks from evil, we do much
less casting out the particular evil, (because we're already responding against
the new evils with our growing casting out all evils). This allows us to keep
increasing our growth rate. ›-At the same time, we are gradually increasing the
gogr-proportion, over the proportion of every casting-out-evil-project so as to
increase our growth rate.› All these actions represent emphases on
growth/increasing our growth rate. CASTING OUT ALL EVILS RELIEVES US OF HAVING
TO SECOND GUESS EVIL'S NEXT MOVE. If we prefer to cast out only the particular
evil effecting us at our present moment, then it helps t!
o be very smart. We must be able to predict the changes in !
evil before they happen, to give us time to change our response. If we predict
incorrectly, then we won't be prepared for the new evil, and a sense of urgency
will force us to lower our growth rate to respond immediately. So, if we don't
know everything, we can respond against evil with a blanket action to cast out
all evil. INTRODUCING SOME INTRICACIES IN THE SPREADING PROJECT (THE INTERNAL
AND EXTERNAL SPREADING). There are two concepts of importance in the practice of
these writings. In a condensed version of these writings, are these two
concepts: The first is: It is important to have a balance between gogr vs.
project. It's important to have both project and gogr. Gogr provides the growth,
and project provides the specific action needed for the specific situation. Both
the project and the gogr are needed to make a functional unit. Without project,
the growth from gogr isn't able to get out into other areas, (other than gogr).
Without gogr, there's no growth to share with !
project to grow the project. (Our-interests-in-good-things, and,
our-casting-out-evil, determine what our growth rate will be.) When we want to
grow faster, we just gradually increase the proportion of gogr. The second
concept of importance, is: -To spread the decided gogr-vs-project proportion to
all things (so all things grow evenly). There's a special part of this spreading
to all things, that gets us started. 'Spreading', includes the spreading of gogr
to this spreading project itself (internal spreading). We need both the
spreading-project, and the regulation-of-gogr-to-project, to have a functional
unit. THE SPREADING PROJECT IS THE COMMON MIND There's a connection I want to
make. Earlier, we explored the concept of individuality, and proposed a
balanced-intermediate-focus system to deal with it. All the specifics of each
thing, existed in separate compartments or focus units. To coordinate them, a
common mind was proposed, which contained an abbreviated representation o!
f all the focus units. Well, lo and behold; the spreading p!
roject (plus its regulation), is the common mind. The spreading project contacts
and coordinates all the other things, just like the common mind. A CORRECTION OF
MY IDEAS ON GOGR: There is this idea we should apply our growth-resources to
grow more growth-resources, as opposed to growing project, when we want/need
more. This is our indirect method of obtaining more by indirectly investing in
growth resources instead of project. But this concept of gogr vs. project
assumes certain actions produce life/recouces better than other actions (with
the producers being gogr and the consumers being project). But with everything
being interrelated, it seems like you're going to have at least a little of
every non-evil-action (or that you can have them) in the production of life and
growth-resources. Just what are growth resources and the growth of growth
resources? That needs to be defined for this to make more sence and not be so
overly general it can mean just about anything. With ever!
ything being interrelated, how do we decide what is project vs what is growth
resources? Even so, I feel the concept of a direct method vs an indirect method
is still a valid concept. An example would be: like, do you (use your resources
to) give a man a fish; or to give him a fishing pole? One method is a direct
method for using resources to satisfy a need. The other is an indirect,
investing type, of method. But even though this concept still has validity, I
wish to correct an error in my presentation of it; and also to suggest that
unbalanced growth or narrowly focused growth unto overextension is not the only
problem or even the worst problem; but that keeping our force-of-growth
active/alive, is. When we're growing as a force of good will do, we increase
capabilities and life. In time, those capabilities do increase capability of
their own. And then even those capabilities eventually also become forces of
good and then increase capabililties of their own. etc. But before !
something can be a force of good, it usually has to go thro!
ugh an intermediate stage where it is just neutral capability, until the time it
is increased enough to be capable of increasing capability on its own. If we
apply the concept of growth resources vs. project to this situation, we see that
the intermediate stage where neutral capability is increased, produces no growth
resources at this time. It is thus a PROJECT. Even so, this is an indirect
method of investment because in time, the neutral capability will produce
resources, even though it now produces none. The correction is that to enact our
indirect investment method of gogr, that we do 'project' to enact it. Project
itself is the indirect method of gogr. Who is to say that the "project actions"
and narrowly focused growth we do today will not someday become part of a force
of growth that produces resources at some later date? I guess, the idea for
growth of growth resources vs project, comes from the concept of work vs.
consumption. The actions we do in our work, produce r!
esources, while when we spend our hard earned money, we consume resources.
Additonally, a parallel can be drawn to actions which generate the resources of
life vs actions which consume the resources of life. But with all non evil
actions being interrelated, this concept is invalidated to a degree, as each non
evil action has need of all the others and also supplies itself to all the
others' need for it. Of course, some actions are needed in greater proportion
than others. What we're talking about, is the force of growth. As we grow and
experience growth; and as we become of higher capability, we begin to run out of
improvements to make. Thus the active existance of our force of growth is
threatened after we've become of higher capability. But remember, the advantage
to the force of growth is that with its high capability, it can cross barriers
and find more areas in need of improvement (or low levels), so that it can
continue improving and continue to actively exist forever. H!
owever: if a person just sat on their high capability and d!
idn't use it to seek out low levels, then their force of growth would cease to
actively exist. It would die and they would become a high level neutral
capability. What if the active-force-of-growth was our life blood and is what
gives us life; represents our relationship with God or our soul; and that God is
interested in protecting this in us; and is the action that represents growth of
growth resources where every other action is project that consumes resources?
But wait. Overextension alert: There is yet another action we need and that can
be called part of the actions of life. The problem is: If our high capability is
always seeking out the lowest levels and delivering resources to them and
otherwise increasing them, then there will begin to accumulate a lot of this
slightly above low capability material; which will begin to overgrow the high
capability. If the high capability is always busy growing the low capability,
then how is more high capability produced? Only the hi!
gh capability is best suited to produce more of itself. But if it's always busy
making more and more of this slightly above low capability material, it! won't
have time to turn some of that material to high capability. You see, the
greatest force of growth is found with increasing these low levels; and not as
much with increasing further to high capability. And if growth is the only
factor and the high capability sticks to producing more and more of this
slightly above low capability material (for the maximum growth); then that ever
growing material will begin to overgrow and overwhelm the high capability and
become unmanageable. After the high capability is bogged down, the force of evil
will pick off further increases of this material and a stagnation will set in.
What's needed in addition to an active force of growth in the low levels, is to
take some of this slightly above low capability material and increase it even
more, unto high capability, so there'll also be enough h!
igh capability material to manage/protect all the slightly !
above low capability material. Of course there's not as much active force of
growth from! doing this. So there's a tradeoff between these two directives. How
do we do them? Remember our analysis of gogr and project, and that we discovered
'gradual is best'? Let's revisit the analogy of the fish and the fishing poles.
The giving of fish represents helping the low levels, which is a staple: and the
fishing pole represents the creation of high capability. The man depends on the
fish to survive; so that if we abruptly stopped giving any fish and used all the
resoures instead to make fishing poles; the man would starve to death before we
got the fishing pole working to catch fish at a later date. But if we gradually
used some of the resources intended for fish, instead to support a small
production of fishing pole, the man would survive the time lag and would now
have a fishing pole. Granted, it would be smaller than in the abrupt example,
but the man would still be alive to use it!
. So the key here is 'be gradual' when balancing the needs of two competing dir!
ectives. Being gradual means splitting the resources and only devoting a small
proportion of the resources at first, in the direction of change. In our case of
increasing the low levels vs increasing high capability, we mainly use our high
capability to actively seek out the low levels and increase them. This
increasing the low levels is our life blood and keeps our force of growth
actively alive. A small part however, we devote to enjoying to high capability
and producing more high capability. When the newly produced high caapbility is
able to act, it too then joins the current proportion where much is used to seek
and help low levels, while a small proportion increases the high capability.
(and so on and so on). Now, the small part of the high capability that increases
high capability and is full of pleasure; does not have to be the same material
over time. In order that all the high capability!
  gets a taste of this, we can rotate this 'duty' (gradually)!
  over the whole body of high capability. At any one time, only a small
proportion of the high capability is doing this, and it is not the same material
over time due to the rotation. Now, this rotation can take different forms. If
the high capability goal is easily obtainable with no time limits, then the
whole high capability area can participate in the rotation. But if obtaining the
high capability is difficult or time limited, then 2 small segments (of the
original high capability area) can be selected for alternating between them, as
if they were taking 'steps'. Even in the 'steps' rotation, both directives are
represented. Yet, a more revolving rotation, while limiting the material in that
rotation, is better. Yes, we can have multiple rotations, each with varying
degrees, types of limitings of the material involved. ( Also include the overall
rotation -includes all the high capability.) Note that every person has an area
of them that we cannot see, feel, or be benefitted!
  from helping it, (that they have yet to grow into). It is this void-space that
our high capability seeks out to increase it without receiving benefit or
pleasure in return, so as to keep actively alive, our force of good. -(our
active force of good being threatened by our being at high capability due to
less room for improvement in us). We always have this helping all people's low
level (including our own), and this is our link and oneness to all people. Note:
when part of you is experiencing (much) pleasure, that the low level (non
beneficial, non pleasurable) part of yourself will be more difficult to find and
more difficult to see than the low levels of everyone else. But with the high
capability your pleasure brings, you will be able to find it. Just remember to
use your pleasure and high capability to do that and to seek it out, (of all
people -including yourself). (In the project vs. gogr concept; we can say that
the staple of helping the low levels, is gogr; while incr!
easing-to-high-capability, is project. This 'project' is ou!
r indirect, investment action which although can only be done in limited amount;
and must alter from its path to make good; still IS our indirect method.) There
is a potential problem with concentrating pleasure on any one thing. -Actually,
there are several problems (such as the unbalanced growth and unmatched supplies
and needs of interrelated things). When pleasure and life are concentrated into
a small place, things become more capable and of higher capability. There is a
potential problem with high capability. When things get to be so capable in an
area, no more improvements can be made. And if no more improvements are made,
then active existence of the force of growth ceases. Remember that the fogoHC IS
growth. It is important that the force of growth not die. And we are in peril of
that anywhere improvements to be made, become in short supply (that is where
things become of high capability). We have already discussed that this is the
advantage of the force of growth. -T!
hat the high capability and life of the situation, allows the force of good to
cross barriers and find lower levels and areas where improvem! ents can be made.
Thus the force of growth need never cease. However, if the high capability,
life, and pleasure of a pumped up area fails to reach out and find lower
capability areas, increase their capability and deliver resources to them; then
the force of growth WILL cease. This is the potential pitfall of high capability
and feeling good in general; and of human sexuality. But only if that high
capability failed to get busy and seek out the lower levels, would the active
force of good die here. The people we see each day in a loving family structure,
seem to be more real than all the people we don't see or know. But EACH person
has an area of them where they cannot see well or feel, where they have yet to
grow into, where they do not benefit or derive pleasure from. These are a
person's low levels, that have plenty of room for impro!
vement. But the concentration of pleasure, life, or just st!
imulation of ones senses; into a small area (where we see and interrelate with
them every day), can blind us to be unaware of their own (or other's) low
level's existance. And if one doesn't seek out low levels (their own and
others), due to being unaware of them, due to interests and being absorbed on
the area of focus; then their active force of growth will cease here when it
didn't have to. Note: we need to be open to increasing everyone's low levels in
even proportion, if we're able. This definitely includes ourself and our mate
and family, but isn't exclusive to that but also includes all others. Since we
derive no passion or benefit from increasing low levels; we have no resistance
to (re)distributing that increase to all people's low levels. This stuff is also
the problem with people becomming wealthy if they don't use that wealth to reach
out and help others who are lower. It's not that we must find others who are
lower; its just that that's where most of the improveme!
nts needing to be made are found; and which would keep our active force of good
alive best. Otherwise their active force of good dies when it didn't have to.
And God, who is a force of growth Himself, is not pleased by the result.
Sexuality and riches can be a danger and a threat to our force of growth which
is our very soul (or relatonship with God). But now that we have seen a way
around the dangers, we can allow them. Note that I wish to re emphasize the
equally important balance with enjoying our high capability and pleasures (in a
smaller proportion). Chapter 7 "3rd Party Rewards, Expectations, Jobs, Private
Ownership, our Economic System: as related to the concept of reduced capability"
THE DENIAL OF ACCESS: A BAD CYCLE. When we're denied access to things and even
parts of ourselves, we think we must earn ownership to get these things back.
But ownership and property (which we seek to join the system thereof, to get our
goods back); is to deny (others) access to things (!
just as we were initially denied access to things). We all !
try to deny each other access to the available resources, hoping we'll be the
one left standing to receive them: and we waste much effort in this; resulting
in reduced capability. (Denying others access to good things isn't very
constructive.) To gain lost access we need to cast out ownership. Ownership and
property is the denial of access; so if we cast this out we'll no longer be
denied access to the things we need. THIRD PARTY REWARDS LINK MANY ACTIONS
TOGETHER, THUS OFTEN INTERFERING WITH THE SEPARATION OF FORCES (OF GOOD FROM
EVIL). Competition with (against) one another may provide for greater individual
achievement; but prevents us from accomplishing what we could as a group:
(cooperating with and caring for one another). (›Large groups, however, are
easily infected by (someone) evil.›) But a problem with competition is in the
artificial motivation vs the natural motivation. It's the 3rd party rewards vs
the inherent effects of performing the action. Every action can ha!
ve both a natural and an artificial meaning: The natural meaning, is: the
effects and results of that action, standing on its own. The artificial meaning,
is: the relationship that action has to living, capable 3rd parties (who will
reward or punish for doing that action; and what are the rewards or
punishments). It is the 3rd party rewards for doing an action vs the inherent
effects (rewards) of doing an action. Like working for the money instead of for
what the work itself produces. The problem with 3rd party rewards, is that they
lump the effects or rewards of a number of actions together, so evil has a force
of good to feed on. With 3rd party rewards, it takes longer for an evil act to
die out. This is because rewards are mainly good and cause growth; whereas the
action done to get the reward may be destructive. If destructive, it has a good
(the reward) to feed on, thus the evil doesn't burn itself out! The 3rd party
reward system; -the money system: has inherently in it,!
  the sloshing together of both good and evil; thus allowing!
  evil to feed on the good indefinitely. Good and evil don't tell themselves
apart here; so we need a 3rd party to tell us what's good or evil. Now, with the
natural meaning, -the inherent effects (rewards) of an action; there is
immediate feedback: The action is separate from the rewards of all other
actions, (and cannot feed on them). The action is separate, and if evil; quickly
burns itself out. -Following the inherent-motivations for doing actions, is thus
a good way to enact separation: so the good can grow, and the evil disappear.
(When the forces are separate; good grows, while evil consumes itself. So good
and evil tell THEMSELVES apart here: needing no 3rd party to do so for them
here.) Now just because a 3rd party(,) rewards for doing an action, doesn't
eliminate the natural/inherent effects of doing that action. However 3rd party
rewards are constantly changing; and beyond the scope of the 3rd party, aren't
there at all. When separation is enacted, all things are sep!
arate, both good and evil. The good things grow; bridge the separation; and come
together to form a good group. But that which is evil does not grow. It doesn't
bridge the separation, and doesn't infect the group. This is a recipe for
creating an all-good-group, seeing how large groups are vulnerable to
infiltration by evil. Thus we can attain the difficult goal of creating a large
group devoted to goodness, and enjoy the benefits of such. THE CONDITIONAL, 3RD
PARTY, REWARD SYSTEMS FALL SHORT OF INCREASING ALL (NON EVIL) THINGS. THEY THUS
SENTENCE US TO REDUCED CAPABILITY. We do not leave good things behind in our
growth. We thus keep ourselves at high capability above reduced capability, and
avoid having-to-do-necessary-evils-to-survive. We grow ALL good things and ALL
non evil things. We increase things that don't interest us. We increase good
things and good people even though we don't receive payment in return. Even if
it isn't soon profitable, we still increase all good t!
hings. (We do this because all good things are interrelated!
  and interdependent. We do it to be at high capability, out of reduced
capability / the trap of evil.) Haven't we heard this message before? Isn't this
the unconditional love given even when we don't deserve it? Isn't this the
message of church and religious broadcasts; of the Bible and Jesus? -To be good
to those who can't pay us back and give to the poor; to love not only those
who'll love us back, but to love our neighbors, the poor, our enemies? (Note
that the act of loving people doesn't harm us, even when those people are
enemies. -We have a way to cast out evil, and we can do that.) This is the idea:
to spread our love-and-increase to ALL non evil things. (The things that
interest us, do set our pace (at which we increase everything). Interest is
generated by our doing a thing: -and what a marvelous way of obtaining new
interests this is.) ›This isn't written against we at reduced capability,
struggling. These cannot afford to do extra work projects so they'll be doing !
everything. Oops, this doesn't apply. The increase of all things is only upon
what exists (evil free in us), not on what we've yet to grow into.› The question
of evil must be dealt with. We don't increase destructive things. And we must
first get out of reduced capability for 'the doing all things' to keep us at
high capability. Doing-all-things in reduced capability may help us get out of
reduced capability; but not necessarily so. (REWARD SYSTEM:) The lukewarm money
system links the growth of many good things together; but stops short of linking
all good things. It's not enough. (The many actions required to earn the money,
are linked together: with themselves, and with the action to spend the money /
receive services of others (thus allowing evil a reward to feed on).) Yet this
doesn't allow us to increase all good things just because they exist. If
something exists, but lacks money or some way to pay us back; we deny it our
growth and increase. The money system thus falls !
short of the increase of ALL good things. Just because some!
thing is a good thing; and just because it exists: these are reasons enough for
us to do and increase them (because we and they are all interrelated). If we
deny someone a service that we freely provide to those who pay; then we've
chosen to limit our increase-of-things, to less than all good things. This
results in our whole society being at reduced capability and being caught ! in
the trap of evil. We are all interrelated; and the destruction from reduced
capability will eventually find us if we don't deal with all the reduced
capability out there. If we refuse our good thing to those at reduced
capability, we will perpetuate reduced capability (when we could have done
something about it), so we will have less 'life', and we will be at reduced
capability, unable to buy and increase everything good. GROWTH FREE FROM EVIL IS
MUCH PREFERRED OVER GROWTH WITH EVIL. The idea of increase-in-capability and
growth, is pretty important. It's what forces of good are; and what the fogoH!
C is. So, anything that has growth is better than other things, right? No. Just
because growth-and-increase is there, doesn't mean it is to be accepted. Many
growths are accompanied by decreases (in other areas). Here the force of
destruction is not alone. -It has the growth to feed it. This is the worst
possible situation because the evil persists indefinitely. We have to be more
specific: Only increases free from evil are worthwhile. PROGRAM OF EXPECTATIONS
SHOWN TO BE GROWTH-ACCOMPANIED-BY- EVIL, BECAUSE IT FORCES US TO OPERATE AT
REDUCED CAPABILITY: WITH REDUCED-CAPABILITY'S ACCOMPANYING NECESSARY EVILS. IT
IS THUS TO BE AVOIDED, AND REPLACED WITH EVIL FREE GROWTH. Let's look at
growth-and-increase more closely. The idea of increase means there's always
something needing improvement. To increase and grow, means you're better now
than before. If better now than before: then before, you were lacking in some
area(s); and now you're not lacking. Well, if you're always going to!
  be growing; then there's always going to be areas (parts o!
f you), that can be seen as lacking. (Is the glass half full or half empty?) So
in your eternal growth; don't let it be a pain in the butt (that is, growth at
reduced capability / the trap of evil), but an enjoyable experience (evil free
growth at high capability); because you'll never be finished growing. The
concept of being able to satisfy expectations is a myth; because with growth,
you're always one step away from not living up to expectations. So, don't let
expectations from others pull you through growth. Reduced capability, the trap
of evil is what growth pulled by expectations is.) When certain growths are
required of you, and your superiors are constantly pointing out areas that
you're lacking in: this refers to your growth. I want to make this point, that
what is being dealt with here, is your growth (and increase). Being your growth,
it is something sacred. (The fogoHC is made of growth). It must be done free
from evil. Otherwise it is a force of good together with!
  evil. And the fogoHC won't have this (without your continued choice for it).
Maybe what is sought, is the commodity of evil. And the only way it can be had
in the presence of a fogoHC, is through as many people who can be coerced's
choice. Yes, growth in all (non evil) areas is to be accepted. But the type of
growth must be determined free from evil. And since the ability to grow in
certain areas (free from accompanying decreases), depends on your own level of
capability; then some growths must be put off until YOU are ready. The growths
must wait for you; not the other way around. Being at reduced capability means
not being able to do some growths. ((like before you have received the nurture
of the reward.)) So, just because others point out areas where you're lacking;
is no reason to try to fill these areas! So, when you don't achieve what's
expected of you, and don't right away fill what has been pointed out to you as
lacking; then (you put yourself in for punishment and d!
iscipline and) you're not a force of good in this aspect. B!
ut you've eliminated the doing of good and evil together. It's important to not
choose good and evil together ›(unless it is already: unavoidably together
either way/ at reduced capability / in an essential). (Separation of the forces
is the desired end result in any case.)› If you have growth outside the program
of expectations, then the enactment of punishment is the forces of good and
destruction together; just as the growth laden with evil is. But the forces are
more easily separated under punishment: as they're represented by two separate
people -the punished and the punisher. While the growth laden with evil has
inherently in it; both good and evil in the same action, where the forces are
more closely knit together and are more difficult to separate. So, the path to
go is to risk the punishment because you have a better chance of separating the
forces, even at your low capability. -Makes it easier on the fogoHC too. Realize
that you do nothing destructive in failing at t!
heir expectations. You have a decision to make: -the program of expectations and
3rd party rewards; vs the natural-meaning-of-things; as to what you'll have
nurture you. What I want to concentrate on here, is what is alive. It takes well
nurtured, high capability life to achieve evil-free growth, and the growth
required of you. And if you choose 3rd party rewards; what nurtures your life,
is the stamp of approval by 3rd parties. But that approval is always lacking
before the growth is done. (Since you're always growing, there are always areas
of you which at present are lacking.) At a present moment the 3rd party requires
a growth from you; and you don't have the nurturing 3rd party reward for/from
this as of yet. You now find yourself expected to grow at reduced capability
-without the very nurture you need (have acquired a need for) to nurture you(r
life). With less life, and at reduced capability, you produce less than adequate
growth; (or you do necessary evils to obtain i!
t. Those necessary evils collectively accumulate and cause !
ultimate failure to grow overall.) You thus do not receive reward or approval.
Your counselor or boss bitch at you for not producing. If at this point you
still depend on 3rd party rewards / acceptance to nurture you life; then you're
going through a terrific withdrawal symptom. (My advice, is to 'just say no' (to
the drug of 3rd party rewards).) And if you continue placing such value on
receiving 3rd party rewards/approval then there's only a downward spiral of
REDUCED CAPABILITY to follow. ›At reduced capability! , the good in you
separates from this evil system.› Let's look at an alternative: When you depend
on the natural meaning of (good) things to nurture your life; what's important
isn't the inanimate objects/skills you can possess, doing things on your own,
outside a program of expectations. No, it's the high life you can join with
(that is the fogoHC). And from this abundant life comes abundant growth. Just
because there's abundant life and growth, doesn't mean a thin!
g if it's infected by decrease/destruction. But fogoHC life, IS free and
separate from evil/destruction. Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and
puts you at high capability; so you can do evil-free growth. The unconditional
love/ acceptance/ nurture of the fogoHC, eliminates the need for the necessary
evils of reduced capability. It allows you to do evil-free growth, (instead of
forced growth at reduced capability, where you'd allow harm in your ways to
achieve the same growth); thus freeing you from the trap of evil. The downward
spiral of decrease described in the first example, is separated away, because it
is a decrease of life: And is why we cannot join with the fogoHC and also
participate in the cycle of 3rd party rewards. They aren't on the same side of
the separation done by the fogoHC. "You cannot serve both God and mammon."
"Money is the root of all evil." There's nothing wrong with being accepted /
rewarded by 3rd parties. But the choice to depend on it for y!
our strength, nurture and self esteem; is a mistake, as it !
will desert you when you need it most. Money is cast out, not the good things
money often buys. P.S. When you're worried about amounting to something outside
a program of expectations, consider this: Once you are joined with the fogoHC,
you're already there. Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality.
The more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make. The only
thing keeping you from success, is the absence of joining with the fogoHC. It
may not look like you've succeeded, but the fogoHC will have changed the
realities here; so that in reality, you truly will have succeeded. -The fogoHC
can make wondrous things with whatever meager things you bring Him, (as soon as
your will is moved out of most of the area). But the diplomas, plaques, status
and position aren't enough to stake out your success. There will always be areas
you're inadequate in, that you'll need to grow into to maintain your success.
You'll never be successful at achieving the g!
oal of success, putting it behind you. -since you're always growing. (So why
was! te your life trying?). Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because
the growth is evil-free at high capability (and we can enjoy the results of
that). The unconditional love and acceptance of the fogoHC, nurtures your life
and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil-free growth: eliminating the
need for necessary evils: freeing you from the trap of evil. (Why spend your
life wallowing around in something you don't have to be trapped in? -especially
if you choose against the system of good and evil together, and the trap of
evil.) Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You've already
succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is a
gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now love!
Just what is life and the energy that is life? -Complex miracle of electrical
discharges (plus even more). Someone who makes us !
feel bad, destroys part of this elusive thing we call life.!
  If we do not succeed in our quest to enjoy life: -Without being truly alive,
there's no way to enjoy what we produce. It's like dressing up a pet rock and
treating it to the finest food, entertainment and accommodations. The rock draws
no enjoyment from these activities. And bosses don't spend time threatening
rocks they'll loose their job if they don't do better. The pinch point is
ourselves and how alive we are. So let's work on improving the things that
matter: improving life, and finding better alternatives to the pain balance, and
the system of stagnation of good and evil. When someone makes you feel
inadequate in an area; they dispute the fogoHC has transformed you. -The
capability that is you, is present without the fogoHC. Thus your existence here
without a fogoHC makes you a freak event. You're out of place. I'm sure you'd
love to fill all of these requirements you lack; do what you're told; and
appease your mentor. But this would require you to stay and be part of t!
his system. In this situation without a fogoHC, you need foremost to create the
fogoHC. The situation is much worse than reported. Not only do you need to fill
all what you lack; you need to create a fogoHC. But since this is such a long
shot, a slow and difficult process, it doesn't mater if you take it easy or
hard. You don't depend on yourself being successful (because that probably won't
happen -due to the difficulty of the assignment); but you depend on the
probability that someone will succeed out of all who try; mainly due to luck and
randomness. Thus, if y! ou have a good opportunity; seize it: otherwise don't
let requirements interrupt your lifestyle. (Realize that outside of the trap of
evil, with the fogoHC's HC/(evil-free) growth; that all these requirements are
at your command, easily.) Focus on getting out of their trap of evil and
creating a fogoHC, not on staying in their system and trying to fill their
requirements; which will be life-resource consuming and di!
fficult for you in your l.c. situation. Attempts to fill wh!
at you lack (create a fogoHC) within the system won't work because of the
stagnation from the togetherness of good and evil there. Only random, variable,
do it yourself actions outside the system of good and evil, in these same areas
have any chance. So don't bother with requirements (which are part of the
system), in trying to create a fogoHC. If a problem is so hard that nobody knows
the answer, then a controlling approach, where everybody marches in line and
tries the same or similar attempted solution, is a poor use of resources. Much
better would be a random approach, where individuals in freedom tried many
different attempted solutions. Here, the chances that one would succeed are much
better; and all we need is for one to succeed to save the whole bunch, when it
comes to creating a FogoHC. Well; the power of the group is stronger than that
of the individual, so only as a group we might hope to succeed, right? Well, a
group that empowers its individuals, is much stronger!
  than a group that feeds off them in a stagnant operation: and the first step in
creating such a good group, is for individuals to escape from stagnant grouping
systems. Now, if there is a fogoHC already, then the claims that you lack, are
all lies. Because the fogoHC in his/her benevolence will have provided;
especially since you have accepted what the fogoHC has to offer. Where man's
will acts, the fogoHC does not interfere, and it appears there exists no fogoHC.
Outside of man's will, is the fogoHC. Because it is you that the world must come
through to effect you; it is a matter of life contacting life. If your life is
not contacted in a positive way, then what good are these programs? Life
contacted in a positive way has priority. (These programs have no place as the
central piece of your life.) Even if you succeed here, it won't get you life
contacting life in a positive way. You won't be one inch closer to achieving
that. Since you're a life, this involves you in a perso!
nal way. You'd be left unsatisfied. The work of accomplishi!
ng life-contacting-life-in-a-positive-way would be left undone. You might as
well sit around and do nothing! The question isn't whether we accept just any
group (the only group available to us) -for the advantages of being in a group,
vs, go it on our own: but what group should we join? -One that practices growth
free from evil as much as possible, hopefully. If we're all pretty much
basically kind and generous; what's so terrible about letting us do what we
want? Why must we most all be told what to do? (And the gentler we get, the more
we are bossed around?) Just because everybody is bossed around doesn't make it
good. We have minds to think and things we want to do. We don't need a boss to
tell us what to do to make us capable of doing something. We do need to get
together to inform each other, communicate, and cooperate; but this isn't often
possible when communication is reduced to order giving and order following and
bitch bitch bitch. The only reason we'd need to do wha!
t we're told, is if doing what we wanted and understood; tormented and
frustrated us, imbalanced us, destroyed us. If this is the case (if we're
incapable of enjoying life), what's the sense of working hard, doing what you're
told, obeying rules, or making a fortune? You'll never get to enjoy any of it.
Why work on producing meaningless things while neglecting the work of improving
life and our enjoyment of life, which would make these things meaningful? In a
quest to become self sufficient, there's one area I've been successful at. In
the area of rules, I've been able to extract my own (from the existing natural,
inherent laws made by no man), and haven't needed to depend on the rules of
others. LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INANIMATE. We've been emphasizing that
life's what's important. We know actions-of-production which do as much harm as
good to LIFE; provide no net gain. A question comes to mind: what does it
matter? What difference does our life make? Whether we're tr!
eated like dogs and slaves, or live like kings with lots of!
  influence; what difference does it make (in this stagnant system)? It may be
uncomfortable, or pleasant for us (as life), but what difference does it make in
the overall scheme of things? What difference does our life make in a stagnant
system? Pain and being treated like a slave, is the destruction of our life. (We
are alive.) What difference does life make over the inanimate? (In a stagnant
system of good and evil together, evil destroys the life good produces; and life
stagnates, and remains at the same level.) Well, life has the ability to be
aware: -to have purpose and meaning. But inanimate things can't; thus there's no
purpose without life. -Where there is life, are many purposes and meanings (from
that life); but with no-life, is purposelessness. In a stagnant system, the life
exists as a constant amount that doesn't grow. This system will always have to
bear the same degree of purposelessness, due to the constant presence of the
inanimate (where there should be life)!
; -due to lack of overall growth. The life (which stays at a (constant) level
above the inanimate and doesn't grow); never accomplishes much, and never has
much meaning beyond that it exists. (It destroys what growth it produces.) (That
which is destroyed, is inanimate, and has no intelligence or purpose.) We may
have advanced in technology, but we have also advanced in! the technology to
destroy ourselves. Even with all this technology, we haven't learned to
cooperate well or be kind to each other. Until we learn to be kind to each
other, our future will always be in doubt between annihilation and paradise; and
the path we take in learning to cooperate, will determine our fate. Only a
system which seeks to advance its least and lowest members will hold together
and advance together as a group. Any system which scorns its underachievers, is
a waste of your time and mine. (All the concerns are for lifeless inanimate
objects, in this system that does both good and evil to life.)!
  But in a system free from evil (where there is sustained/o!
verall growth); life can advance and grow, and replace the inanimate, with life,
and thus develop meaning much beyond its existence. So if you're looking for
meaning and purpose to life, it is found outside these stagnant systems of
cruelty and kindness together and reduced capability. So if we're in a stagnant
system of togetherness of good and evil; it doesn't matter if we get the job,
pass the test, or succeed or fail in the system. All that matters is our
attempts to create a system of good only. THE JOB SYSTEM IS OVEREXTENDED. What
do our actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the tools? Are
we trying to impress them or something? They aren't alive to notice or care one
way or the other. Only we are alive. What does it matter to the automobiles or
TV sets we produce whether we have made our quota of them or not? Because the
inanimate is all that's left after our life is gone. Let's get it through our
minds that only life produces growth. Thus instead of!
  demanding more from existing life as the means of producing increased growth;
that we do an indirect method: and first build up life, as a means of producing
increased growth. If we are first good to each other as life; then life will be
increased; and increased growth will naturally follow (because life IS the
ability to produce a certain amount of growth (comfortably)). being good to each
other is the growth of growth; and is preferred to the overextension of the job
world which neglects the building up of its living components (in favor of
inanimate (project) components), and thus neglects growth of growth, to its
overextension of too much growth of project. THE JOB SYSTEM IS IN THE TRAP OF
EVIL, REDUCED CAPABILITY. With the growing intolerance in this country; it's
amazing we can actually get together in our jobs, and work to produce things.
Unfortunately, we still don't cooperate well even in our jobs. We instead get by
with shabby fare: the minimum needed to function. A!
  pattern I've noticed, is that we don't share the hardships!
  evenly, but instead, shove them off onto a few scapegoats. We need 'slaves' to
stick with the dirty jobs. Get a job! The thing is, 'a job' can mean very
different things. A job can be a cushy management position, or one of those
scapegoat peon positions; (or in between). When people yell at the welfare folks
to get off their lazy behinds and get a job; the response I like best is "I'm
holding out for a management position". Peons and scapegoats are hard to find,
and they have to be actively recruited (from the welfare roles and unemployment
line). Now, in a system where the hardships were evenly born; people would be
more willing to join that type of system. But if all other alternatives are
eliminated with only this scapegoat way available; then there will be kicking
and screaming. However, an individual can do very little. If we try to survive
and make a living as an individual, we do poorly because we're at reduced
capability (compared to the group). So we need to join som!
e kind of a group and put aside thoughts for ourself, and instead mainly think
of the betterment of the group. And we do this because the group's power is
above reduced capability, and can get us all ahead due to its being out of
reduced capability, the trap of evil. So it is the individual's place to put
away most thought for themselves and instead be devoted mostly to the group. But
once an individual has done this, then What is the place of the group? Let's say
the group then thinks of the individuals which comprise it. Then it can use its
power of being out of reduced capability to advance and improve life for them
all; much better than if they were all acting on their own. ("The whole is
greater than the sum of its parts".) (There are many things a group of workers
can do that an individual worker can't; even if the individual worker is given
that much more time.) But if the group thinks only of itself, then it also
thinks of its individuals, because the only thing the gr!
oup is made of, IS individuals - that's all there is. It wi!
ll still be thinking of individuals. So it's the place of the group to help and
advance individuals once the individual has devoted themself to the group. But
if a group doesn't think of individuals with its power but instead scapegoats
some and leaves them hardly better than if they scavenged on their own (so
others in the group can have even more); then this defeats the purpose of
joining a group in the first place (for those scapegoats). The advantage of
joining a group was that it can get us all out of reduced capability. But these
people are still in reduced capability. And a group that scapegoats and leaves
people at reduced capability will be brought down to reduced capability itself;
because reduced capability makes a home for destruction, and destruction by its
infectiousness, will bring this grou! p down also to be at reduced capability. A
group that seeks to increase its power (and grow) by taking more and more from
its (scapegoat) individuals; finds that it runs ou!
t of stuff to take. The individual position is the most vulnerable position as
it is nearest to reduced capability. And a group that keeps taking from its
individuals puts the individual more and more into reduced capability. And in
reduced capability, growth does not occur, but instead, stagnation. And with the
individual, -the source of the group's power, not growing; this group runs out
of stuff to take and so ceases growing. But if a group, instead of taking more
and more; gives more and more, to its individuals, those individuals are removed
further from reduced capability, thus they experience growth. If they then give
some of that growth (out of their abundance) to the group, then the group can
continue this cycle and be a growing group indefinitely. It won't run out of
stuff to receive from its individuals. So if you're going to compel welfare
recipients to get off their lazies and devote their efforts for the good of the
group (to get a job), then you better be sure y!
ou as rulers of the group, use the group power to give them!
  a decent life, a decent house, a decent car, and decent cloths like you have!
If you're just going to rip us off and make us slaves, peons, and scapegoats
(the working poor); then screw you. Making welfare folks work in hard labor
still won't solve your stagnation. Even if you put half the country in prison in
forced labor camps. And that situation isn't stable. Kaboom! I hope it blows up
in your face. You won't take me willingly. I'll be trying to nix your system of
stagnation and create a group of good only; of nurture; where people care for
each other and build each other up! instead of scapegoating and forcing people
into reduced capability to live miserable lives so as to supply your growth!
Note that there is a connection against eastern (Communist) philosophy here, as
well as against Hitler's philosophy of individual sacrifice to the all important
living State (or national entity). ("How can you love God who you can't see, if
you don't love your neighbor who you can se!
e".) In simplified terms, I've heard eastern philosophy condensed to: the
smaller entity can be sacrificed for the good of the larger group. From this we
can deduce that the individual must sacrifice for the good of the group. But the
fallacy in this is that the larger and more powerful group doesn't need
protecting and being sacrificed for, since it is larger and powerful and more
out of reduced capability. Instead, it is the individual position that needs
improving. And so, it is not for the individual to sacrifice to the group; but
to give to the group out of their abundance (tax the rich). -This is the
difference between a growing group vs a stagnant group. Are you satisfied by how
we treat the less fortunate? Some say the poor are lazy and should get a job or
work harder: that they're doing more than enough to help these people and want
no more increases in their taxes. (But these rich folk aren't inherently more
powerful than the lowest of the poor.) The rich man DEPENDS!
  on others to produce his gourmet food; build, heat/cool, a!
nd clean his mansion; make his fancy cloths; and build his snazzy car and yacht:
(-just as the rest of us depend upon others.) If the rich man were self
sufficient and produced his things himself, then it would NOT seem right to tax
him more than the rest of us. But the rich man depends on the group (other
people's labors) for all his things. It is fitting that he pays more in taxes,
which represents helping the group, since he receives more from the group than
the rest of us. Don't tell me that the rich man does 10 to 100 times more work
and thus earns 10 to 100 times more money than the working poor. That's
physically, mentally impossible. And do you really think the welfare folks' not
working is the cause of our nations' problems? (Don't we easily (over) produce
enough food to feed us all: and what doe! s it cost in tangible resources to let
them live in a run down trailer?) Trailers get old. Someone's got to live in
them. The person on TV can tell you what he/she is satisf!
ied with, but not what you're satisfied with. You must choose what system you're
satisfied with. You must live with yourself all the time: no one else has to. We
should be more helpful to one another. That way we all can enjoy the advances we
make in our standards-of-living with a free heart enjoying the good things we
produce, since we all share in the goodness. Our nerve impulses will be much
more alive. Let's make a system worth preserving/keeping for everyone. If you're
thinking you can do what you're told, work hard, and someday God will change the
world into a better place: well this is true: but it may be in spite of you,
instead of because of your diligence and hard work. The system of good-and-evil
can continue on forever if the people involved are all satisfied with it. If
everybody did what they were told and supported the system of cruelty and
kindness together, then good would produce life (even nerve impulse life), to be
consumed and destroyed by evil, and we cou!
ld continue in stagnation, without purpose or meaning forev!
er; and no one, not even God would change it against our will. Stagnation is a
precarious balance. It will require your diligence, concentration, and yes, even
hard work to keep this balance. (It's quite a burden.) (The system of stagnation
even has its supply of goods and services to reward its 'fatefull'.) But if you
don't choose the system of good and evil together, why bother with this heavy!
burden? (Instead, we disrupt the balance of stagnation.) "Take my yolk upon you;
for I am easy, and my burden is light" says J.C. It doesn't matter if you're in
the minority: if you're dissatisfied, the way to meaningful life is escape and
resistance. When you don't do what you're told (what authorities tell you), and
don't work hard, then they make you feel like you've committed some offense and
did some destructive act. But the thing is you've done nothing harmful by not
doing what you're told and failing at your assignment. You've just not grown as
fast as they'd like, (which isn't!
  destructive). To them it's a crime. But it's victimless because you've hurt no
one. Let's commit this victimless crime of being lazy and not doing our
assignments when we aren't satisfied! Take a hard look: You've done no
destruction in not obeying them; in not laboring for them or helping them. They
won't help the poor. Why should they be helped? They're not poor. Of course,
authorities will do destruction to you as punishment for not producing. And it's
this destruction that should be dealt with first before improvements on (our)
growth are sought. But this external evil can be a minor consideration. -If
there's an evil inside us we keep insisting on, we will constantly cast it out
and it will constantly trouble us. (This is what they'd have us believe; that
we're bad and evil for disobeying and not producing for them.) Well, our failure
to grow is not a destructive act. So we needn't be constantly casting out an
evil within us. This gives us peace of mind. We're more alive!
. My pet rock; he sets round all day and does nothing, and !
no boss comes to holler at him. All this work is going to put you in an early
grave so the end result of work will be that you're no more alive than my pet
rock. So if the boss can't make my pet rock get off his lazies and work; (and
you, being much smarter and more alive than my pet rock;) I don't see how the
boss could make you work hard or to death either. So how bout a little
moderation in this thing we know as 'work'? I mean, if my pet rock doesn't have
to work at all, why should we have to work hard? -unless that is you prefer the
inanimate over living human beings. MORE ABOUT JOBS. We need to grow and edify
life, for us to be a growing force of good. But without a job, we aren't allowed
to use other people's stuff or bother other people at work, because these are
owned by someone else. The concept of property ownership shuts us out, if we
don't have a job. So, in today's situation, we need to get a job, because only
here have we access to things and people to build up l!
ife. Right? A job does include greater access so we have more opportunity to
help others and ourselves grow life. But a job also includes a boss, a 3rd
party, who regulates us; rewards, praises and punishes us according to 3rd party
rules; who threatens to fire us if we don't do well. (Also present with growth,
is the force of destruction, -the forces of good and evil are together. We've
already shown this isn't the answer.) Isolation is a big problem. The point I
make is that getting a job and joining the system isn't a solution. (It sure is
an expensive way to get together in a group.) Now, we don't work all alone when
we're in a job, but work as a team. When we're trying to succeed outside the
system, we should also try to work with others and not alone. Our system of
production should be concerned with improving all our lives. But as long as
we're mean to each other, (this is destructive of life), we'll continue to be
caught in the stagnation of the trap of evil. There's n!
o sense in acting collectively to become capable of overcom!
ing the ravages of nature; only to replace them with our own man made system's
brand of necessary evils, destitution and stagnation (the trap of evil). It
accomplishes nothing and wastes our life efforts. When away from systems of good
and evil and 3rd parties; we still have natural meanings to satisfy our needs
(unlike artificial (3rd party supported) meanings which disappear outside the
scope of 3rd parties). So success, satisfaction, pleasure and fulfilling life,
are possible outside our present job system. Let's get together and form a
society of cooperation free from forced cooperation, based on equality and
democratic representation in our jobs, not dictatorship. What do our
actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the tools? It doesn't
matter to the automobiles or radio sets we produce whether we've made our quota
of them or not. Are we trying to impress them or something? They aren't alive to
notice. No, we don't slave away for the inanimate: we slave !
for a few who think they're better than we; who use us like tools and equipment
to make life better for them. Our life is sacrificed: our head is cut off and
discarded, so the remainder of ourself can function as a piece of equipment to
help make life better for a chosen few. Forget about building robots and
equipment. -The human being is a marvelous piece of equipment; and there are so
many of them. All that's needed is to cut away and discard their mind, and their
own ideas on how to do things. It is humans consuming other humans for their own
benefit. Shouldn't we as life be more concerned with getting our life out of a
system caught in the trap of destruction of life (before our life and ideas are
destroyed to make us into a robot for someone)? Once we overcome the destruction
of life, we will be alive to appreciate the good things that exist. There will
be LIFE to make it all worth while. Unfortunately, the just-described-system is
as destructive to LIFE as it is good. It!
  is therefore a stagnant system trapped in reduced capabili!
ty, the trap of evil: where even those who benefit from human-robots will be
swept down to reduced capability due to the infectious nature of evil. In such a
system we all become little more than the inanimate products we produce. We (our
LIFE) should therefore seek to escape from such a stagnant system and create a
better system of good only; because our LIFE is much more valuable than the
inanimate objects/robot remainders we become. Only life PLUS materials, gives a
winning combination. It makes no sense to accumulate inanimate materials in one
place and prevent all but a few living individuals from having access to it.
Without life, the rearrangement of matter we do in production, is meaningless.
What difference does it make if a quota of widgets is produced or if the raw
materials remain in the ground, if there's no life to enjoy it)? Only those
things associated with the increase/improvement of life, have value and
pleasure. And the peon worker is just as much alive as t!
he rich man who uses him for his own pleasure. Unpleasant memory records and the
unkindness that caused them, are both destructive of life; and are thus evils to
be cast out. ›Since we cast out unpleasant experiences; if learning is made to
be an unpleasant experience, we will soon forget it (so why waste the time?)›
Only that which supplies us with life (inside ourselves), remains with us. And
you as a living being, should be gaining and growing in life from the production
actions you do; otherwise it's a waste of time. YOU are the product that is
ultimately being produced, not some inanimate product. And! if that production
system ruins the life that is you, then IT is faulty, and ought to be replaced.
Remember, filling your head with ways you don't understand from without; will
choke out ways you do understand within you, from expressing themselves. You
have a choice to make. Either to join a present system, or to try and create an
alternative system on your own. Since you !
can do more as part of a group, it's advantageous to join a!
  group over doing things on your own. But if available group(s) are stagnant due
to destructive forces, then it may be better to try to escape such systems and
on your own create a better alternative system. The decider, is, how well does
the system under consideration, treat its lower members. (ie does it help its
needy?) As an entry level person, you may be in need of an opportunity to have a
position in that system. You are thus a needy person in this aspect. How does
the system treat you in this need? Does it welcome you in? Or does it threaten
destruction upon you unless you perform for it? Well, if it uses destruction
(punishment) to function (to motivate and direct), then right there is the proof
that it is a stagnant system. In such a case, be assured that whatever littl! e
you can accomplish outside that system, is more than you could as part of a
stagnant system. When a system uses rewards and punishments to direct its people
and operate, then it must at some time, d!
eny reward or administer punishment to the number of people who don't measure up
to its standard of what it wants done. This forces these people to live at
reduced capability, . . . . . . and in stagnation. If the number who are denied
or punished is large or even in the majority, then this system becomes a
stagnant system as the price for having a way to direct and motivate its
subjects to do what it wants. Can we find a better way? Lets try. AN ALTERNATIVE
TO 'MIGHT MAKES RIGHT' The means to gain/obtain power, are just the beginning.
They are just the means to get your way. What is just as important if not more
so, is the way itself and what it consists of (the defectiveness or soundness of
ones way). It has been said that 'might makes (one's way) right'. But might and
power are just the means of getting ones way over others. Once one gets their
way, they have to live with their way. If their way is defective and causes pain
and suffering, then they and everyone else will ha!
ve to live with it, because there is no one mightier to ove!
rthrow it. And if the way contains a defect, we just have to live with the pain.
But if some ruler's way causes too much pain and suffering, then the people may
rebel and change the power balance and overcome the might that put the way in
power in the first place, with their own might. Irregardless of whether a
military-dictator-minority, or an overwhelming popular majority, puts a way in
power, the merits and flaws of the actual way are still felt. So not only is it
important to get your way into power; it is also important that your way be
sound and non destructive ›and helpful›. Otherwise your way itself will be a
constant reminder and motivator that something needs changing. A person with
less power won't get their way as often as those with more power. But even if a
good way gets into power just once after a long wait; that once will be enough.
Defective ways may get into power many times backed by powerful people; but
because of the way's flaws, these will be a constant !
irritant and motivation for change. When a good way does infrequently get into
place (power); it will be no irritant; there will be satisfaction; and the
motivation will be to keep this way in power. (Of course, democratic principles
provide the means for smooth change so as to try out many more ways than under a
military dictatorship. But the soundness of the way is still the focal
criterion.) Might is the means of getting a way into power; but the soundness of
a way is the means of keeping the way in power over time, and providing
satisfaction. A good sound way is a growing, productive thing that produces
enough growth, to have enough might to get into power at least infrequently. All
the might in the world cannot keep an unsound, defective and destructive way in
power forever (due to the inferiority of destructiveness and the force of evil
itself, as previously expounded upon). But a good sound way once in power, can
remain in power forever due to its inherent goodness, sou!
ndness, satisfaction, and production. It only takes one to !
escape the system of good-and-evil to grow more powerful to come back to rescue
the rest of us. If we don't wish to continue with a 'bad' way, there'll be some
of us who will escape this 'bad' way: who if they find a better way, will be
able to grow more powerful and set us all free (who want to be set free); who
dislike the current way because of its inherent defects, (irregardless of what
might holds it in power). A SECOND GO ROUND WITH THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP; THE
DENIAL OF ACCESS. At this point I want to get back into the concept of property
and ownership. The concept of property is an artificial concept, and isn't part
of natural law. Without 3rd party recognition/support of property ownership, the
restrictions of property ownership don't apply. I can say "that is my chair, and
you can't use it", but there is nothing physically incompatible between you and
the chair that would prevent you from using it outside the scope of my power.
Property restrictions require living, !
intelligent, capable 3rd parties to enforce them; and outside of their scope,
they don't exist. I could say that this is my world and nobody but I can use it;
but outside the scope of my power, everyone can use this world. The concept of
property ownership puts restriction on a thing so less people can use it, than
would otherwise be able to. Things and resources help people and increase their
capability. If there exists a resource that could help people, but I deny them
this resource because I own it, then I have caused these people to live at
reduced capability. This is especially true if their use of the resources
wouldn't have consumed or damaged it; such as borrowing a book from a library
(›or swapping spouses. ayhow›). The concepts of property and ownership creates
areas of reduced capability and lost opportunity, even when there's enough to go
around. People who cannot communicate with each other to ask for and receive use
of someone else's resource in a non destructive!
  way; remain in reduced capability. But if we were allowed !
to share and borrow resources in a non destructive way, we'd have a process to
learn communication and cooperation; and not only would we be out of reduced
capability, we'd no longer be lonely. We might not want to change our system of
property ownership, but we should get together and create sharing centers where
people can get together and share resources at minimal cost, unlike rental
agencies (which make a huge profit). A system of passing around a piece of
equipment where people could identify themselves positively over the phone
through a set of one use transaction numbers, coordinated with their ID number,
could be used. This is because we Americans are so uncooperative,
uncommunicative and lonely, that it behooves us to do this. Hey, if you like the
loneliness and the snootiness, then let things continue status quo. But I have
to say I'm not satisfied. In today's society; having enough money to participate
in all sorts of activities, is a big thing. Some might then thi!
nk the most important thing is to pay the money; and then they can take it easy,
expend no effort and enjoy the show. But the payment of money is only the
beginning. Life is much more than the payment of money. Just think: after I pay
the money; I as a living thing then have to actually do, experience, and
participate in the activity. How can I enjoy the intensities of a thing if I've
shut down my life activities and am taking it easy in an easy chair? (Going to
the movies isn't the same as doing it for real.) With the money system; one is
the servant and the other is the master, in any given transaction. Wouldn't it
be better to strike a chord of more cooperation, so that in a transaction,
there's less of a master/servant relationship; with both partners on more equal
footing? It is better for us as life, if we do. We need a better system based
more on cooperation and love, than on servant/master dictatorship! BOSS Each of
us has a mind. And each of us has a body. Our mind is!
  where our consciousness and life-essence reside. Our body !
has no consciousness apart from our mind. As a human person, our mind and body
are together (with our mind directing our body). As individual human beings, our
mind-body is physically separate from every other mind-body. When someone starts
trying to run our lives and tell us what to do; their-mind not only seeks to
have say over their own body; they want say over our body too. When it's not
enough for a mind to have say over its own body, but it also wants say over
other's bodies; then I think its time to cooperate and work and do together so
that all minds are satisfied, as all benefit from the group of bodies working
together. Otherwise, I think a line has been crossed. A boss's mind not only has
say over their own body, but also has some say over the servant's body. The
servant's mind (which is together with his/her body) also wants to have say over
this body; and will always and continually want this, due to the physical
togetherness of the servant's mind with his/her bod!
y. But when there are times when the boss wants the servant's body to do one
thing while the servant's mind wants his/her body to do something else which is
incompatible; then there's a conflict; and only one mind (either the boss's or
the servant's) can have control over the servant's body in this decision. When
the boss has say over the servant's body, then this bond of togetherness has
been formed: the boss's mind is linked with the boss's body and also the
worker's body. Unfortunately in this conflict, the servant's mind is cut off and
left alone unjoined. When the servant's mind is alone and without the servant's
body; it finds itself at reduced capability in this position. It's in this
position (of the boss getting their way in a conflict), where the most intense
situations of reduced capability are created (-that being in the servant's
mind). No other position creates such reduced capability. -When no one is
cooperating, each person's mind has at least their o! wn body.!
  -And when there's voluntary cooperation, that's the best a!
s all minds have the power of the group of all bodies working together as a
group. This bossing thing is just an example of a group that
scapegoats-and-takes from some to supply their growth. But those in reduced
capability don't grow, so this group has to keep finding other scapegoats in
order to keep growing. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I
believe that reduced capability isn't a good thing to put anybody in. If the
forces don't need separating, then there's no reason for this reduced
capability. These reduced capability situations need to be dealt with, otherwise
there'll be trouble. Fortunately, God delivers these people and us from this
reduced capability. ›The boss's mind is separated from the worker's body. They
aren't well connected together. Thus the bossing system is like a chicken
running round with its head cut off, as the head (which tells what to do) is
pretty separate from the body that does the work. This fragmentation of things
unto reduced!
  capability may have application, as we'll see later. But if the bossing system
causes us to be fragmented; as our worker minds are fragmented from our body,
since our bodies can't do what our minds want, but instead must do what the
boss's mind wants: then shouldn't this bossing job system also fragment itself?
This bossing system fragments us: it should also fragment itself, as what goes
round comes round. What the system sees fit to do to us, it should also see fit
to do unto itself. What a system sows it should also reap. And if that be
fragmentation, then so be it. The bossing system itself should fragment and not
get its way all the time.› A person came to me and asked: am I evil because I
discipline my child and tell him what to do? And I would respond by saying that
destruction and all destructiveness is evil, but that people are not evil.
People may contain evil in them -we all do. We can't help it. The question I
would ask, is not 'are you evil?', but 'are you perfec!
t?' Nobody's perfect, and we're all forced to have some evi!
l in us just because we're human and alive on this earth. We're all doing the
best we can with what we've got. At reduced capability, we may be forced to take
some shortcuts and include some evil. Single mothers especially are forced to
make do with less; so that if we want to make things better, we should help them
out and give them more resources so they won't be trying to accomplish
monumental feats at reduced capability, but instead, at higher capability. Each
person has a body and a mind. When one person tells another what to do, they are
trying to coordinate the actions of a group (a grouping involving more than one
person). But the person(s) being told what to do has much more of a mind than is
required to receive and carry out orders. Thus a large chunk of the person's
mind is left out of this group making process. The boss's mind and the worker's
bodies are coordinated and brought together for group action. Why stop half way?
Why not also try to also incorporate the r!
est of the worker's minds, with this grouping action? When people come together
for group action, they can accomplish more than as individuals; and this is a
positive thing. Why try to misrepresent the reality that coming together in a
group is a positive thing, by using a grouping process that makes coming
together in a group, costly and sacrificial, where the worker looses and strands
a large chunk of their mind; -if we don't have to? And if we mus! t; then lets
use the power of the group to alleviate such a thing. Let us raise our children
to view coming together in a group for group action and group cooperation, as a
positive thing: by allowing the positives of joining together in a group, to
shine through. I've shown before that inanimate material wealth without life to
enjoy it or make it worthwhile; makes a very poor showing. Only materials PLUS
life give a winning combination. As we remove the materials from the majority of
people; this detracts from their life. As we !
give those materials to a few rich folks; there isn't enoug!
h life there (not enough people either) to make good use of all the lifeless
wealth. If we allow a system that keeps giving the material wealth of this world
to fewer and fewer, richer and richer people; then this makes quite a poor
showing, as those few rich people have too much material to enjoy it all or make
much good use of it. And all the rest of life is left barren and poor to
accomplish this accumulation of almost lifeless wealth left to carry on almost
by itself without much life there to make it worthwhile. The servant/master
system of transaction also contains this foolish arrangement of the resources
and life in each transaction. If you had a choice as to how to distribute the
wealth, how would you do it? A) By placing most of the lifeless wealth in one
pile, and most of the living human beings in another pile, and keep them
separate? or B) By placing the wealth and living humans together? Let me tell
you that neither lifeless wealth and equipment, nor humans witho!
ut equipment, produce well. But when you put them together, production jumps
markedly. So why do we want to be in reduced capability and stagnation, with our
present system of wealth distribution? Everything is interrelated. To make a
complete whole and keep us out of reduced capability; we need both living
components, and equipment and wealth. Also; we need to be doing work good
things; but not to the exclusion of other good things. WHY THERE IS A TEMPTATION
FOR BUSINESS TO POLLUTE OUR ENVIRONMENT: AND OTHER WOES OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
What can one person do? What can one person do when there are labs and
scientists and a whole system that could do so much more? Unfortunately, the
system of ours is flawed in one aspect. The flaw I speak of is in our free
enterprise system of supply and demand. Supply and demand serves us well in
distributing resources to where they are needed, to produce products that are in
demand. The flip side to this is that nothing can be super abundant!
  relative to other things in this system. If something is t!
oo abundant, supply will exceed demand, and its price will go down. Resources
used to produce this product will be directed elsewhere, where they can make
more money. This system encourages a negative motivation of creating shortages
where abundance existed before: If a commodity is abundant and bountiful, there
is no way to make a profit on it (too much supply means prices go down). But if
that resource can be destroyed through pollution or some other bad management,
then it can be reduced to a limited supply, whereby it can be (monopolized and)
sold for a profit. (Supply being reduced means prices, and profits, go up.) This
is what I mean by 'the negative motivator of creating markets where none existed
before'. There is the motivation to take things that were once abundant, and
partially destroy them so the supply is more limited, and money can then be made
on them. Our system will never achieve abundance because there will always be
the temptation to destroy some of that a!
bundance to make money. Since our system doesn't work when things become too
abundant and plentiful; this is why we have so many useless management positions
and bureaucracies (where people make life difficult for each other). If we all
worked on production lines, we'd produce too much and blow out our system with
too many plentiful supplies. Our economic system takes abundance and cuts it
down to a more limited supply (for a better profit). So instead of being at high
capability, our system brings us to mediocre capability. Thus our economic
system works to keep us and our world at reduced capability, in the trap of
evil. This sucks! Another negative motivator that our supply and demand system
creates, is it encourages unnecessary complexity over simplicity. In the
engineering of the products we use; these products are made overly complex. The
purpose of this complexity is to prevent all but the big company from easily
manufacturing them. If a product were too simply made, th!
en small companies producing the product could spring up al!
l over the place. This would mean a lot of unwanted competition, and also an
over supply of the product. An oversupply of the product (due to its simplicity
and ease of production) would drive the price down so that little money could be
made from the product. There is no motivation for industry to make simple
products that do the job just as well as the complex products. An example of the
preference of complexity over simplicity is: The water-sugar-salt oral
rehydration therapy that is a remedy discovered against infant diarrhea. This
remedy is simple, inexpensive, and effective; and has saved many lives in
developing countries where infant diarrhea is often life threatening. This
remedy was o! verlooked by the medical community and was only recently
discovered. There just isn't any money in such a simple remedy. An automobile
that is deliberately designed to be difficult to repair (so that the average
owner (or even mechanic) cannot repair it); means that they must take it t!
o a repair shop with specialized tools and expertise. This costs a lot of money.
Thus the expensive option of buying a new car is made more favorable, because
the alternative of repair is also made prohibitively expensive. There's no
motivation for industry to make products more simply. In fact there's a
motivation for them to make products unnecessarily complex. Such a system that
encourages this manufacture of complex devices whose manufacture is out of the
grasp of the individual or small group; creates a technological advantage
whereby a small number of government leaders can rule over the masses with a
technological iron hand. This favors dictatorship over democracy. If industry
isn't going to make uncomplicated products, then who will? The average citizen
spends their time producing in industry. Do not expect the individual, after a
long days work, to develop a simple technology. But let us be aware that there
is a simpler technology to be developed that has so far been !
untapped. This is what one person can do. If we were able t!
o place the manufacture of our essentials into the hands of the individual, by
designing small machines instead of the large centralized production we have
today, this would result in greater economic freedom. Many smaller machines vs
one big one may not be as efficient, but the freedom it would create so that the
individual wouldn't be so much at the mercy of the boss and the system, would be
worth it. This would give the greater bargaining power to the individual, as the
individual could then afford to turn down those menial low paying service sector
jobs, because they produced their living needs from their small machines.
ECONOMICS Sunshine, water and sometimes fish are commodities that can be
plentiful without human help. When they are abundant, no money can be made from
them because supply so greatly exceeds demand. Yet we all benefit greatly from
them (and for free too). But if someone ere to come in and destroy or pollute
these resources so there was a more limited supp!
ly, then money could be made selling the remaining supply./ We will never make
things abundant in our economic system, because the temptation is always to make
things less abundant so as to get rich. Supply and Demand supposedly helps us
distribute resources where they're needed. When there's a shortage of something,
people will pay more for it, and the price goes up. Those who produce the
product make more money doing so. Others see the opportunity to make good money
and join in the production. More product is produced, and the shortage is
alleviated. This is how supply and demand is proposed to work for our benefit.
But it doesn't always. There's a fault in supply and demand: If people don't
have enough money in their pockets for the (prices of) the products out there,
then supply and demand won't work (to alleviate shortages). The core idea was
that people can make more money when there is a shortage of a product
everybody's got to have. But higher prices for a product don'!
t necessarily mean more money will be made. If there's a la!
ck of money in people's pockets, they'll just be forced to buy less. It's not
that starving people don't want to buy food; it's just that if they have no
money, a demand for food won't show up in economic terms. Let's say businesses
raise their prices way above wages. Money will flow in because of the high
prices, but won't flow back out (into the spendable economy), because only low
wages are paid. With a large money inflow but no corresponding outflow; money
accumulates in these businesses and makes a few quite rich. But once most of the
money is taken from the spendable economy (by this process), high prices no
longer take in more money because there's no more money left to take in; and
people are just forced to buy less. If people buy less, that will neutralize the
effect of higher prices; and no more money will be made selling that product. If
there's no more money to be made, then there's no room for additional people to
come in and start producing that product. With no !
additional people making the product, the shortage, or economic slowdown,
remains. It's when businesses pay low wages to their workers but charge high
prices for what worker's produce so that the workers overall can't buy much of
what they produce. This practice in itself sets up the situation where people
don't have enough money in their pockets for the prices of the available
products. (if businesses pay low wages then they should charge low prices so
people can buy what they produce.) But when businesses overall charge much more
for their product than they pay their workers, then overall there will be a lot
left unsold after the workers buy what they can. The rich don't buy that much
-they invest instead. So there's a lot left unsold. With all this 'oversupply',
businesses cut production instead of lowering prices (in attempt to make more
profit). Now, workers overall receive less money due to layoffs and plant
closings. They buy even less product. Still more product is thu!
s left unsold. Production is cut again, meaning more layoff!
s and plant cl! osings. This keeps on until the company shrinks to almost
nothing. This is not a viable system. Note: in the situation where there are
always left-over-products and cutting back-on-production and plant closings;
there are never quite enough jobs to go around; which perpetuates the condition
of low wages and frantic competition for limited jobs. (These businesses have
'made it' for a few men, making them very rich, but the businesses no longer
supply the economic activity needed for the rest of us to survive.) The previous
is the reasoning Carl Marx used to criticize and reject capitalism and predict
its self destruction and imminent collapse. Marx's alternative system -(violent
overthrow of the govt, and dictatorship of the proletariat), didn't work so well
either. But Marx's prediction of the imminent collapse of capitalism has not
come true (except for the 30's), and will not come true, due to the factor of
competition. What is a viable system, but not a desi!
rable system out of this, is the spirit of competition. Since labor costs are
low, a business could afford to sell their product at low price. Thus some
businesses do this, and undercut the high priced businesses trying to get rich.
Since the products are sold at low prices, people can afford them with their low
wages; and economic activity thus increases (enough to provide survival for the
masses). And these low prices make our products competitive against foreign
imports. So with competition, capitalism can go on indefinitely; and it is a
viable system (just as good together with evil is viable). But if monopoly is
allowed to come in (from a period of high interest rates which eliminated the
variability-of-the business cycle), the system becomes non viable as prices go
way above wages. The process of removing money from the spendable economy (from
the average man), via high prices and low wages; creates a few rich men and
concentrates the wealth. Once there is little money l!
eft in the spendable economy, workers no longer have enough!
  money and they just buy less and do without; and continued high prices will no
longer make producers of products rich. And there's no more money left to be
made producing products, and shortages/slowdowns become the norm. The reason I
say competition under pure capitalism is undesirable, is because competition is
severely hampered and doesn't function well in this system. It is under the
control of the rich and is only used to prevent total collapse. When competition
comes in with low prices, in response to shrinking economic activity under high
prices; there's a lot of money out there in the hands of the rich. The rich (who
want to keep their position of dominance), use their money to easily thwart
low-price-competition, so that it's no real threat to them. -In the
means-of-production of producing an item, there are many things that must come
together to produce the item. And labor costs aren't the only costs. All the
rich have to do is pick one thing (except labor) that is !
at a focal point of a production; and buy it out and shut down its supply. Doing
so, they can sabotage low price production of the item. The rich can manipulate
things to be in short supply or plentiful; and al! l they need do is buy out a
few central means-of-production to put a monkey wrench in low price competition,
by charging outrageously high prices for these key focal, central items. (They
would never buy out labor and put labor in short supply because that would mean
higher wages.) With competition under control, the rich can maintain their
position of power, with controlled competition providing the vehicle keeping the
system running indefinitely. Total economic collapse is avoided, and the
majority of us exist with our knees bowed to the rich to be their servants ad
infinitum. This system is a bad system because nearly everybody lives meager
reduced capability lives (in the trap of evil) with low wages and fierce
competition, brown nosing, etc, for limited jobs. Free!
dom is gone. People are only allowed enough products to bar!
ely get by, even when a product is easily produced and is abundant. (Note that
many service sector jobs don't have many key-focal-items in their production,
and mainly depend on manpower or labor alone. Low price competition will win out
here, and all involved in these businesses1 will be subservient to the
businesses2 having key-focal-items, to the extent they1 depend on what the
businesses with key focal items produce.) A better alternative, (if people don't
have enough money in their pockets, because of the high prices/low wages of
business); is to give money to the average person. Government can print up money
and distribute it to them; or tax the rich and give it to them. This will put
money in people's pockets even if businesses charge high prices and pay low
wages. Inflation will surely result (that is with the print up money action).
This will devalue the rich's money so they won't so easily control competition.
(This won't help our trade deficit as foreign goods look !
cheap though, but this can be handled with a creative trade policy. What is more
important? -Your freedom and everyone enjoying a higher standard of living; or
some numbers game about economic measurements?) Government is one of the few
ways money can be returned from the rich back to the common man, so that the
rich do not suck all the money out of the spendable economy and leave it
completely dry; or so that competition is more of a force in our system. (The
idea of the rich returning money back into the spendable economy through
investment: is invalid.) Instead, our government collects taxes from the common
man with tax breaks for the rich, and gives this money to the rich through
interest on the national debt; which just speeds the process of sucking the
spendable economy dry. (High interest rates also remove money to the rich.)
Instead of receiving govt. money, welfare 'bums' must now work for their living.
Now they produce products, which contributes even more to the ove!
rsupply of unsold products, speeding layoffs and plant clos!
ings. Worst of all, we loose their govt. income which they would have surely
spent into the spendable economy. Without this source of income, the spendable
economy is drained faster. (Now their income must come out of the spendable
economy instead of from the govt. which can tax the rich.) And when the
spendable economy is dry, people have no money and can't buy; and economic
activity grinds to a halt in recession and depression. And the rich's money is
so powerful, that low price competition does not become much of a factor to
restart the economy or produce enough economic activity to get us out of reduced
capability living. You people have cut off those on welfare so the rich can have
their position of power. I want to step out for a second and note that our
economy is (was) doing real well. That's because Clinton taxed the rich. But
when he cut the welfare, that's going to reverse the process, as it essentially
is a tax on the poor. But it won't take effect until after he's!
  out of office. I want to step out again, and say that all of this economics
discussion is superseded by the retirement of the baby boomers and the aging of
America. As Americans get older and retire, there will be a shortage of workers
to do the work needed to supply the economic demands of these non working
retirees. Every able bodied person will be needed to work. And there'll be no
problem finding a job. (Thus doing away with welfare was needed since America
can no longer afford to let people sit idle.) But after the baby-boomers die,
these recession factors I speak of will return, and with no safety net in place.
But for now, the presence of all these retirees consuming goods and services,
but not working; makes the workers who do work, a valuable commodity, and able
to make demands and not be pushed around by employers. Those in power, in
business, may be unwilling to put up with that. They may want our govt. to
provoke the Arabs into bringing biological weapons to the U!
S to wee! d out the older folk. Starting a war and sending !
people to be killed won't work for the population reduction desired here, as
that kills off only the young, as the old aren't drafted into war. Back to the
discussion: Welfare is needed to put money into the common man's pockets so as
to cause some economic activity. But since our wicked leaders insist on
borrowing from the rich (and paying respect to the rich) to finance this
welfare/medical care/nursing home care; the situation continues to worsen as
interest payments balloon and drain the economy at an ever faster rate. No, we
either have to tax the rich, or print money and spend it (thus eroding the
buying power of the rich), to finance our govt. That big Reagan defense buildup
and tax cuts to the rich that gave us a huge national debt weren't caused by
welfare bums sapping our economy. And the money paid for that defense buildup
(that has to have interest paid to the rich); went to the rich defense
contractors. (And the money for expensive medical care goes mainly to rich!
  hospital and nursing home and insurance company owners.) But the recession it
may create and the following increased dependence on wel! fare, will continue
the downward cycle if the leaders continue to borrow from the rich. So don't
blame it on those on welfare. I won't hear it. (Do you really think our country
is so weak it is unable to feed, cloth, house the poor; and that these folks are
putting a real burden on our economy? Remember that most of us don't work on a
farm or building houses or in clothing factories or power plants (to produce our
essentials that is); and that our farmers grow such a surplus the govt. has to
pay them to stop growing. Even though we work at a job, only a small percentage
have to work to supply the essentials for all the rest of us. The work the rest
of us do is above and beyond; it's cream. We already deny the welfare folks the
cream. Must we also deny them essentials? Do you really think making the welfare
folks work will solve this country's!
  problems? Do you really think we'll depend on what they'll!
  produce to save us from starvation or economic collapse? (Well we ! need
someone to do the dirty work.) Won't they compete for already scarce jobs? Do
you think it's OK to force welfare people to work (at low paying hard menial
tasks)? If so, what's the difference between you and a stick up man who
threatens your life if you don't do what he says? A young boy may entertain
himself by torturing a frog or cat; but does this really do him any good?) No,
vote out those rich country club politicians. Otherwise you can fight with me
over the last scrap of meat in the bowl, where neither one cares anymore what
the other thinks: -just what happens to that last piece of meat. High interest
rates (paid on the money the rich invest) are a means by which the rich do 'tax'
the rest of us, and take away what we produce, for themselves. When high
interest rates are in place, obviously, the rich get more (than at low interest
rates), as the businessmen pay the rich INTEREST for borrowing the!
ir money. (If you have a credit card, then you also as a small businessman or
laborer, are supporting the rich.) But there's more than just this initial
payment to the rich; that effects even those who have no debt at all. Note that
when you borrow money, you have to pay more back than you borrowed in the end
(that's the interest). When they borrowed the money, they spent it into the
buy/sell economy. But now they not only must return the money they borrowed, but
also the additional money (the interest). This money has nowhere else to come
from but the buy/sell economy. (What other way does the honest businessman have
to acquire money but to sell their wares?) More money must come out of the
buy/sell economy than was put in by the borrower (to pay the interest). But
where will this extra money come from? The rich do not spend but save and invest
most of their money. There's not enough money in the buy/sell economy for
everyone to pay back what they borrowed with interest, when!
  all the money in the buy/sell economy was put there by peo!
ple borrowing from the rich and spending it into the economy. (The rich don't
spend much of their money but instead save and invest it so others can spend it
for a price.) Investment by the rich, at first, puts money into the buy/sell
economy: But in the long run, this investment not only recalls (to the rich) all
the money it put in, but also much additional money (the interest). So that over
the long run, investment actually sucks money out of the economy to the rich,
who don't spend it but just keep investing it (both of which that is 'don't
spend', and also 'investing' both of which, keep the rich's money from the
buy/sell economy). Now then. Now, if one were to kill a rich family, then their
money would revert to the government, who love to spend money. But this is a sad
and evil way to run an economy. (Just ask A. Hitler.) -There's got to be a
better way to make an economy run. May I suggest that taxing the rich instead of
killing them, is so much more humane. These high!
  interest rates remove money from the buy/sell economy. With less money
available (in the buy/sell economy), the businessmen are forced to sell their
goods for less, because there's less money available. (This puts a stop to
inflation where businessmen and labor keep raising their prices.) So when people
and businesses have a lot of debt, and interest rates are high; there won't be
enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to pay back their debt plus
interest. This results in businesses cutting back and going bankrupt; in other
words, recession and even depression. In this atmosphere (of not enough money
available in the economy); it is the rich who get the profits from the
businessman's hard work. The rich own the material wealth of this world via the
situation where they have nearly all the money and a lot of money, and the price
of everything is low. -When they spend a small fraction of their money, they
just get it back from the high interest on the larger fraction!
  that they invest. The rich can come to own everything thro!
ugh spending a small fraction of their income, while investing the larger
fraction of their money in investments. -The interest paid to them more than
replaces what they spend, and removes money from the buy/sell economy thus!
keeping prices low. By owning everything, as in a depression, they deny others
access to things, even things they need to live, thus making the lives of others
miserable. In a depression, people are forced to accept the high interest rates,
because they're in desperate need and must borrow to live. High interest rates
are thus in place for good. (Just as the smaller businessman (the laborer) has
their production taken from them by their bosses; the larger businessmen have
that production taken from them by the rich. And ownership trickles up to the
rich.) In a world where only a few can make it rich (because there isn't enough
money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to even get by); the process of the
rest of us competing for that limited reward, make!
s life hell for the rest of us. Large businessmen exploit workers to get ahead
of other businesses. Workers backstab each other to get ahead: all seeking to be
the few ones who are rich. Wouldn't it be better if we all shared in the wealth?
Then tiny Tim could get that operation he needs. Which system would you choose
if you had a choice? The 'present' system is run by the rich who use high
interest rates (well, high interest rates were in the past), to take most
everything away from the rest of us. The government sets the interest rates
through its monetary policy and its central banks. We don't even elect those
federal reserve board officers who have so much power over our economy. (I
understand now that the president appoints them; I'm not sure whether the senate
gets an approval vote.) In today's politics, you have to be very rich to get
elected to government high office. So, the government is run by the rich. Do you
really expect them to do right by the poor or the common!
  man? If I were a Democrat running for political office: I !
wouldn't have much to do with raising taxes (except on the rich. I would raise
taxes there.). Instead, I would concentrate on monetary policy with low interest
rates, combined with a less open foreign trade policy and COLA's for those on
fixed income. As for those large deficits and the national debt: the government
can just print money and borrow from itself. -No need to pay out interest on the
national debt to the rich. Inflation would surely result. But it wouldn't be
harmful except to the rich), and it wouldn't take away jobs. An even better way
than just printing money, would be a two money system. Here every individual
would be allowed to convert annually say, 50 thousand green dollars into 'red'
dollars. Government would collect taxes in both red and green dollars, but would
only be allowed to spend in green dollars. Government spending would devalue the
green dollar, but would leave the red dollar (the cur! rency of the common
individual) unaffected. Thus congress woul!
dn't have to borrow from the rich to limit its spending, and would have
unlimited budget, but would have to put up with its own inflation/devaluation
from overspending, without it bothering the common individual. We'd all become
more 'rich' instead of just a few. We'd all have a higher standard of living.
And I really don't think you can feel right about enjoying a higher standard of
living unless everyone else is sharing in it too. So vote these rich guys out.
Oh, don't feel sorry for the rich loosing out to inflation. All they have to do
is invest in the stock market or own their own business to hedge against
inflation, when interest rates are low. For the sake of argument: try out a
system that doesn't allow private sector jobs. This system would allow private
property and free enterprise buying and selling. But if laborers could not be
owned (9 to 5), then it would be almost impossible for any rich-tycoon-wanna-be
to own hundreds of times greater wealth than their neighbor!
, -(without being able to usurp for themselves, what the po!
wer of the group working together, produces). People would be forced to
cooperate more with one another, instead of overpowering one another. Be
realistic: It's believable that one person may work harder than another; but not
10 times harder. Why then are some paid (or receive from investments) 10 times
the wage of others: and the people who work hardest get paid the least (making
it bad in all ways). This plan however, would cause resentment from government
meddling. The power of the group would be threatened because businesses would
refuse to exist under such a deal where they don't have the upper hand.
(Business itself would go on strike.) A better way to do this, would be by the
already proposed free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is proposed
to work via the spirit of competition. If you don't like the deal one company
gives you, then you can go to their competitor. But the competition in our
present system doesn't seem to be working in the job world. Employ!
ers don't compete for limited workers. Workers compete for limited jobs. (Well,
this was in the past before the boomers begin to retire.) Only a small fraction
of our total work force is needed to provide everyone's essentials. We (as a
society) have succeeded so well at producing our essentials that we workers are
no longer needed so much. But even though we produce our essentials so easily
and food sits abundantly in warehouses; most of us as workers are denied our
essentials by our system unless we work our butts off, under these artificial
conditions. Because our essentials are threatened, because of the unequal
bargaining position our system sets most of us up at. Then some are just used as
examples to scare the rest of us into submission so we'll do the bidding of the
boss without question. If government encourages the creation of many businesses,
then there will be enough competition. Running a business takes the skills of
many people. What a better place to find such t!
alent than at our colleges. Instead of all those graduates !
trying to find those nonexistent high paying jobs in industry (that are being
eliminated by down sizing and replaced with low paying service jobs); they could
form groups together and become their own business right in college, and with
government sponsorship to get them started, many new businesses could be created
with the help of government; if government were to provide this option and
alternative to getting a job in established business. This would provide enough
competition to keep prices low, thus returning control to the common man and
away from the few rich. If you think of starting your own business; why do it
alone? At a job in somebody else's business, you don't work alone. So in your
own business, also get together in groups and share the ownership and the work.
Note: in your own business, you only have to make enough to pay you and your
fellow workers: compared to working for a company, where a worker must make
enough to pay themself, the supervisor, management, !
and the owner or stockholders. This makes one's own business very competitive.//
You may have heard that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Well, I agree.
When we're forced to obtain a certain quota of food on a regular basis else we
die; we're certainly not free; but are enslaved to that essential. Our condition
is that of bondage, not freedom! With our Nonessentials, we can go without them
and grow into them at our leisure without dying from not having them. But we're
forced to produce a certain quota (a baseline) of food, shelter, heat/cooling;
otherwise we die. Unscrupulous people can then use this fact to create a system
whereby we are denied access to these essentials unless we become their slave
and do what they say. They thus have control over us. Gravity forces us to stick
to this earth. So that we have to have a place to stay on the earth. We have a
system that denies people to be on the earth in places that don't belong to them
(such as other people's property).!
  Because of this, we must be a slave and work to make enoug!
h money to pay for the privilege of having a place to stick on this earth
(housing costs). Now, If we live in a society that hasn't solved the problem of
making essentials; then here, everyone should work if they want to eat. (And if
we pollute most of the water, we can charge to drink what's left.) But if we
live in a society that can easily produce their essentials, then to deny people
essentials when the society has plenty, is just a means of control to control
them and be their master. In our society, we have the technology to produce our
essentials well. The amount of work for a person to produce their essentials in
our technologically advanced society would only be a few hours a day. So the
requirement to work in exchange for welfare (a person's essentials) should only
be a few hours a day. More than this, is exploitation. This is why I make a
distinction between essentials vs non essentials. It would be nice for
individuals to have the choice to be able to work to produ!
ce only their essentials, or if they wanted more, to work a little harder for
some non essential recreational things. But although a person may work two jobs
just to have their essentials with no frills; their work is used to produce not
only essentials, but a lot of non-essential/recreational things -not for them,
but for a bunch of other, rich folks. It would be nice if a person didn't have
to do all the extra work to supply the rich folk's recreation, but instead, had
a choice to do the extra work in exchange for a cut of the extra stuff (above a
person's essentials). How can a society seriously condemn thugs and robbers
which use coercion and threats to life to get their way, while the societal
system, practices it wholesale? -(If you deny someone their essentials unless
they do what you say (the dirty work); you are threatening their life you know:
because without their essentials, people die. Duh!) A bunch of hypocrites if you
ask me. (Oh sure, a government may impose it!
s laws upon its people, but if they have no basis in truth,!
  and the population sees this, then the laws will not have the support of the
people -an important foundation for maintaining the laws over time.) On an
unrelated note, let me point out that communism is a sham. Lenin promised that
the land and wealth would be taken from the wealthy landowners and be given to
the common worker. Well, Lenin took the land and wealth away from the few
wealthy landowners all right, but he never gave that land and wealth to the
common worker; but instead kept it for his few crony communist leaders. All he
did was replace one set of royalty with another. I mean, what difference did it
make to have a wealthy landowner hire workers at a pittance to work on the land
where the workers did according to what the landowner wanted; or to have
communist leadership dictate how the land was to be worked? In neither case did
the common worker 'own' or have any say over the land and how things were done
with it. Lenin didn't make good on his promise to distribut!
e the wealth to the common worker, but instead just replaced one boss with
another. Communism hasn't made good on its appeal to redistr! ibute wealth. ›On
another unrelated note, let me explore some concepts. Slavery of old, is the
ownership of people. Then there is the concept of owning part of people (as from
9-5), or certain aspects of people. In communism, property can be owned, but one
is not allowed to buy and sell in it, at least not in a free market. Our concept
of marriage is a combination of partial slavery and communism. The spouses 'own'
each other in this aspect (He's my man and nobody but I can have him. She's my
woman, and you better not look at her.) And the ownership of this aspect is not
allowed to be bought or sold.› So much of what goes on seems like a gimmick
-detached from the reality of what needs to be done. From the pyramid schemes to
get rich quick, and Amway, and chain letters (including this one), to all the
fluffy management positions and benefits !
of ownership and lending money and the stock and commoditie!
s markets; and then there's all the religious cults absorbing member's life
savings; and payments for religious activities. While on the other hand there is
the reality of life whereby a few of us (who are left out of the easy positions)
have to do the actual hard work of producing and providing all the goods and
services we consume. Now if we all bore the burden evenly, it wouldn't be so
bad. So you're one of the people that does the hard work who thinks they are one
of the few connected to reality, that without you, all the rest would collapse.
Actually, the hard work that you're forced to do, is not reality. it's a result
of everybody else shirking. The demand the! y make that you work so hard, is
unrealistic. It's not the way it should be, or needs to be to get us by. No one
should be coerced to work so hard. What I say, is, let it collapse. And then
we'll all have to share the burden evenly (plus the savings from eliminating the
busywork needed to maintain each person's g!
immick, will be enormous). Of course with nobody doing the work, the system will
collapse. But that's what we want. -Then all will be forced to do a little real
work -SO THAT NOBODY WILL BE FORCED TO WORK HARD. Note that: who decides how
hard you are to work? It is what the system, and businessmen (or the
government), decide. And that's not necessarily based on reality or what needs
to be done to live sensibly. Economic systems, businessmen, and communist
governments, often 'get it wrong' and screw up. These economic systems should be
"collapsed" more often. The Federal reserve chairman; the leaders of the
international monetary fund; and all the big CEO's and major stockholders are
not directly or with some, even remotely elected by the people. Their systems
should be collapsed more often. So, please help colapse this unrealistic
economic system based on shoving the hard work onto a few; in favor or one where
the hard work is shared evenly: -in a more peaceful, less violent w!
ay. You may see less service but: The alternative is violen!
ce. -As the hard work gets shoved onto fewer and fewer; the conditions become
worse, thus motivating the few left, to get away: and if not allowed to get away
-to fight back. With the welfare gimmick gone, we now continue where we left off
with the riots of the 60s. It would be nice if jobs were opened up so one had a
'share/trade' option -of working a short time producing a product they wanted,
where they received a fraction of the product they produced: and could then quit
when they had enough. This way, the poor wouldn't be cut out of our economic
system, as to deciding what is produced. HOW WOMEN HAVE GOTTEN THE SHORT END OF
THE STICK FROM HISTORY. Life poses a whole new dimension compared to the
inanimate. But life on earth isn't the best. Along with life on earth, is death.
Without anything to compensate for the transient nature of life; life would soon
vanish from earth. But not to worry; we have birth: Life on earth reproduces
itself and creates new life. (This replace!
s what death takes away.) In more developed animals, the initiation of this
reproduction, takes the form of sex. (It is important then for higher animals on
earth to have sex, so as to carry on their species and DNA. Animals on earth
that don't have a need for sex, eventually all die off with no replacements;
thus leaving only animals who do have sex. ›No Religion, can totally eliminate
sex; as a religion that successfully eliminated sex, would die off with its
people, on earth -where animals do not live forever (oops: cloning now makes
this possible). So when religion allows you sex in marriage in the bonds of holy
matrimony; they aren't necessarily being generous: they're forced to allow this
for their own continuation and survival.› If someone told me that sex had little
effect on them (that they disliked sex); I'd be skeptical. It is our genetic
makeup that determines a lot of what we are. It is our DNA that makes a mother's
next baby a human, and not a space blob or apple!
  tree. In a human's development in the womb, there's even D!
NA coding for a person's reproductive system. And even DNA that codes for the
enervation of the reproductive system with the pleasure centers of the brain.
›It's hard to say what form our pleasure would take if life weren't forced by
the need to reproduce; but this is irrelevant, because life on earth is forced
to reproduce (or vanish): and our pleasure is tied to the task of reproduction.›
If there are any genetic or environmental (ex, family environment) factors
passed from generation to generation; concerning the like or dislike of sex,
then those factors coding for liking sex will be passed on, because sex leads to
babies and a new generation. But those factors for disliking sex won't be passed
on because a person who dislikes sex avoids having sex, and doesn't pass those
genes or lifestyle on. Thus from generation to generation over history, there is
a genetic bias for the liking of sex to be amplified. With each passing
generation, this bias continues. The temporary disa!
bling nature of human childbirth has had its effect on women over history. Some
of us are ambitious and competitive and some of us aren't. Those men and women
who were ambitious, fought to make themselves master, throughout history. Each
time an ambitious woman became pregnant, she was disabled for at least 3 months.
The loss of 3 months may not seem like much, but over time/history, and over a
whole population, it adds up. And then every month there is the period. In the
old days before pads, this would take attention away from ones effort to better
oneself. These factors over time, enabled ambitious men to get ahead of
ambitious women, thus creating a male dominated society. And to the victor goes
the spoils. The male, being master, set the work of raising the children solely
upon the female. The fact that it is the mother who delivers the milk, and baby,
also helped bring this about. With the woman busy taking care of the kids, this
enabled! men to further advance in leader!
hood mastership and control over the resources needed to li!
ve and survive. (Even today, the 'mommy track' is a slower track.) In the area
of reproduction; male control over all resources, translated into men having a
choice but women not having a choice. In the past, a woman had no choice about
whether to marry and raise a family. It was her only way to survival. The man
had the money and the job, and the choice whether to marry or not. If a man
didn't like sex or was indifferent about sex, he was not forced to marry, and
wasn't denied access to the resources of survival. Thus the dislike or
indifference toward sex was weeded out (not passed on) in men. But whether a
woman was indifferent toward sex, or not, it made no difference; as she was
expected to marry and have a family to survive. Her survival was tied to this.
Thus a woman did not have a choice, and the indifference to sex, instead of
dropping out, was passed on, as indifferent women were forced to marry, have
sex, and bear children; to survive. Men and women have a slightly !
different genetic makeup. Men have that different Y chromosome that makes them
men while women have another copy of the X. And obviously, some different genes
are turned on to create a male, than a female. Because of the difference in the
genetics, it's possible for men to have genes coding for a like of sex, while
this not being as well expressed in women. -It is possible to have somewhat
different responses to sex, reflecting many generations of men having choice and
women not. Thus it can be said men constantly have sex on the brain while women
can be passive to it. Being slaves to sex, is the price men pay for having been
boss and running things for generations. As an aside note learned from class:
'Concerning the mating position: Female animals don't have much choice when they
get it from behind. Humans are the only ones who mate face to face; and thus the
greater ability for choice in the human female compared to animals'. Now that
we've come a long way with women's lib,!
  and women are no longer forced to marry to have a decent l!
ife, so much. Women now have more choice. If this keeps up over a number of
generations, women will like sex just as much as the men do. Just ask some of
the younger women. Birth control is another way women can have choice over their
destinies. Women who are indifferent about sex and/or don't want the bother of
raising kids; can use birth control to obtain these goals; thus not passing
these traits on, (genetically or in a family structure). If we experience
women's liberation and equality of men and women over generations; women will
come to like sex just as much as the men do. So here's a real good reason for
human males to support equal rights for women. MORE ON THE SOURCES OF SEXUAL
DESIRE: AND RELATED ISSUES. Because we all die eventually, and our women can no
longer have offspring after menopause; those who lack reproductive desire will
not pass these (their) genes on, including the genes influencing sexual desire.
Yes, to have offspring and pass genes on, it's benefici!
al for two people to get together, get along, cooperate and help each other
(raise a family). If people were all nice and friendly (everyone loved each
other); then any pair could get together and raise a family. But when things
aren't so rosy; where the trap of evil causes us to do necessary cruelties to
each other; we could still carry on. With the help of sexual desire, people who
don't cooperate well or get along well, can get together for a moment; continue
the species; and this system of reduced capability. When survival time is short
in a harsh environment, sexual desire can cause a species to reproduce enough
offspring to make up for those killed off. Rabbits (bunnies) and mice, which
have a lot o! f predatory pressure, are highly fecund to make up for these
losses. So sexual desire is a crutch that systems of low capability and
togetherness of good and evil depend on to survive. (It's not that heightened
sexual desires wouldn't exist in systems of freedom from evil; i!
t's just there'd also be equally heightened desires, and do!
ing, of every other good thing. The reproduction of life, (which is part of
growth and the force of good), wouldn't be forced by a need to keep up with what
death took away. Earthworms are hermaphroditic; which means an individual has
both male and female reproductive organs. However, evolution has found it
advantageous for organisms to specialize. In most higher animals, an individual
is either male or female. One group of the 'society' (the females) works on
reproduction; while the other group (the males) works on the other tasks of
survival. Specialization is another crutch used to survive the trap of evil of
reduced capability. Note that traditional evolution / survival of the fittest
mentality, operates at low, reduced capabilities, in the trap of evil. There is
an alternative of high capability free from evil, where the "laws" of evolution
don't apply. -Failure to help all things, even those not as fit, results in
incompatible interrelated needs-and-supplies unto reduced!
  capability. If we helped all things we might escape reduced capability to where
these evolutionary laws don't apply. -The advancement that
survival-of-the-fittest makes against one hardship, (in breeding better animals
to cope with the hardship); is lost when the selection factor changes with time.
When a new hardship comes along, and when the hardships keep changing over much
time; the solutions for the previous hardships found by evolution are lost,
because they're no longer selected for, while some other factor is. So when a
hardship comes back a second time, after a few thousand years, no genes are left
from the first time, and the problems have to be solved all over again. Thus
time, in focusing on hardships and constantly changing its focus on hardships,
wipes out the gains made by evolution, which is thus a reduced-capability
phenomenon. (Survival of the fittest indicates that there is destruction and
death, (and thus togetherness with the force of destruction/evil), a!
s the weak (and young) are weeded out and killed off. This !
assumes togetherness with evil to kill off the weak.) ! Thus the phenomenon of
evolution never leads us out of reduced capability. (Togetherness with death and
destruction IS reduced capability.) To solve all the problems, we need all the
solutions simultaneously in our genes. And the evolution phenomenon doesn't help
to get us there (out of reduced capability) very well. When at high capability,
specialization gives way to versatility; where we still do what we once
specialized in: just that we do so along with everything else. The visual
attraction to a man(1), and to a woman(2), both in our genes, is part of this
sexual reproduction. If you are a man, #2 got turned on; if a woman, #1 got
turned on, in your fetal development. But nature isn't always perfect. Sometimes
#1 or #2 gets turned on when it should be the other. The Bible condemns
homosexuality, but then it condemns all sexual desire (bit by bit).
Nevertheless, we are all of the human generation, beset with sexual de!
sire in one form or another: and although homosexuality is an imperfection in
nature's design, all sexual desire is an imperfection in God's design that we
all must deal with before we join God. Thus homosexuality is an imperfection of
an imperfection. Not quite so bad after all. In my 'coming out', Alas, I would
have to "come out" as a heterosexual. Chapter 8 Our essentials; sex; and
religion. The question comes to mind "Is there a God or not?" But whether there
exists a fogoHC or not, the choice is clear to believe in and worship the
fogoHC, in either case. If there isn't a fogoHC, we still worship and seek
togetherness with the fogoHC because: 1) It releases resources within us through
our own faith and allows us to do what we can in this bleak situation. 2)
Because when a fogoHC is created at a later date, They will be interested in
resurrecting those who were interested in joining with Them. On the other hand:
if there is a God and He has provided a way for us to escape s!
uffering and reduced capability; it makes no sense to wallo!
w around in it and try to get out in our own strength. If we know the way to get
in touch with God, we should do so so we don't suffer this reduced capability.
There are some things the fogoHC doesn't do. And there are many areas the fogoHC
does get into. If you avoid retaliating with evil, against evil attacks upon
you; and instead get into surrounding God supported areas: If you do what 'God'
wants, but it doesn't work out (›if no Godly parts are generated when
destruction destroys a part of you›) -(if you're not sure of the existence of
God); then you must cover the possibility that there is no God, and do all you
can, including necessary evils to escape the stagnation and disrupt the balance
of their stagnant system. But still note that doing necessary evils and standing
and fighting is only part of our solution to evil attacks, even in a world
without God. There is also the action of escaping and getting away from the evil
attack. Since this does no destruction, it (might!
  have been) suitable in both a world without God and in a world with God.
Whereas the action of fighting works in a world without God; but must be dropped
in a world with a God who believes in loving your enemies. First try to get in
touch with God to rescue you; and if that fails, then go ahead and include
fighting and counter attacks. But don't relish it, and don't spend a lot of time
with it. Even in a world without God: God will likely be created in the future;
and this can still be accomplished by people who only use escape; although it
may take a bit longer than from people who use both escape and fighting. But it
will still happen. And when a God of love resurrects us all, he won't be wanting
to get together with those of us who do a lot of fighting and destruction; until
that destruction is cast away. So don't invest a lot of your life in plotting
and planning in this destructive area, as you will loose it, and will have to
loose it in your life with God. In much of re!
ligion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desire!
s. 1 John 3, 9-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God*. In this the
children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (loving the
brethren almost a secondary consideration: thus righteousness may involve more
than loving your brother; or John may just be mirroring righteousness alongside
love to define it better, and/or apply it to the sexual area). *(But note the
connection between 'BORN of God', and, 'His seed remaineth in him', for a
different and better interpretation. Yet perhaps both interpretations are valid
and were intended. Or perhaps not.)/ (And when you're married to someone, you
become one flesh, so the man's seed still remains in him so to speak. ›You are
not forced to grow to join a new partner (done sexually), but once you do, you
must love them in all ways, not just sexually›.)!
  My word processor thesaurus defines righteousness as morality, probity,
rectitude, and virtuousness. And virtuousness it defines as the condition of
being chaste, or chastity. For chaste it defines as morally beyond reproach,
especially in sexual conduct. Note the similarity in spelling between the word
rectitude and rectum. Also note the similarity in spelling between probity and
probe; as in a stiffened, erect probe. And what is more clear than "his seed
remaineth in him", in reference to not sinning. Of course, the verse can be
interpreted to mean God's seed remains in the person born of god, and this is
what I prefer, but it also can be interpreted the other way (or both ways). Its
just all the other references against sex, that have a cumulative effect leading
me to believe the religious significance placed on 'keeping your seed in you',
and 'keeping yourself'. In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex
and sexual desires. Why? What's wrong with sex? What doe!
s it hurt? Well, just think of it. It is a method of commun!
ication, to communicate a lifestyle that God wants. Everyone is touched by
sexual desires. Thus it is a common element that we can use to easily
communicate a certain lifestyle to everyone. And what lifestyle? Well, sexual
desire can be quite intense and quite compelling and overwhelming. The drive to
reproduce the species is one not easily set aside; seeing that those who are
successful, and who die off, don't pass those "successful" genes on. A more
easily explained situation, is that of the drug addict. The pleasure is so
intense and overwhelming, that they're desperate and would do anything to get
their next fix: -lie, steal, rob, mug, etc. When the urge to get something is so
strong and overwhelming (as it is with sex or drugs), that a person would do
anything to obtain these growths: they would do "necessary" destructions (evils)
to obtain these things. If we include and allow harm in our ways, we can obtain
things quicker and easier. The lifestyle being communicated, is!
  to abstain from using harm in our ways, even if it means doing without the
growth (until we are ready for the growth -are able to obtain the growth without
harm in our ways). -Of course, if harm occurs whichever way we go, then this
doesn't matter, and can be disregarded. (The word SIN itself can be seen as an
abbreviation for "its in", as in the pole "is in" the hole.) 1 John 2, 16-17:
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye,
and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world
passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth
for ever." The statement that the lust of the flesh and eye, is of the world, is
true. Sexual desire it is logical, comes from many generations dying and only
those genes coding for greater sexual desire being passed on. (And death isn't
God's idea.) It's a result of death and the reduced capability stagnation of our
world, where most everyone eventually dies. !
But doing God's will is the tricky part. If you vacate your!
  will out of most of an area, so God can do what He wills with it, then God's
will has been done in this large area from you that was vacated; (and if it
wasn't, you are not to blame for this large vacated area, as it now belongs to
God). Of course, when you get to the point where you know exactly what God's
will is, and are up to doing it, and YOU do it; that too is acceptable. Over
many generations of humans being subjected to death and the necessity to
reproduce to replace what death took away; has had its effect on us; in that our
genes code for the liking of sex, or sexual desire. How does our body draw us
toward sex? Well, presumably, our body could deny us its normal function, and
irritate us until sexual release is achieved. In other words, without sexual
release, our body puts itself into reduced capability (in failing to deliver
needed brain chemicals). I hear that female ferrets die if they are not able to
mate. This sucks. Reduced capability is what we're trying to!
  avoid and escape from in the first place. The reduced capability of us/our
bodies doing necessary evils in sexual release; and the reduced capability our
bodies put us in when we abstain from sexual release; are both what I suggest we
try to avoid. Abstinence is no answer in my book. Religion (our religious
tradition) could be fatal, if you happen to be a female ferret. We, by
ourselves, are in reduced capability, the trap of evil. To holler at us and
expect us to get out of reduced capability is frustrating, because we're mostly
unable to do it in our own strength. (Only 1 in 7 billion will escape, to
eventually create the fogoHC.) (Why do you think I call it the TRAP of evil?)
No, we need HELP to get out on a regular basis. Help from God. Help from Jesus
Christ. When I live in reduced capability / the trap of evil, all I can do, is
stagnation. In stagnation, there's no growth and life isn't much different from
the inanimate and the dead. To me, this reduced capability and s!
tagnation is eternal death. So, if a religion gives me a ch!
oice between eternal death and eternal death, I will choose the path that has
the best chance of getting out of this reduced capability trap of evil and
almost certain eternal death. We are who we are. We didn't ask to be part of a
world where death is a fact of life. But that's our situation. Because we are
human; our affection and love are warped by sexual desire. Reproduction itself
represents growth (of life), and is a valid and good activity in itself. Things
would be different and we'd be different if our pleasure wasn't tied to the task
of reproduction to make up for what death took away. But this is who we are.
This isn't our fogoHC representation, but is 'our' representation. The fogoHC
will have to free us from the evils of our essentials otherwise our obtaining
freedom will be quite a long shot. And until we outgrow sexual desire and
replace it with something better; we'll be at the sexual desire stage. Everybody
is effected by sex. Sex is a quasi essential. If you !
don't have food, your body consumes (destroys) itself, and you die. If you don't
have sex, you may not die (unless you're a female ferret), but your life sure is
irritated. When a quota of growth is required, as it is for essentials; it
indicates some force of destruction is at work and is present. Since a quota of
sexual release is needed to return our normal functions, destruction is at work
in our body when it denies us our normal functions when we don't get enough
sexual release. In this case, it's all a matter of brain chemicals. (Sex is a
drug) But even before generations of life and death wrapped pleasure upon
pleasure around the act of reproduction; the act of reproduction was a bona fide
act, which represented growth. Growth of life is an important thing, and growth
needs to be done free from evil to be our alternative of good only. Even God
found it convenient to reproduce, as he had a Son ! (Jesus Christ). In a world
without death, the act of reproduction wouldn't b!
e so compelling with so much grunt pleasure as it is here; !
but it still would be a good thing. As I have explained before: everything is
interrelated with everything else. That's why I insisted upon equal increase of
all good things. You see, each thing has needs for all the other things (in
varying degrees); and it also supplies itself to all the other things to fill
their need for it. Now if all things are of the right size in relation to each
other; their needs are satisfied. BUT if things get out of balance and one thing
becomes much larger than the others; then this large thing has great needs for
everything else that can't be supplied; plus it produces too much of itself that
the other things just don't need that much of. (There's little or nothing else
out there that needs this large production of this thing.) (So, if there's
little else out there to need all the sex being produced, then there's no need
to do more sex. No, its time to get out and do all the other things out there
with the empowering brain chemicals that sex pro!
duced. There's many other things in addition to sex.) The most strict religion
picks out this one thing (sex), and says you loose your salvation if you have it
(If you spill your seed). (1st John can be interpreted that way). This religion
thus focuses all attention to sex. There are a whole bunch of other things
besides sex. Sex is just one of the many things we can do. It tricks you into
thinking it's either sex or nothing. Now, if you decide to disobey this command
and have sex; then you do sex. But you don't do all the other thing there are.
-Religion isn't prohibiting all the other parts of life: the focus isn't on all
these other things (just sex). Since only sex (a good, valuable and gentle thing
that you need almost like food/shelter) is in need of support against this
religious prohibition; all we do in response, is sex. Sex is interrelated with
all the other things of life. But all the other things aren't being done; only
sex. There's nothing else there needing all t!
his sex; and all this sex has needs for a! ll the other thi!
ngs, but has none of them there to satisfy its great needs for them (because we
didn't produce them). (Everything is interrelated.) The reduced capability that
our bodies would put us in without sexual release is avoided; but the reduced
capability of uneven growth with its unfilled needs; is found. So you might say
all we need do, is to do the other parts of life, along with sex, and this would
solve our problem. But remember, sex is a quasi essential, and has the force of
destruction associated with it. So doing it along with all our other things of
life, would allow the evil to feed off all these other good things, with the
forces of good and evil together. And we don't want that. Religion has good
reason for singling sex out. Well, we could do what the Bible says, and abstain
from sex. This is not as bad as it sounds, because not spilling our seed
includes everything else but sex. If we do everything but sex; these other
things would still be interrelated with each other a!
nd would supply each other's needs to a good degree. So, we can go on like this
for awhile. But we would not escape reduced capability, so don't expect to. We
increase EVERY non evil thing. EVERY non evil thing is INTERRELATED with EVERY
other non evil thing. (Sex has good in it; and we d! on't want the evil anyway).
If we leave out sex because we're unable to do the good of it without the evil;
then the reduced capability of unbalanced growth WILL catch up to us. Since sex
is only one (lonely) thing and we have everything else; we may escape reduced
capability for a time and in some situations; but eventually we will fall into
reduced capability. Once in reduced capability, it doesn't matter if we abstain
from sex or do sex; it is all reduced capability. What shall we do? What I
suggest, is a yin/yan sort of thing. We cycle between doing everything but sex;
and then, sex alone. First we abstain from sex / (and other essentials), and do
everything else. Eventually these thing'!
s interrelated need for sex (or some other essential) begin!
s to build, and pull us to it. Then we switch to doing nothing but sex (or one
of the other essentials). This way, the destruction in sex (or some other
essential) cannot spread to other things, but is quarantined. When an evil (a
destructive force) is present, that indicates an essential. Where there is no
destructive force, then that item doesn't need to be quarantined or done alone.
We thus practice separation of the forces. We have the produce of all the other
things from the previous cycle to supply sex's needs; and the sex produced in
the present cycle will supply needs in all the other things in the next cycle.
What we need to watch is that we don't produce them (do them) together. Doing
the things of our non-evil-Non-essential group all together is so much better,
because interrelated needs are satisfied instantly. It's when we're forced into
our essentials that we need to remember we can't do this, and must quarantine
each one of them. I wish to expand this section an!
d discuss it in more depth: We want to separate things in our essentials as much
as possible so the force of evil is separate from the force of growth. But we
can go too far with this. When we divide a functional unit up too small, the
narrowly defined part of our essential is without anything else, and is thus at
reduced capability; unable to supply the growth we need in the time frame. Since
our needs for that essential aren't met, we stay in that essential a long time;
and aren't able to get back into our non-evil-group. What can we do? We could
widen our functional unit to include more related parts of the essential. And we
could move that width around by dropping older parts as we add new parts. Or we
could even move that width around in both our essentials and non essentials. But
if we did this, we wouldn't be able to do our nonessential-group as a whole.
Yes, if we widen each essential too much to include their nearest related areas,
then overall, there wouldn't be much!
  left of the non-ev! il-group. (Talk about the good seed be!
ing choked out by weeds.) If we insist on quarantining all essentials, and give
them all a wide enough functional unit to be bearable, then we'll spend all our
time in our essentials, because there never will develop enough need for the
non-evil-group (for what it supplies), to pull us out of our essentials. And
this is because the non-essential-group is unfortunately mostly done piecemeal
as the-related areas-part of each of the essentials. And the few things left
not-done of the non-essential-group don't make much of a fire, in supplying
their few interrelated needs instantly. What shall we do? We need to quarantine
essentials; but we also need to allow our non-evil parts to come together in a
group, to take advantage of the power of the group vs the reduced capability of
our parts being separated-and-alone, -or-only-in-small-groups. We need to
balance these two opposing directives. For one thing, we need to realize we
can't quar! antine all our essentials at the same time. !
We only pick one that is drawing on us the most at present. (That will change
over time, as we satisfy one essential and move into another.) OOPS! WE CAN DO
THEM TOGETHER (CAREFULLY). We don't do our non-evil-group with our essentials,
because the evil in our essentials would have the growth of the non-evil-group
to feed on. But the thing about evil, is, that it tends to burn itself out if it
doesn't have something good to feed on. Another thing about evil, is that its
subject to the same laws of being at reduced capability, as anything else.
You've heard the saying "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Well, in the
case of evil, that's not the case. Depending on evil's capability, and the
richness of its environment, evil may spread throughout its area; or it may
consume only what's in its grasp and not be able to reach further into its area.
Remember that evil has trouble bridging barriers because it destroys the key to
crossing barriers. /(Evil is weak (and inferior -(!
excuse my prejudice: -its just that it happens to be true))!
. Sometimes it overstates its powers, and we give it credit for being stronger
than it actually is. We needn't ! do so.)/ In our non-evil-group, we find a rich
environment more or less, depending on how we're advancing. The new idea, is to
actually combine our essentials with our non-evil-group. But the trick is to do
it piecemeal. If we take a small piece of an essential and do it with our non
evil group; the evil introduced into our non-evil-group will be small. A small
evil is at reduced capability. Note: all of the non-evil-group is good; and part
of the essential is good, while only a small evil part is evil. The
non-evil-group provides a rich environment, but if the evil we introduce is
small enough, things won't be rich enough for this evil to bridge barriers. On
the other hand, the equally small good part (of the essential) is better at
bridging barriers because it is good and doesn't destroy the key to crossing
barriers but creates that key. Thus the good does cross !
barriers and escapes into our-non-evil group while the evil remains in our
essential. Even though the environment ! of the non-evil-group is rich (or very
rich); the piece-of-essential is made small enough so its evil is unable to
cross barriers, while its good is still able (due to: the small size/reduced
capability, (and the difference between evil and good)). This takes advantage of
the difference between good and evil. Once the good of the essential has escaped
into our non-evil-group, we discard that small piece of essential, and move onto
the next small piece of the essential. Thus little by little (piecemeal), we
wash our essentials clean. So this is the new idea: We do our essentials a
little piece at a time together with our non-evil-group. (The same goes for evil
attacks on us. When an evil person attacks us, there's too much evil there to
handle the whole person, we just handle them a little piece at a time.) This
plan emphasizes ceasing doing older actions while st!
arting and doing the newer ones; and not letting any indivi!
dual piece spend too much time. Yes we do only a ! small piece at any one time,
and move through our whole essential a little piece at a time. If we do this
fast enough (but not too fast), it delivers and cleans our whole essential. This
is the important 'piecemeal method'. Note that when our non-evil-group isn't as
advanced, it doesn't have to worry about this, as it isn't that much of a rich
environment. But as our non evil group advances, it becomes a richer and richer
environment, so that it can take less and less of a load of evil without the
evil burning it down in a firestorm. I want to go over our piecemeal method in
more detail: First we do a small beginning part of our essential along with our
non-evil-group. In the rich environment, this small pat begins to grow. (Since
we make the piece of essential small enough, the evil in it doesn't grow, but
the good does.) In the stopping old parts of our essential, and starting new
parts - action; let the new parts be started!
  by the growth from the essential itself. Then once the essential has grown into
a new area; then we shut off the old part. This way the good in the essential
isn't forced to grow too fast using necessary evils. Now, concerning the
stopping action we do. That action has a destructive force in it (and thus joins
the essentials). So we must also have an action that diverts some of that
stopping action back on itself. This second action I call the stopping stopping
action. This action keeps the stopping action from growing too wide in the rich
environment of our non evil group. This stopping-stopping action itself, remains
with th! e non evil group even after the complete essential is finished. This is
because it has no destruction (after its finished, and it finishes
automatically), and can thus remain part of the non evil group. (Thus we don't
have a stopping stopping stopping action etc.) At this point, I leave this
discussion, and begin a discussion on religion (the early par!
t of which, lays background for this piecemeal method). REL!
IGION What is the difference between right and wrong?, good and evil? That which
is good must be inherently different from that which is evil, so you don't need
a 3rd party to tell the difference. (The rules that require living and capable
3rd parties to uphold them, place a burden (a tax if you will) on us
living/capable 3rd parties. The rules that are inherent, require no living
capable 3rd parties to uphold them (thus are tax free), /and are also
inescapable/. . . . I . am . . the . true . . Republican. Fancy that.) If
there's no basic difference between good and evil, then it doesn't really matter
whether you do right or wrong. -The natural consequences would be the same. The
only people it matters to are the 3rd parties who say what's right or wrong.
Well, my definition of good vs evil does have a basic difference. -One destroys
life and shrinks; the other increases life and grows, (in separation). (Not only
do we have a bible to tell us what is right and wrong, we have t!
he experiences-of-life that can show us right from wrong, when a thing is in
separation.) But when another definition of right and wrong that does not have a
common thread of basic difference between right and wrong, appears, it's just a
diversion from the basic differences that do exist. It's a frustration, a GAME!,
a waste of time. I mean, why bother making distinction between right and wrong
if they're both the same or of similar make-up? We don't all like the same
things. Some of us like a little cruelty. Some don't go for this lovey dovey
stuff; and want a little more discipline and strictness. -What about these
people? Why should God have a personality more to my liking, while leaving these
people at odds with God? Why shouldn't God be more like these people? What makes
me so special; to have God more on my side? Well, God could be cruel, harsh, and
demanding. Or he could be something else. But we have already covered this.
We've shown that a benevolent God is the most p!
owerful; and that a non benevolent God has a weakness and c!
an eventually be replaced by a benevolent God. So what can I say? Those who like
to be mean, are going to be at odds with the most powerful God. I'm sorry that
this is the way it is, but it is from the effects of meanness itself; that
meanness does not provide the power to support the most powerful God; while love
and kindness do. There are many or several types of love. (What do we mean when
we say 'love'?) The only way that a certain type of 'love' would be rejected,
would be if there were something inherently in it; something in the definition
of it, that insisted evil or decrease in capability be done. Like my definition
for evil, is something that decreases and destroys capability and life. If we
call this evil, as love instead, then it would still not be a part of the other
things we know as love, because when alone and separate, it shrinks and doesn't
grow. Because of inherent differences, the evil would behave differently and
would show itself incompatible with the oth!
er things we know as love. The other things we know as love, do grow when
separate, and grow together, out of separation. When there is no consequence
when you don't 'get caught': When a 3rd party is needed to uphold the difference
between right and wrong: What then is a 3rd party? Over the vast expanse of
space, the amount of capability, intelligence, and life held within, is small
(that we can see). Outside of earth, not much is visibly alive. We can see much
lack and absence of capability and life. 3rd parties are alive. They have
capability intelligence and life. This version of right and wrong (and there are
many versions), occurs only in the vicinity and reach of the 3rd party. Outside
their grasp, this version is no longer supported, and no longer applies. This is
the difference between a version of right and wrong that needs a 3rd party to
supply/support it; and a version that is inherent within the actions under
consideration. The difference is that under the 3rd-part!
y-supported-version, there's always the chance for escape: !
But under the inherent version, there is no es! cape. Under the inherent
version, the laws apply even at the low levels (of capability). And if a version
of right and wrong stagnates its life forms and 3rd parties (because it contains
togetherness with cruelty/destruction), it is easily escaped from. There is no
policeman looking over your shoulder to make sure you don't do what is wrong.
There is no 3rd party that punishes you. Even so, there are some things that
produce results on their own. If you are cruel, it comes back on you by itself.
If you like it, then it's your choice. Yes, there are policemen and 3rd parties.
But with them, there is always the chance of escape, no matter how remote (it
can't be as remote as the no escape of the inherent version). No matter how
remote the chance of escape; escape will eventually prevail. (See the beginning
of this book where it is explained how the force of good overcomes the force of
evil.) The force of good(growth) produces capab!
ility and LIFE; while the force of evil(destruction), destroys it (leaving
nothingness). Evil destroys what can support it. Evil destroys capability and
LIFE; the keys to crossing barriers and getting around. On the other hand, good
can get around (bridge barriers) because it produces the key to that:
-capability and life. This basic difference between good and evil can be used to
separate these forces of good from evil. When good and evil are together, evil
feeds off and destroys what good produces, and good doesn't grow. But when the
forces are separate, evil consumes itself and dies while good grows and becomes
very rich in all manner of life and very powerful. We want to accomplish
separation of the forces so our life can be all life can be. (This occurs when
life isn't constantly being destroyed by evil: -when life is free of
destruction.) Now, if we put a piece of life (containing both good and evil) in
a very nurturing environment; the good will be able to get around we!
ll, but so will the evil also have plenty of material to ge!
t around with as well as destroy. Here the forces won't separate. Or, the force
of evil will grow strong with all this nurture, and do lots of destruction,
bringing the whole system down to reduced capability. But if we put that piece
of life in an environment that's not so nurturing and at reduced capability;
then we can find a point where the good can sti! ll get around, cross barriers
and grow out into the surrounding environment, while the evil is unable (due to
it destroying what can get it around). In this environment, the differences
between these forces makes a real difference: -the forces separate. Once the
good grows completely out into the surrounding environment; the original piece
(now containing all the evil, and non good) can be discharged, and the forces
will thus be separated. So we can enact separation of the forces if we place the
material to be separated in the right environment -that of reduced capability.
›And this separation of the forces involves an act!
ion of 'escape' where the more mobile good moves out of the area where evil
remains.› When our child is bad and contains evil within them, we do not destroy
our child, but instead, spank them -or otherwise punish them, (and thus place
them in reduced capability). This allows for the good to grow out away from the
evil and the evil to die: thus saving the! good and not throwing out the baby
with the bathwater. One way to place a thing in reduced capability while doing
minimal harm, is to fragment it. When evil attacks part of us, we can fragment
that part (and all other parts within evil's grasp), putting it at reduced
capability. When the evil has died out, we can then allow what's left to grow
back together. When something contains evil within it, we need to place it in
reduced capability for separation of the forces. But when something contains no
evil, we don't put it in reduced capability. Just the opposite, we nurture it.
Even of itself, when something is free of evil, it!
  grows well and creates an ever more nurturing environment.!
  (To place something that doesn't contain evil, in reduced capability, forces it
to do necessary evils to survive and returns it to the evil it escaped from.)
The question comes to mind: why does God allow us to suffer, and put us in
reduced capability? And being in reduced capability is bad enough but when we're
irritated as well by our predicament, that indicates a fore of evil is together
with us and is eating us. Yet we cannot even try to get away and escape. We must
stick around to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. If there is a God,
why would He subject us to such abject reduced capability? First of all, God
puts us in reduced capability to separate the forces. There's evil in us, in our
world and in our essentials. The good's growing out into god, while the evil's
not growing, and is thus separated away and discarded. We must be at this level
of reduced capability so the evil won't get out, while the good will. Otherwise,
a more capable evil would make destr!
uction out of God's rich nurturing environment. We're put in reduced capability,
yes; but we loose any irritation. Being irritated indicates a force of
destruction is eating us, as in the forces of good and evil together. That's the
point of this reduced capability: to eliminate togetherness of these forces, and
separate the forces. (If you think having the forces together is irritating at
reduced capability, just think how irritating it would be at high capability.)
So, being irritated isn't what God's trying to do here. Just the opposite: it's
what He's eliminating. Once good has separated from ! evil, it no longer needs
to be in reduced capability, and can be advanced to high capability. When
destruction DESTROYS part of us we would expect to loose that part and no longer
have it, right? But what if a force-of-good-of-High-Capability caught the good
of that part before destruction destroyed it? Well, the good of that part would
still be alive; yet would be a separate entity!
  -part of God. It'd be free from the destruction it passed !
through. It's a very special part because it is escaped from all evil, and can
now advance and grow well. It has a very valuable status -that of being free
from all evil. If there was no God, then when destruction destroyed part of us,
that part'd be gone and we'd loose it. But if it appears recreated as a separate
entity, still alive, and able to make choices; then it seems to me there is a
God, and this part is with God at the doors of heaven. Search inside yourself.
Are some of your parts Godly parts? -Parts that shouldn't even exist that should
be dead and destroyed, but are yet alive and exist as a separate entity from the
rest of you? We have an evil free, non-coerced choice here. The wise choice is
to keep what has escaped evil, to remain escaped from evil. So that when
destruction destroys us in the evil, earthly arena; that us-translated-into God,
doesn't replace what was destroyed. The earthly arena goes without until its own
growth replaces that again. John 3, 5-8: !
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Marvel not that I
said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither
it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. When the force of
destruction comes and destroys part of you, you'd expect to loose what was
destroyed. But what if a behind-the-scenes -fogoHC caught the good of this part?
Then it would still be alive; and not only alive, but fast growing and rich
because of it being evil free. So you notice that somehow you still have this
part and that it has somehow escaped the destruction. And you unsuspectingly
then use this Godly part like normal, and use it in your life here together with
evil. This is where the mistake is made. The wise choice is to not turn these
free parts back into the arena of evil, but allow them to!
  remain as they are -evil free in God. But oftentimes we do!
n't realize the value of what we have; and this Godly part chooses to come back
down into the evil arena it escaped from to supply our remnant rest of us in our
need (which is trapped of evil). In doing so, our Godly part looses its precious
position of being free from evil and becomes trapped of! evil again. Bringing
these Godly parts down into evil's arena to supply us, is like antimatter trying
to contact matter. You may want to bring your in-God parts down to help you deal
with the problems you are having with evil; but that just destroys their evil
free status (in a painful way). The solution to evil is already within you: to
choose from you in-God parts to never come down together with your earthly
parts. Because 'where your treasure is; there your heart is also'. By not
returning these Godly parts to the arena of evil, you make a place for yourself
in heaven and store up treasure in heaven; so that you may be in heaven, and not
suffering with evil, on earth. Matthew 6, !
19-21: Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth
corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves
do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your
heart be also. The process by which we are born (again) into God's Spirit:
(Matthew 16, 24-25): Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For
whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for
my sake shall find it. John 12, 24-25: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a
corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. Here we see that
separation of the forces has occurred through death!
. The corn of wheat had died; and in so doing, the good par!
ts of it have been translated into God's Spirit, where they are separate from
evil and can thus grow well (bringing forth much fruit). But the corn of wheat
before it dies, represents us here on this earth together with evil, where we
thus stagnate and don't grow (due to our being together with evil). Since the
good parts (which were once part of you before destruction destroyed their
connection with you) are now separate from the destruction and are now a part of
God: we can now call them (part of) God. These Godly parts then do not deliver
themselves (or earthly parts) to evil, nor do they help in the growth of our
earthly parts within evil's grasp. These Godly parts then are not subject to
your obedience of the commandments in your earthly situation; but are subject to
their own obedience to the commandments in their own situation, since they are a
separate entity from you. Note that if these parts of God cannot be compelled or
smitten, or be made subject to the authority o!
f men; (and they can't since they have already escaped and been made separate
from these things (God is Holy)); then they are not required to go the extra
mile or bring themselves to be destroyed by the commandments. 'Give unto God
what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.' Our earthly parts are under
the coercion of evil, and are in no position to change or obey anything. It is
from our Godly parts that we have a free choice. If these Godly parts choose not
to come down nor supply our earthly parts (this is the dying to ourselves Christ
wants us to do); then our earthly parts will be at reduced capability. At
reduced capability, separation of the forces is achieved in our earthly parts;
which causes the evil to die and the good to grow. And without evil to bother
us, we can do good even in our earthly parts. (At reduced capability, the good
in our earthly parts is able to grow away from the evil. Remember, the evil is
also at reduced capability, and can't get around. T!
hus separation of the forces is achieved.) But if we choose!
  instead with our Godly parts, to bring them down and supply our earthly parts,
then our earthly parts will be well nurtured and not at reduced capability. In
this nurture, the good will be able to get around, but so will the evil, due to
the rich environment. As long as this continues, stagnation will be the result,
as the evil continues to survive and feed off what our Godly parts bring down.
So, the way to disrupt stagnation within us, is to deny our earthly self our
Godly parts: -to not bring down our Godly parts to supply our earthly parts.
This is a wonderful and powerful thing. Now our earthly parts can be evil free
and can be accepted of God. This placing our earthly parts in reduced capability
is just the opposite of what I had argued for earlier. Then, I argued we should
be well nurtured, so as to avoid evil. Well, that's still true but only when
there's no evil within us. If evil is present in our earthly parts, then instead
of the nurturing! environment, they need !
just the opposite -a reduced capability environment (for separation of the
forces). If an evil finds you after you've grown to be nurturing; a way to bring
things to reduced capability, is through fragmentation. If we fragment or
atomize (disbanding the central government), our parts will be at less
capability, and the evil can be denied the growth our union would have produced.
The evil can then be on its way to self destruction, and what good parts can
grow away and escape the new evil, can regrow a nurturing environment and union,
utilizing the fragments present, which it is able to put back together. In a
Biblical context; we recall that Jesus said that if a part of our body offended
us, we should cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. In the light of turning
the other cheek, it has application: The entity required by Jesus' command to
turn the other cheek, is only what is attached to the cheeks. (If a neighbor is
struck on the cheek, are all Christians required by the !
command, to come and offer their cheeks? Recall the conditi!
on at the beginning of the command 'if you are compelled or smitten' -and that
all these others have not been compelled nor smitten (still, if we're all
together as one . . .). -and the 'command' to give to God what is God's, and to
Caesar what is Caesar's.) Only entities attached to, and part of, the cheeks
would be required to do the turning. Otherwise we'd not be able to obey his
other command about casting what parts of us that offend us, away. (If you are
turning you cheek, it's not cast away.) Note: what is a cheek? Is it the mental
connection and image; or the physical matter? A mountain is big, but without a
living human mind to conceive of its largeness, a mountain is unable to be big.
In reality, a puny human is much bigger than a mountain, in terms of life. All
our possessions have no life, but the effect they have on our nerve impulses and
in our mind. ie: there is more than one way to cast a part of us away. And the
mental way is preferred as it does less destruct!
ion. Although we still amputate when something gets gangrene. Now, if the action
to cast away, offends us, we can cast away casting away. A real point here, is:
do you want to preserve your entity/identity and suffer destruction; or do you
choose to escape destruction but loose your (previous) entity/identity? If a
destructor is unable to smite one of your cheeks, then you are not required to
deliver cheeks to the destructor. But if a destructor IS able to smite one of
your cheeks, then the command requires you to deliver your other cheeks to the
destructor. However, if you fragment yourself so that the entity known as 'you',
is no longer composed of 2 cheeks, but that there now exists 2 separate entities
of one cheek apiece; then the entity required to turn the unsmitten cheek, no
longer exists. With the original entity unavailable for the command requirement
to lock onto, the requirement is unable to apply. (Perhaps the new entity
containing the smitten cheek could still be !
required to turn the unsmitten cheek. But if it cannot deli!
ver the unsmitten cheek (if the unsmitten entity acts to get away), ! then only
the entity with the smitten cheek has broken the command and will suffer hell
for it. But then, it is already in torment from being smitten. And now will live
eternally (with eternal chances for material to escape it), instead of dying and
coming to an end from being smitten. Of course, there are times when the smiting
of our cheek, is just a minor necessary evil we must endure to obtain some good.
In this case, we wish to preserve our entity and not fragment. So the command
here, instructs that all cheeks should bear the burden of being smitten. You
rich guys should not have your cheeks spared while we working poor must be
smitten day in day out by this work for wages stuff; -as long as you want to
remain part of the society and enjoy the benefits of it (which you so richly
do). When evil attacks us, we go to an environment of reduced capability for the
separation of the forces. We accomplish this!
, first, by not bringing down the Godly parts (created as a result of evil
destroying parts of us); and secondly with our earthly parts by decentralizing,
dissociating and fragmenting our earthly selves -where evil has a grasp. (We
never bring down any Godly part to do fragmentation, though. That's done only by
what earthly parts we have. When evil dies, it no longer destroys, and Godly
parts are thus no longer generated. (the existing Godly parts of themselves do
plenty of growth anyway). There is a force of destruction in our essentials in
that they require a quota of growth. In the essential of eating, our bodies are
continually burning the food to make energy. Our periodic eating is just the
uptake of additional food material to await destruction. The act of eating in
itself, doesn't have to be destructive. That's not the main destructive force.
That just represents the taking in of more food. It is the continual burning of
that food within us, that is destructive (of the !
food), and is the main destructive force. Although this mai!
n destructive force probably resides near its 'food' source. There's a
destructive force in our bodies we're born with. Our bodies continually burn
food to supply us with energy to live. We must periodically take in new food to
replace what our bodies used up (destroyed). But whether or not we eat; our
bodies still always burn (destroy) food for energy. If we don't eat, our bodies
consume us and we starve to death. If we eat, our bodies consume the food
instead, and we're able to live awhile longer. In both cases (eat or fast),
destruction to (food) material is done, as the body burns it for energy. So,
Godly parts are continually being created from this. At this point I want to
review the possibilities that are available to the force of good (growth) vs the
force of evil (destruction): When the force of evil is alone, it consumes itself
and disappears; so this isn't a viable option. Evil needs a force of good to
supply it with material to destroy. So when evil is together wit!
h good, this is one viable possibility. But this is the possibility of torment
because the evil never dies and goes on forever. The other viable possibility is
that of the force of good alone. When good is alone, it builds itself up to high
capability and is very nurturing. Life here experiences its best and full
potential. When our body burns (food) material for energy, that is a force of
destruction (in that we'll always need to take in more food to replace what our
bodies destroy). We were born with this force of destruction in our bodies; but
we have a mind to think and choose with. When our minds choose to eat; that is a
choice to feed this destructive force. It's a choice for the forces of good and
evil together with that choice's corresponding torment. But what other choice do
we have? If we choose to not eat, we starve to death. And that's no choice at
all. If we examine what we're choosing if we choose to starve, we'd find we've
chosen to not-choose (between good vs d!
estruction). When the destruction in our bodies consumes us!
, our minds could choose to eat, and this'd be a choice to feed the evil. It'd
be a choice for evil and good together (one of the viable options). But when our
minds choose not to feed the evil, and when the evil in our bodies consumes us
and we starve! to death, then we've NOT chosen the option of evil and good
together. But we haven't chosen the viable option of good only, either, since we
denied ourselves any good (any food in this case). We're stuck with the evil in
our bodies (which we did not choose), and the evil is alone (since we didn't
take in any good). The option we've chosen (the option of destruction alone), is
a NON viable option where both forces are eliminated (so we end up with neither
force) after we've starved to death and gone to nothing where once we were
alive. What I want to choose, is the viable option of good only. And the option
of good only can be achieved by the separation of the forces from a system (or
entity) containing good and evil together. A!
nd this separation of the forces can be achieved by bringing this system to
reduced capability. Now in the starvation example, our system goes to reduced
capability naturally when we choose not to eat. The destruction in our bodies
brings our system to reduced capability as it destroys, and what it destroys
isn't replaced. And so here, separation of the forces can be achieved.
Unfortunately we haven't included a force of good to separate out. Since we
aren't feeding the evil, we have thus included no force of good and our system
contains only the force of destruction (that we were born with in our bodies).
Thus although the reduced capability environment, generated (as the destruction
destroys us down) would allow for any good to become separated from evil; this
doesn't occur, since we included no force of good. This is the flaw with the
self denial, discipline and pious (religious) ways and republicanism in our
world today. The destructive forces in our bodies aren't things c!
hosen by our minds, but are things we're born with. When we!
  choose (to do) good things with our mind, these good things become part of our
system. Also part of our system are the destructive forces in our bodies we were
born with. So when we choose good things (any good thing), this thus then throws
us into a situation of torment of the forces of good and evil together (where
the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched -where the destructive force
remains alive and doesn't burn itself out). But this good and evil together is
only one of the viable options. What about the viable option of good alone? We
haven't tried that yet (we aren't capable of that yet, especially when we choose
starvation). (The starvation choice was the non viable option of the force of
evil alone.) But can we even accomplish good alone? Often it seems we really
don't have a choice. We're forced into either destruction alone vs good p! lus
destruction, and we're unable to achieve good alone (as we have trouble shaking
the destruction in our bodies we were bo!
rn with). Not being able to have, obtain, achieve what we want; describes a
situation of reduced capability. If we choose to bring a force of good into this
reduced capability environment, then separation of these forces will occur
because separation of the forces occurs at reduced capability. When the forces
become separate, the evil alone will consume itself and disappear; and the good
alone will provide us with what we were seeking. So don't tell me we're
incapable of the viable option of good only. It's one of the possibilities. If
the environment is too nurturing with evil also present; we can always fragment
and thus bring it to reduced capability. ('Those who abase themselves with be
exalted; those who exalt themselves will be abased.') The way we'd miss
achieving good only is if we choose not to choose, by choosing the non viable
option o! f evil only (which is what we do when we self deny, choose not to eat,
choose to be celibate). In this situation of evil only; evil!
  consumes all within its grasp, consumes itself and dies. B!
ut there's no good left after the evil has died. Thus we achieve nothing with
this choice. We do no evil, but neither do we achieve any good. The inanimate
does just as well as this (this stagnant system). Life can do better than this.
Life by definition hopefully, is above the nothing and the inanimate. We do need
a moderate amount of good things. But don't overdo it. Having too many good
things puts us above reduced capability: And, in the presence of evil
(especially if we did much necessary evil to obtain the many good things), this
results in the forces of good and evil together where the forces do not separate
due to being above reduced capability. We don't want the viable option of good
and evil together, as that is the option of torment. (Recall the parable of the
bigger barns.) We can still achieve the viable option of good-only in choosing
lots-of-good; but in addition to choosing much good, we must deal with the
destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. An!
d we do so by creating an environment of reduced capability around (only around)
those destructive forces. We can do this by fragmenting everything near these
destructive forces (within us). But the parts of us not near (or separate from)
the destructive forces; don't need fragmentation, and can enjoy the good life.
/They will also be the doers of fragmentation unto our parts near and belonging
to our destructive forces. Oops. Recently I've found this isn't a good idea to
have the evil-free areas do fragmentation. (Fragmentation invariably includes
some destruction). It's better to have only the things near evil do
fragmentation unto themselves. This includes fragmenting the fragmentation
action itself (which is done simultaneous with fragmenting everything else near
evil)! . Now, if we fragment the fragmentation action, it ceases to function
after a certain point, and the fragmentation stops. (We won't have done a
complete job (a complete fragmentation) here.) But that's just!
  what we want. Our purpose is to bring everything here (in !
the vicinity of evil) to reduced capability so things no longer function; but
not much below this point. We want to create an environment of reduced
capability for separation of the forces where the good is still able to grow,
but the evil isn't. And if we brought things to too low capability with a
complete fragmentation, then the good wouldn't be able to get around either; and
separation of the forces wouldn't be achieved. We want an environment of reduced
capability, not desolation. The fragmentation produces a reduced capability
environment where separation of the forces occurs. Thus we achieve the wonderful
viable option of good only. Only where evil is, should be at reduced capability:
the other loc! ations should be nurtured. And if Godly parts aren't being
generated, then fragmentation doesn't need to be done. Our living in a world
with death, where generation after generation dies and is replaced by the newest
generation; has had its effect on us. Species and individu!
als lacking a drive to reproduce, die off, and don't pass those genes on. Thus
there's a bias for increasing the drive to reproduce. How is this drive
enhanced? Well, I theorize a defect in our body has been selected for, that
slowly destroys brain chemicals (hormones),-and that sexual release is needed to
restore those brain chemicals and brain function. This then makes sexual release
a quasi essential, in that we feel compelled to produce a quota of it. And we
need to deal with the continual destruction here within our body, through
›'choosing away'› / fragmentation. (But even in a world without a bias or drive,
the action to reproduce is an important one, representing growth; although it
wouldn't be so driven.) The destruction is continually destroying (brain
chemicals), but we don't necessarily continually replace them. Whether or not we
are replacing brain chemicals, or in between replacement, or not replacing; the
destruction continues, and is somewhat independent of our!
  sexual arousal/release. And Godly parts are continually be!
ing created. What can we do? Well, we could choose to stop feeding the
destruction and no longer replace the brain chemicals. But this would throw us
into reduced capability in other areas that depend on these brain chemicals,
that were otherwise good and contained no evil; which should remain nurtured and
not be thrown into reduced capability. What can we do? There is another way. Our
mind can choose fragmentation (simultaneous with Godly parts choosing away) as a
means of putting the evil into reduced capability to enact separation of the
forces. But even when not acting to PRODUCE brain chemicals, we must continually
fragment in the area where our body destroys brain chemicals (where Godly parts
are being generated), so when we do produce brain chemicals, it doesn't become a
choice by us for evil (and good together) with its corresponding torment. Of
course, our Godly parts aren't involved in this fragmentation in any form, but
choose away from all this. -(Which helps furth!
er in creating a reduced capability environment here). (Our earthly parts do the
fragmentation.) And everything is incompletely fragmented in the area of evil
(our consciousness, any brain chemicals, the production of brain chemicals,
etc). /Note that these methods can also be used on the occasional evil that
comes from the outside. But just remember to continue dealing with the evil
within our body that is occurring continually, simultaneous with external evil./
In more detail: Other non-evil areas may be elevated out of reduced capability
by the brain chemicals; but if our production of brain chemicals contains an
evil, then we should do without, even though our other good areas shouldn't be
put in reduced capability, right? Well, no. If doing without puts us in reduced
capability: (but since it contains evil, going with it will also put us in
reduced capability -(therefore our previous directive to abstain in order to
avoid reduced capability, doesn't apply)): then we shoul!
d go WITH it, so that the good of it will be separated by t!
he reduced capability environment; as opposed to not including it, which would
loose the good of it altogether. The reduced capability environment is ripe for
processing this thing with good and evil together, so we can take advantage of
that. -Even (especially) if all we're able to do, is this thing with good and
evil together(, or, nothing)./// If we're unable to fragment, then we're already
at reduced capability and needn't do the fragmentation. When we fragment, we
also fragment our fragmentation action itself. And when that is fragmented until
it no longer functions, this fragmentation stops. So concerning an evil attack:
we fragment once where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in
small areas where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small
areas where evil's changing attack may catch small new parts of us). When we've
fragmented in an area once, the reduced capability environment has been created
and no more fragmentation over and ov!
er is needed. We may not always do fragmentation continually (over and over),
but one thing we do continually, is choosing away with Godly parts; since Godly
parts are continually being created in our essentials. But what if we're
incapable of doing both fragmentation and 'choosing away', or can only do
fragmentation? Well, the purpose of fragmentation was to put us at reduced
capability for separation of the forces. But since we're unable to do things,
we're already at reduced capability and thus don't need to do this fragmentation
much at all. One of the benefits of choosing away with Godly parts was that it
put our earthly parts at reduced capability (for separation of the forces). But
since we're already at reduced capability, this benefit is of no consequence.
Yet that's not the only reason we choose away with our Godly parts. Choosing
away with our Godly parts saves them from earth's evil and its stagnation, and
allows their life to grow and develop well into its full po!
tential. It's for this purpose we continue to choose away w!
ith Godly parts first, as a priority over other things (such as fragmentation to
deal with evil). Now it's true that Godly parts start out at the same low
capability as the earthly parts, but once they choose away from earth (and to
stay in God), they grow well and much beyond their beginnings. It is these
beginning Godly parts in their low capability beginnings which we can't
distinguish from earthly parts when we ourselves are at reduced capability. So
to ensure that our beginning Godly parts choose away, we just choose away from
earth/stay safe in God with all that we are, both earthly and Godly parts. Now,
there are certain things that our bodies do on their own (naturally). Our heart
beats, we breath, we burn food for energy, we utilize/replenish brain chemicals.
These things have been programmed into our bodies since birth, and are not of
our mind's doing or initiative. So, to stop these things, would actually be an
act by our mind to do something and that our mind was t!
he cause of; whereas if our mind did nothing, our bodies would continue doing
their thing. Before our mind does anything, including interfering with the
natural programming of our bodies; our mind should first accomplish 'choosing
away'. Once 'choosing away' is being done, we can additionally then do other
things. This not-interfering-with-our-body's-actions includes not detracting
from its action, neither adding to it. All our mental resources are in first
priority devoted to 'choosing away'; and not towards changing our body's course
as a first priority. Many are called but few are chosen? What about that Bible
passage? Well, we believers are all supposed to be one in the lord. We make up
the bride of Christ. Who else but the bride will be chosen by Jesus? When we
were called, we were many; but then we became one and formed the bride of
Christ. God the Father will choose Jesus, and His bride. That's the few who'll
be chosen. (From Matthew 22, 2-14). I also believe this inter!
pretation applies to the few that get in at the straight ga!
te. So everybody who wants to be chosen will be; its just that they will be one,
as part of the bride of Christ when they are chosen. Matthew 7, 12-14: Therefore
all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:
for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide
is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there
be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. When we die we supposedly go
to heaven (if we're born of God). Does it then follow that if just a part of us
is destroyed that it too goes to heaven and exists alive; as a Godly part? You
may say that this Godly/earthly part idea makes us double minded, and that our
Lord is one Lord. But on the contrary: When we choose with our Godly parts to
come down / supply our earthly parts, that makes us double minded (as the two
are near together). (They can never !
be one in a single mind though, due to the basic difference between them, in
that one comes from freedom from evil, while the other comes from being evil
laden.) When our Godly parts choose to move away from our earthly parts, that
makes them a separate entity, with a single mind; that loves God with all its
mind. Whereas the entity/union of Godly and earthly parts together cannot love
God with all its mind, but can only love God with the Godly part. God is no
respector of persons and He reaps where He has not sown, in that He allows the
good in a person to escape into Him and be separate from the evil in that
person; thus dividing the person up; even freeing the good that an evil person
must bring along to feed themselves. Our earthly parts are of secondary
importance. It is God who creates our Godly parts. When God shines His intense
nurturing face on imperfect life and causes it to die; this is what happens: the
good in that imperfect life is able to grow out into God, whil!
e the evil is not and remains behind in death. (And if the !
good doesn't include the person's consciousness and will -due to that being
totally evil, then that too is left behind./ Since evil must have a good to feed
on; evil no longer has a good to feed it here.) What's occurring here is
separation of the forces. God saves the good parts up into His Spirit. Nothing
good is lost. Even when a force of destruction tries to destroy us, God shines
his intense nurture, and our good parts are saved. When destruction is
destroying an earthly part of ours, God can increase His presence and nurturing
environment, so that in the short time it takes the destruction to act, the good
parts have grown out into God while the des! tructive parts haven't. Once the
good has grown out into God, God can move Himself away so the environment is no
longer nurturing, so the evil cannot also get out. God can bring His nurture
upon us in enough intensity whenever He feels like so all our good parts would
grow out into Him, leaving the evil behind. We'd no longe!
r have an earthly life, but would be in heaven with God. Those on earth would
say we were dead. But until He does this, we have an imperfect earthly life and
earthly component. What's the purpose of our earthly life? We could bring it to
death by self denying it. But why should we tell God when to take us completely?
Let God decide when we're ready to be with Him. But a willful self destructive
act by us to cause ourselves to be killed, can never be (in a world with God).
You see, we as imperfect life still have good in us. And if we also have a self
destructive directive to cause us to be killed (for whatever reason); then
that's a force of destruction within US. When that force of destruction attempts
to perform its directive; God will shine His brilliant nurture causing our good
parts to escape into Him, while the destruction will be left behind. This means
our self destructive directive will be separated from us, no longer part of us.
It will never achieve its directive (i!
n a world with God). So why try to achieve something that's!
  not allowed and will be separated away if you try it? Your attempt to do self
destruction is close to a choice for evil; -for togetherness of good and evil.
That's a bad choice. God will not have that without your free choice for it. So,
if you have the free choice; choose good alone instead like! God chooses, and
drop this self destructive bent. 'Resist not evil". There's a fine line between
not resisting evil done to us, vs, not being a doer of evil. If we allow
something that is part of us (that belongs to us and responds to our will); to
cause destruction; then this can be construed as our will causing destruction.
We're not to be doers of evil. (We are commanded to love. And doing destruction
isn't loving.) If we put our hand on a hot burner, we don't keep it there
because we're supposed to 'resist not evil'. No, this'd be destruction done by
us to ourselves; and we're not to do evil. So, with what's ours and under our
will, we act to not do destruction. But when somethi!
ng not under our will causes destruction on us, this is where we're to resist
not evil (after our will has done what it can in an evil free way). I don't see
God standing over us with an iron rod, making sure we obey. No, God has pretty
much let us have our way with this world (He has chosen not to bring His Godly
parts down to us, except for the time when Jesus came for a short while). Here
on earth, the force of destruction often prevents us from being who we are and
what we want to be. In our daily lives, it's not God, or Jesus Christ who stands
in our way, but the force of destruction. If God isn't going to help us overcome
this destruction, then very few of us will escape/overcome it. (In all history,
we've not yet overcome it.) But if Christ came and separated the forces while He
was here, then many of us (all who want to) will be able to be free of
destruction (except we won't be as many, but will be together as one). Hey, I'm
not going to pass up an opportunity like th!
is if Christ has brought it about. God (Christ) is the one !
best suited to cause separation of the forces in the first place, because ! of
His great power. We humans at our low power, have little chance at overcoming
destruction, ie (growing powerful as God, then dividing in two and one part
coming and accomplishing separation of the forces with its great power). Hey, if
Christ as God has made it now easy to choose/have life free of destruction; then
I'm going to join the band wagon and go with Him. He says that his yolk is easy
and his burden light. Well, truth is a hard thing to understand; and a person
devoted to saying the truth as Jesus was can be misunderstood and misinterpreted
and can offend; but that doesn't mean He shouldn't say his piece. Matthew 11, 6:
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. Realize that it's easy
to obey a commandment to not do destruction (and to choose not to do
destruction) from a vantage point of being well nurtured at high capability; but
not so easy from a vantage point at reduced c!
apability. For us at reduced capability, we're forced to do destructions just to
maintain our being alive. The Godly parts (generated from earthly destruction)
are not subject to you obedience of the commandments in your situation; but are
subject to their own obedience of the commandments in their own situation, since
they are a separate entity from you. After something has passed through
destruction, it has already 'died to itself' and given up its (earthly) life;
hopefully for its friends. Thus these commandments have been filled by the life
belonging to God. John 1, 3: All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made. If you believe in the God of the Bible: God
owns everything. Everything belongs to Him. Anything you do according to your
will: if it uses something that belongs to God, then unless you have obtained
God's permission to use it; that makes you a thief. You may ask God in prayer
for permission to use his air, water, food, etc; b!
ut if you don't hear Him answer back and give you permissio!
n; then it's still stealing. -If you asked someone if you could use their stuff
and they didn't answer and you went ahead and used it anyway, that can still be
called stealing. We're all a bunch of darn thieves. And to not steal is one of
the commandments. Well, you can say we have to work for what we get. Well what
job has God offered mankind? The only job in the Bible God offers man, is to
spread the Gospel. (and all work related to spreading the Gospel.) But even so,
most of us are still guilty of 'stealing from God'. (This is how God can forgive
our debts as we forgive our debtors. This is why we are saved by faith, not by
works and obeying commandments.) God loves us, and does not deny us any good
thing and it is His will that we should grow and prosper. It is the force of
destruction that causes us pain and denies us the good life. When we, out of the
system of private ownership, deny people the goods of this world (that we have
plenty of) that they need to live, we frus!
trate the love of God. Don't do that. Or God will require the very last mite
from you for your use of His stuff, as you did here on earth. -If you sow strict
private ownership, you shall reap strict private ownership. There is a problem
with obeying a commandment for the reward. There's often an evil or destruction
associated with obeying ANY commandment. When you do things, you first do them
according to who you are and what you were created as. So if you're not
currently doing what the commandment commands, then you have to change from what
you're doing, to what the commandment says. And this involves shutting off part
of who you are. In this case, the commandment is outside you will; and requires
you to decrease yourself and who you are. This is a decrease in capability and
life (which is what destruction is). So if you're not presently obeying the
commandment in consideration, then right from the start, you commit destruction
(against yourself) in trying to obey it. (Of co!
urse, if your way is also destructive, then this is irrelev!
ant.) Since destruction is not a loving act; and we are commanded to love as our
most important commandment, there goes our salvation and eternal lif! e from
obeying the commandments right there. You may say that you are supposed to deny
yourself like this. But that's just imperfection trying to improve itself. A
person has to already have eternal life within them to be able to obey these
commandments of God/Jesus. One cannot hope to gain eternal life by obeying these
commandments, if they don't already have it. The only thing the commandments
are, are a gauge to tell you if you have eternal life within you, or you need to
get eternal life within you. Finally, we come to the source of that eternal
life. Christ always said when He healed, 'your faith has made you whole'
throughout the Gospel. If we don't have that eternal life we cannot hope to obey
the commandments. If we have eternal life, we obey the commandments naturally,
as from our own self. The big question is, is God g!
oing to help us out. Is He going to make it easy for us to choose good only vs
good and evil together. And the answer is Yes as expounded upon in John 3 16.
John 3, 15-19: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil. Here we have linkage to eternal life. The other commandments of
Jesus aren't individually linked to eternal life; but this saying is. All we
need do, is believe on Him, and He will do the res!
t. Once we have the eternal life, we will do according to t!
hat eternal life. This believing on Christ, is not a commandment. We aren't
commanded to believe on Christ. It's a choice. It is a trusting in God. Note
that not believing on Christ is related to evil deeds. This is the choice I've
spoken of. Do we want to do good things alone, or to include destructive things?
We ultimately must make the choice. And what we choose, will determine our
relationship to God. If we like to do evil deeds and can't see ourself living
without them (and don't want to change), then there's no point believing on
Christ and getting saved, because God and Christ are on the opposite choice
which is for good only; and they'll not have themselves present in the choice
for including evil. We cannot make God/Christ choose to suit us. They have their
own mind, and have chosen good only. ›Which came first -the egg or the chicken?
Which comes first? God, or Creation? On second analysis, it may seem haughty and
high minded to think that we can be changed and saved!
  by the word or a blessing. We could analyze God, here, as a 3rd party stamp of
approval: depending on whether we believe on Jesus, or not. And this is true.
This is the one and only time when I accept the 3rd party approval, as quite
valid. You see, we are trapped of destruction. Our society has been since its
beginning. All this is, is a recognition of our situation and a reaching out and
admitting we need outside help. I do this. I admit my trapped situation and open
myself up and accept what God has to offer, by believing on Christ. But God is
no ordinary 3rd party. Unlike other 3rd parties, God does not need my help or
work to free me from evil, other than my OK and permission to do this in me. It
may seem silly that if the blessing of God is put on a thing, it is made good;
while if the blessing of God is not put on that very thing; it is bad. And even
though it may be silly, I make this one exception to be silly. You see, in this
case, the blessing of God, is under my c!
ontrol. If I believe on Christ, then I am blessed. If I ref!
use to believe on Christ, then I am not blessed. Since it requires my choice and
participation; this allows me to express myself to God, and communicate that I
accept His help and acknowledge my trapped state. But if I am told that if I do
something one way; it has God's blessing and is therefore good; but that if I do
a similar thing another way, that it does not contain Gods blessing and is
therefore bad (even though the 2 acts are very similar (nearly identical) and
seem to contain similar inherent substance): then in this case, I do not have
control or decision over God's blessing in this area. I do not decide here where
God's blessing will be or won't be, over a certain situation. That has already
been decided. Since I have no decision here where God's blessing will be present
(vs not present), then this situation provides me no opportunity to express
myself to God, other than by following the 'right' path, the blessed path, and
not committing any of the non-blessed paths!
. But I say that a true God, does not need my work nor this complicated form of
communication (of my showing my allegiance through obedience in actions in the
conduct of my life to follow only the blessed p! ath -some of which relate to my
trapped state and which because of my trapped state are difficult/painful for me
to perfom), and that my word should be good enough. Since this situation doesn't
give much opportunity for the expression/communication to God of my word or
decision that I need His help, then I disregard it as a direct communication and
refer back to where my word and decision is more directly communicating.
However, if an indirect and roundabout communication is sought; my failure to
obey some of the difficult commands (relating to my trapped state); should
actually communicate to God that I need His help in these areas. I have tried
God's word and blessing in the direct way of communicating with God and asking
God for help for my trapped situation. But if I !
still find myself trapped of essentials: If I still hunger, !
then I shall say that I still need help getting out of the trap of evil. If I
still need, and hunger, then I am still trapped. And until I am freed from my
need and hunger, I will not be free to do good only, like I want. And I will
still have to deal with the evil within myself. If I am still hungry, then God
has not (yet) freed me from my hunger. And if I still have hunger, then I still
have it to deal with (in the best way I can), as I still have it, as God has not
freed me of it (yet). -If I still have hunger after God has done His part, then
any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And for God
to dictate to me how I should do this: this dictating to me by God, is an act by
God to do something in me. But this act (of dictating) by God upo! n me, has not
relieved the hunger, which still remains. After God has done His part, and with
the hunger still remaining, any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely
on me to do it. And if the way I d!
eal with it is contrary to God's blessing, in some parts, then this is my way to
communicate to God that I have not yet been freed of my hunger, that I am still
trapped of it, and that I still need help. If you leave dealing with hungers/
and being trapped by essentials, up to a powerful and almighty God, what would
you expect? (I'm not going to answer this one.) But if you leave dealing with
hungers/ and being trapped by essentials, up to a puny, low capability,
trapped-by-hungers-and-essentials little guy like me; then you get what you pay
for; and I think you know what you most probably will get from me. Sure, reduced
capability is the best environment for separation of the forces and for me to
become purified; but until I am purified, -(I am yet in the process o! f being
purified); things won't always be done in the pure, God accepted ways, until I
am pure, because I'm not pure yet! And WHEN God chooses to free me of my hunger,
is up to Him and His time table. If you wish !
to dispute God's timetable concerning me and my hunger; tak!
e it up with God, not me. Cause if you do take it up with me, I'll just have to
deal with you, right along with my hungers, as best I can in the ways I know
how. -and those actions may or may not have God's approval. What else did you
expect from a reduced capability human who is still trapped of hungers and
essentials? I have asked for God's help part ways. But when asking God for help
requires that I need no help; then I find myself unable to communicate with God
in this way (since I am still trapped, as I still hunger). What God does about
my silence in this area, is up to God. But what I do about it, is to not dwell
on what I can't do, but work with and do with what I am able to do. And this
involves dealing with destructiveness in actions as best I can, which due to my
trapped situation, are ways that are not always in line with the pure ways that
are blessed by God. Because I recognize that God is not just any 3rd party, but
is the 3rd party who is powerful enough to fre!
e me from my hungers without my work, but only needs my non coerced, unpressured
word and decision to ask for it. If asking God for help requires that I jump
through hoops and prove my allegiance and be tested, tempted and tried and then
overcome -essentially that I am in no need of help: then why am I asking God for
help if I don't need help? But if I am in need of help, then I'll have to ask
God for help (in ways I'm able;) in ways other than those requiring that I need
no help. If you wish for me to act like I'm not hungry, then I must be free from
my hungers. I will not pretend to be not-hungry by acting like I'm not hungry,
when I'm really hungry. I've tried God's blessing (part ways -or as best as I'm
able: I won't take it back and you can't blame me for asking), but if I'm still
hungry, then I additionally act ((to attempt to be free of my hungers as best I
can)-this is concept A, and also to feed), and also to apply concept A in my
feeding. I do not blame God for not f!
reeing me from my hungers. God is not obligated to give me !
anything. God gives what He gives and I accept whatever help God makes
available.› One thing I'd like to emphasize about Jesus Christ: It is He who
brought an emphasis on LOVE and the importance of LOVE, above all other things.
All you need is love (The Beetles). So what's wrong with love and being kind to
each other? Hey. I'm going for that. It should be obvious that love is the way
to go. Mark 12, 28-31: . . . Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus
answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our
God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the
first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Matthew 22, 37-40: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy min!
d. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law
and the prophets. So, if another commandment seems to contradict; which one wins
out? -The commandment of love. 1 John 4, 7-8: Beloved, let us love one another:
for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4, 17-18: Herein is
our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because
as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love: but perfect love
casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect
in love. 1 John 4, 16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to
us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Let's say I were to obey the commandment to love God with all my heart. Since
God IS love, to obey the commandm!
ent would be to love, love. When I see love, I see part of !
God. To love and love it; is to love God. Not out of a sense of duty. I love to
love. And that is loving God (because God is love). Love is so satisfying to me.
The first commandment is to love God. But since God is love, that becomes to
love Love. To love ourselves is one kind of love(1). If we treat ourselves
poorly, that's not loving this love(1) at all. Thus the first commandment among
other things, commands us to love ourselves. And then we are to love our
neighbor as ourselves. Since God is Love, it is reasonable to assume He would
care about matters of love. He'd want to protect love, and not want it treated
frivolously. He'd want it treated with respect and valued highly; not trodden
underfoot when it became convenient. So it's reasonable He'd write commandments
protecting the actions of love. But the result seems to be that people are so
scared of breaking the commandments and getting in trouble with God, that they
just stay away from the game, and don't bother trying!
  to love. But a God who is love, would want more love not less. What I want to
discuss now, is what Jesus means by his saying to deny yourself (and take up
your cross). Note that we are commanded to love. We are commanded to love our
neighbor, our brother, our enemy, and God. But we are not directly commanded to
love ourselves; although this can be inferred, as I have shown. To ourselves, we
are told to deny ourselves to die to ourselves and loose our life for Christ,
and give up our life for our friends. You know, it doesn't make sense. We are a
person too. Why can't we be loved too? (I've heard that to love others, spreads
this love, while loving oneself then, does not. If everybody loved others, then
this love would grow, and the group would be brought together as one. But if you
loved others but no other loved you, then you would not be brought together with
these others, and would remain alone. -Maybe they just don't want you to be part
of their group. In this case of bei!
ng all alone, is where the directive to only lo! ve others !
breaks down and where I se the logic of also loving yourself. We are a person
and a friend to ourself, too!) In a world with destruction, it is true that the
greatest love a man can have is that he lay down his life for his friends. But
to sacrifice your own life for your friends, involves DESTRUCTION just the same.
Love does better when it is free from all destruction, including self
destruction. Destruction is the big problem. Over all the passage of history, it
remains with us. (Individual) Mankind has not been able to solve this problem.
/(Being one, and not as many-individuals, is so important, even to die for?)
/The obtaining of our essentials has caused us to develop appetites in obtaining
them. Our essentials and quasi essentials have evil in them that compels us to
obtain these things. Is it these destructive forces that Christ is trying to
deal with in telling us to die to ourselves? Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting
'lay down your life'; in that Christ really means '!
to utilize' your life, (doesn't involve destruction and sacrifice of that life
unless forced to). And since you are a friend to yourself (ie: lay down your
life for your friends) as well as others, you also are loved. Then again,
perhaps I didn't misinterpret. What is Christ trying to say? What is so
different between us loving others and us loving ourselves, that we sould love
others but not love ourselves? The thing is that when we love ourselves, we
bring down our Godly parts unto our earthly parts to do so. Yet we often don't
recognize the Godly parts as a separate entity, (as they still respond to our
will). But they are a separate entity, and the consequences of bringing them
together with our earthly parts (to love ourselves), destroys their evil free
status and growth. /To love others, recognizes a separate entity, other than
ourselves, and joins them together. (But there is no joining together of
entities gained in self love, as the self is already a together entity e!
ven before any additional self love.) It is our Godly parts!
  that have the power and capability. Jesus is instructing us not to invest in
our earthly parts, which we'd do by bringing down our Godly parts to feed them
(in a self love). When the evil of this earth destroys part of us; we don't
replace what evil destroys with our Godly parts. The evil thus boxes itself in
while our good parts escape into the Spirit of God. What I think Jesus is trying
to say here, is to forfeit your individual life, living alone as an individual
separate from God; in favor of a life together with others and God. Here we are
all one (with God). Bear one another's burdens; if one suffers, we all suffer.
If one rejoices, we all rejoice. As a union, we are above reduced capability,
and are thus out of the trap of evil. Godly parts are one and together with God,
whereas earthly parts are not. When we become a new entity ie as part of a new
entity by being one with God and one in the bride of Christ, we hae thus denied
'ourself', and an individual existence (al!
so denied). What good is it to live life alone (in a reduced capability
position), when we can become one and join together with others and God (and be
at high capability, no longer in the trap of evil)? Perhaps this is the idea
behind 'deny yourself'./ We are imperfect because we're forced to do destruction
to survive and we have destruction within us. But does Christ want us to self
eliminate because we aren't perfect? (so as to make room for more perfect life
forms?) Is self elimination the way to go? Love others, but deny ourselves? We
are person's too. Why can't we love ourselves as well as others? Why can't we be
loved too? How can we love others as we have been commanded, if we self deny and
self destruct? If we self destruct, we won't exist to love others nor self deny
nor do any more self destruction. This idea about dieing to yourself, or not
feeding the evil by not bringing in good things: The contrast between eternal
life and our life here on earth, is made with re!
spect to this dieing to ourselves (in the verse(s) Matthew !
6 v19-21; 16 v24-25; John 12 v24-25 -namely John 12 v25). Our life here on earth
is a life caught in togethrness ith evil; whereas eternal life with God is life
free from evil. When it comes to dieing to ourselves or allowing ourselves to be
killed, that involves destruction. My point, is we don't allow this dieing to
carry over into our eternal life; so that we don't do harmful things in our
eternal life that's free from evil (according to the text). -We are instructed
to self deny in our earthly life. Do we continue this self denial in our eternal
life? (No.) The difference between our earthly life and our eternal life, is
destruction: our earthly life is trapped of destruction while our eternal life
is not. (Self denial can also be (self) destructive and (when it is -and it is
when self denial of essentials/quasi-essentials is involved), can thus be
classified as part of earthly life). The question is what do we do about the
problem of destruction? It's not Jesus Christ or !
God who stands over us in a Holy presence and gives us a hard time all day; but
it's the force of destruction we're trapped of in our earthly life that does
this. One of the more important precepts Jesus taught and elevated to
importance, is that what we do to others should be done to us as well. -What
goes around comes around. (I get this from 'Do unto others what you would have
them do to you'.) This shows a difference between good and evil. If you do good
to others, you don't mind when it comes back to you and others do good to you.
Good is not scared of having it done to itself. But if you do evil to others,
the last thing you want is for others to turn back the evil you produce onto
yourself so this evil is done to you. If you make this self-denial a part of
yourself then you are thus instructed to deny this self denial itself, by Jesus'
command to deny yourself. (And when we fragment, we also fragment our action to
fragment.) A reduced capability environment results. We !
are instructed to bring our earthly life to reduced capabil!
ity. (And this mirrors what we've been discussing.) If you self deny and self
eliminate, there'll be no mind left to know about religion, but the forces of
growth and destruction will continue in your area, but without mind or
intelligence to care about obeying anything. This is one scenario of what might
happen if we were to self deny. But if we actually attempt to self deny or self
eliminate, then the denial/elimination itself will have become part of ourself
(part of the self); so that when we continue to self deny or self eliminate, we
also deny or eliminate the self denial/elimination action itself. We deny self
denial, and eliminate self eliminatio! n, if we actually obey the command to
self deny. Some denial and elimination will be accomplished, but it will come to
a stop after a certain point, as we can never achieve complete denial or
elimination because the denial and elimination will knock themselves out after a
certain point. This thinking about self denial and sel!
f elimination, and religion, takes intelligence and thought power above an
animalistic instinct driven mentality. Once the intelligence to consider and
obey self denial has knocked itself out, what's left is our animalistic instinct
driven mentality, which still exists (due to incomplete elimination and denial)
and this thus then takes over and we do according to it. In short, the message
of self denial is to cast religion and complex thought aside, and do according
to our lower basal instincts; until a complex thought system is created which
contains no evil. This is the environment of reduced capability but not total
desolation we've been discussing! for separating the forces when there is evil.
But where there is no evil, we don't need this environment of reduced
capability. But where there's evil; and there is lots of evil and mean
spiritedness out there; then this is just the ticket. Go ahead and fragment
them, yourself, everything. There's no religion, or teaching of sel!
f denial that can stop you. Unfortunately for that religion!
, any religion or system with lots of self denial and self elimination, self
eliminates itself and returns the fragments (the individuals) to reduced
capability; out of which develops new religions and systems. And this cycle
repeats until a religion or system free from/of destruction, develops. In our
solution to evil, (after our Godly parts have left), we fragment ourselves where
we're trapped by evil, in as non destructive a way as possible, where our
fragments can be put back together by a force of good but not by a force of evil
(due to evil being the weaker force). Our fragments provide a rich environment
for forces of good to grow in, but not too rich so that the force of evil cannot
grow here. In fragmentation we have denied ourself; as 'ourself' no longer
exists as an entity -only fragments. We do this to deal with the problem of
evil/destruction. And Christ doesn't instruct us to self deny in our eternal
life -only in our earthly life, where life is trapped by evil. !
Advanced capability groupings such as ourselves shouldn't exist where there is
evil. We should fragment so the evil is separated from the good and dies, and so
the good-alone will then grow/produce advanced capability groupings such as us
free from evil. ///Jesus says not to fear man who can only destroy the body, but
fear He who can destroy the body and soul in Hell. -And how God in the judgment
has his enemies who'd not have Him rule them, slain at His feet. And Jesus made
a whip of cords and cast the money changers out of the temple. (Yes, without
access to money/banks, the rich and poor would be the same and shops'd be forced
to extend credit to all. But the they'd just tattoo a chip under the skin -the
mark of the beast- to handle transactions.) But the Bible says God is love.
Jesus says to love your neighbor and your enemy. But if God eternally tortures
people in Hell/the Lake of Fire: is that loving your enemy? If this passes for
love: anything goes. Won't God reap what!
  He sows? Yet if people torture each other so and choose/cr!
eate a God who does this; then they are the source of this. -It is from them;
and I don't have to follow in those footsteps. I choose otherwise. I choose
Love. Note that the Bible saying of how God will have his enemies who would not
have Him rule over them, slain at his feet; is just unnecessarily irritable. You
see, since God is Love: those who would not have love rule their hearts, will
suffer the destruction which they instead choose to have rule them, without God
having to lift a finger. It makes a big difference who God is, and what God is
like. And God is Love./// Chapter 9 "Intricasies and Details" Chapter
Introduction: This chapter deals with what religion (the Bible) says concerning
sex, as well as a few other things; and some detailed ideas on how to do our
essentials, including sex. The chapter is divided into 2 parts A and B. Part A
deals mostly with religion and sex. Part B deals with the discussion of doing
our essentials. Note that I no longer practice many of !
these mental techniques, and I put them out mainly as a type of journal to show
may passage through this area, and also to offer possible ways and
possibilities. In part B some serious abbreviations are intermittently used.
These are: 'inc' means incomplete, as in inc (incomplete) fragmentation; 'red
cap' means reduced capability, as in red cap (reduced capability) zone. END
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION. Part A Jesus Christ came here on earth to confront the
problem of evil, by separating the forces in all areas. I don't specifically
find this in the Bible, but it does say He came to destroy the works of the
devil. Once the forces have been separated, this is finished, and no more of it
needs to be done. There is no more growth of this. In the Bible, it says that
Jesus Christ (not God the Father), is the same today, yesterday, and forever.
This means that He is not growing. And this is true. Evil doesn't grow and
generate new things like good does, so once evil is dealt with, that's i!
t. No more action is needed. Because the body of Jesus Chri!
st (that is, Jesus Christ as a man), had no growth, the Holy Spirit extended
beyond His body from the Father. It is this Holy Spirit that can then have all
manner of growths free from evil. So you don't believe God the Father grows.
Well, not according to the Bible: Colossians 2, 18-19: Let no man beguile you of
your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into
those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And
not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having
nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
(increase means growth) God causes other things to grow: 1 Corinthians 3, 6-7: I
have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he
that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the
increase. God IS growth: Hebrews 6, 13-20: For when God made promise to Abraham,
because he could swear by no greater, he sware by !
himself, Saying, Surely blessing(1) I will bless thee, and multiplying(2) I will
multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an
end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs
of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two
immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might who have
fled for refuge to lay hold upon the ›hope› set before us: Which ›hope› we have
as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that
within the vail; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a
high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. It says that God sware by
himself. And He called Himself "blessing" and He also called Himself
"multiplying". God is Blessing; and God is Multiplying. Multiplying represents
growth. If you're going to multiply, growth is!
  going to be involved. And the blessing part represents tha!
t the growth is above reduced capability; that it is free from evil. (It is also
written that God is Love. So we see that love is also blessing and multiplying.
Love involves growth (IS growth).) You know, they could have said, "God is
loving". The Bible may say God is Holy, and God is righteous. But it doesn't say
that God is Holiness or God is righteousness. But it does say that God is Love
and God is Multiplying and God is Blessing. And it is clear that it is God the
Father being referred to here, as that is who is "within the vail" at the temple
being referred to. Next we'll portray an interesting twist to Bible verses
concerning sexual love: Mark 10, 6-9 But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder. Matthew 19, 4-6 And he ans!
wered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19,9 And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, comitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery(although this doesn't directly relate to 'putting asunder').
There is the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. But since you don't
love yourself in a sexual way, this wouldn't apply as to loving your neighbor in
a sexual way. But if you are married, and you love your spouse in a sexual way;
you ARE loving yourself in a sexual way because the twain have become one flesh.
So the commandment can be seen as instructing you!
  to love your neighbor in a sexual way if you are married. !
This is a very liberal view of how we should be behaving towards each other
sexually. But it has a restraint that I agree with. That what is being spoken
against in adultery and fornication, is not love making, but love breaking. When
you love your mate sexually, and then you love a second person sexually; it
usually happens that you are required to (or you) break it off with one or the
other. It is this love breaking that is the wrong being committed. "Let not man
put asunder what God has joined together". When young people are fornicating! ;
one set of partners make love; but soon they break off and find a new set of
partners. It is this love breaking that is wrong. If you're going to do all this
sex, well fine. You can interpret these Bible verses to OK that. But you've got
to keep your old partners. You can't discard them. You've got to keep loving
them. Also, when a man has sex with his wife, since they are one flesh, 'his
seed has remained in him'. The release of seed is!
  not the evil, it is the body's prevention of the release of seed, or
destruction of brain chemicals, that is. But, the creation of seed is a
fragmenting of one's genetic make-up (unless one is pure breed); and
fragmentation has some destruction in it. So, it may not be good to create seed
at all; but fragmentation has its uses in removing evil: but when there's no
evil to remove, there's no need for fragmentation. Now, we are also commanded,
that if a part of our body offends us, we are to cast it from us. This is a
fragmentation. The creation of sperm involves a fragmentation; and if our sperm
offends us, we are instructed to cast it from us. (a fragmentation of the
product of a fragmentation. thus when we fragment the production of sperm via
temporary abstinence, we have a fragmentation of fragmentation, and incomplete
fragmentation.) What I'm looking for, is why. What's wrong with sex? For sure,
we can get all moral and morally indignant, but I not interested in that. The !
Bible may have an anti sexual directive; but if so, I want !
to know why and for what reasons. That way, if we know what the trouble is, we
can work around it in the most positive ways. Well, here, we see that Jesus
speaks against the breaking of the bond God joins between two sexually connected
individuals, concerning the wrong of adultery. But there's more. The sexual area
goes deeper than this. Because we feel compelled to sex (because we live in a
world with death which is not of God, where we must reproduce or die off as a
species), there is an evil in sex where our pleasures, which should go evenly to
all things, are removed from other things, to surround sex with maximum pleasure
to compel us to sex. This leaves the other things lack luster and lacking in
pleasure, and this is the destructive part. And with destruction! also being
selected for in sex, this glut of pleasure is slowly destroyed, leaving us
completely lack luster and lacking in pleasure and enjoyment of life. Matthew 5,
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh!
  on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart. The key word is lust here. (Define lust.) Even if you're married, if you
look at your wife the wrong way, its adultery. So if you're not allowed to have
sexual feelings for your wife, then I guess you don't love 'yourself' in a
sexual way. (Still, there remains something sexual between a husband and wife in
what is allowed in marriage.) Well, like I was saying, there's an evil or
destructive force in sex we all need to be careful of. If we refuse to allow the
pleasures from our other things from entering into our sex, for as long as we
can hold out, then the evil in sex which consumes our pleasures, will not be
fed. The time spent doing sex at reduced pleasure capability allows the good to
separate from the evil, and the evil to die. And even if we're not able to hold
out till complete separation is achieved, some separation is achieved, and we
can then do a special series of fragmentations. S!
o what does Jesus have to say ultimately about sex? Lets co!
ntinue on i! n Matthew: Matthew 19, 10-12 His disciples say unto him, If the
case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Here, point
blank, they are considering if any sex at all is OK; and Jesus' answer in the
next verse:) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying (the
saying, Matthew 19,9), save they to whom it is given. For there are some
eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some
eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive
it, let him receive it. Well, the answer I get from this, is that it's not as
simple as yes or no, but that sex is a complicated thing, that we need to figure
our way around the dangers. We were born with hungers and desires that are not
of God. We were born with what we are. Call it 'the flesh', 'the natural man' or
'mammon', but we were born with desires of the flesh (hungers!
) that we did not ask for. Also a part of us, is a desire for God, goodness and
to please God. What we have; who we are; and what we were born as: is this body
and mind. We may not have asked for these hungers and we may even choose against
them, but they are part of us just the same. Any religion that does not
recognize this, sells us short. OK, go ahead and say that these hungers are
wrong and bad. I will agree that it is OK to list and acknowledge what is evil
in us, and call it what it is. But to expect us to do something about it, is
another ball game altogether. And religion expects us to overcome our desires
and hungers. We have to eat. That is destructive to plants or animals (other
life forms). (What about the commandment: Thou shalt not kill?) I acknowledge !
that this is so and that I eat; but there's nothing I can do about it. I am not
able to live otherwise. Would you like to be eaten? The golden rule condemns
eating. What we have, who we are, and what we were bor!
n as; is this body and mind. This house; this body and mind!
, which serves as a house or container to hold our consciousness; is composed of
both God and mammon. What I suggest is that we let the parts of us that want to
serve God, go and do that; and the parts that want to serve mammon (our
hungers), go and do that. My point is that we have no interest in seeing such a
house as ours to remain standing. There is no benefit to have Godly parts be
together with mammon parts. This 'house' our body contains both God and mammon
-two opposing directives - together, within us. It is not in our interest to
maintain this togetherness. Thus when Jesus instructs us that we can't serve two
masters (you cannot serve both God and mammon) and that a house divided against
itself will not stand; we go ahead and be a house divided against itself (which
is what we are and were born as), and let this house (which was not of our
making or choosin! g), to fall. And that is gravy for us as we'll be eliminating
togetherness of the forces and obtain separation!
  of the forces. Jesus says that 'we' cannot serve two masters (God and mammon).
And this is true. The entity we know as ourselves, will no longer contain both
God and mammon. The part of us that wants to serve mammon and go to excess in
the desires of the flesh, will go and do that. And the part that wants to put
God first will go and do that. But they will no longer be one entity, but
separate entities. Getting back to sex and religion: One may wonder, is there
sex in heaven? Mark 12, 25: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
What is the sex life of an angel? Unknown. But we may speculate that since the
only sex allowed here on earth is in marriage, and since there is no marriage in
heaven, that therefore there is no sex in heaven. But just because the only sex
allowed by God on earth is in monogamous marriage, doesn't mean that holds true
in heaven. Now, I wouldn't give this much weig!
ht, except for the EXAMPLE that God has set. Jesus Christ: !
He was (is) the son of God. He was (is) God's only begotten sone. You know, from
first glance at religion, you'd get the idea that we were beneath Him, and
basically the scum of the universe (an evil and adulterous generation) (violence
and sex). But then God goes and has an offspring with an earthling. God chose to
REPRODUCE with one of His creations, an earth woman, and had an humanoid son,
Jesus Christ. He must care about us a lot. I wouldn't go as far as saying God
had sex with an earthling, as God is free from the hunger and coercive force we
know as sex which has been shaped by death through the generations, and the need
to reproduce to replace what death took away. And the Bible says that the Word
(which then became Christ when the Word took on humanoid form) existed with God
and as God from the very beginning. But human reproductive function free from
coercion and evil, with the human woman Mary, did take place; and a humanoid
offspring was then ! generated after Mary'!
s conception. Perhaps only Mary's genes existed from her virgin birth. But at
age 12, the spirit of God descended upon Jesus. -The life essence from a human
woman (12 years later) was combined with the life essence of God (a spirit), and
in a loose sense of the word, an offspring (Jesus Christ) was created. Luke
1,35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God." If God
did it (although only once) I don't see why a loving God wouldn't sanctify and
purify an already existing action (reproductive function) that represents
growth, (Growth being what God IS). Oh yes, was there a marriage license? Was
there a courtship? Was Mary even taken out to supper? Never mind that Mary was
already betrothed to another man. Basically, Mary was told not to fear, and that
she had found favour with God, and that this was !
what was going to happen. At least she was notified of the !
coming event. Now, sidestepping the sex issue, we note that we believers are
supposed to compose the bride of Christ. We become one as part of the body of
the bride of Christ. This being so close together in one, is closer than even
sex could bring us. Remember that sex causes people to be joined together as one
flesh according to the Bible. Being part of the same body, we can probably feel
what each other is feeling. Here is the oneness that Jesus wants for us: John
17, 20-23,26 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may
believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given
them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me, that
they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent
me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me. 26:!
  And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love
wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. And here is a
Biblical account of a big group hug that Jesus did: Mark 4, 19-21: . . . and
they (the disciples) went into a house. And the multitude cometh together again,
so that they could not so much as eat bread. (a euphemistic way of saying they
were touching.) And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on
him: for they said, He is beside himself. When we're considering what's wrong
with sex; what is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? Well,
the Bible and Jesus tells us of the golden rule, which is: Matthew 7, 12:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even
so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. This rule is given a high
place by Jesus, because it can be used as a test to tell if something is good or
evil, right or wrong: thus Jesus raises this simple rule t!
o be the whole law and the prophets. Recall that the 10 com!
mandments are part of the law. We can use this rule to tell the difference
between good and evil; right vs wrong. Good doesn't mind having it turned on
itself and it done to itself. But with evil, that's the last thing it wants. For
example, ask yourself if you like to kill. If you got mad enough at someone, you
might; but then ask yourself if you changed places, would you like to be killed?
The answer would be NO. So, killing is thus wrong and evil. Ask yourself if you
would like to steal. Well, if it meant you would get something nice, you might
say yes. But then switch places and ask yourself if you would like to be robbed.
The answer would be NO. So, stealing is wrong and evil. But if we apply the
golden rule to the sexual area, things are! n't so cut and dried. If we have a
man and woman (or even homosexuals) who both like sex and who are sexually
active: if the man does sex to the woman and asks himself if he likes it, he
will say yes. Now if the two changed places and t!
he same question was asked, the answer would still be yes, because the woman
enjoyed it too. And if they didn't mind multiple partners, that would be a yes
all the way around too. (Why limit your love (to just one person)?) So here, sex
would not be considered evil or wrong by the golden rule. And since the golden
rule represents the whole law (according to the Bible), sex would not be wrong
or evil according to the golden rule. (Now this is not to say there isn't an
evil in sex. There is the evil in sex of an essential. So if we are to choose
whether or not to do sex because it contains an evil (whereby we're unable to do
sex without the evil): well, then just do the sex in an environment of reduced
capability; and take advantage of t! he difference between good and evil, which
allows the good and evil to separate in reduced capability, thus purifying the
good of sex to now be without any evil (the evil dies in separation). Whereas if
we said NO to sex altogether, we'd have n!
othing. -No good and no evil: which is the same as the inan!
imate, and stagnation; and also the end result of destruction alone.) (Now of
course, if the situation is where the man wants sex, but the woman does not want
sex or doesn't enjoy it, then that's different, and the golden rule turns this
out as evil. But I'm not talking about, or trying to defend that
situation.)////////////////////// ///You may have heard 'If you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen'. But I just want to warn them not to burn down the
kitchen. The condemnations of the law seem to say: 'we'll flush you if you don't
flush yourself'. Either way, you get flushed (down the toilet). Instead of
expending your energies to 'flush' yourself (according to the law), expend your
energies to deal with 'flush', while letting others expend their energy to flush
you and themselves. Because it is 'flush' itself that causes all the problems.
If God or the legal system is going to either eternally destroy (kill) you in
Hell or capitally punish you for murder (or other sin!
s/destructions); then they themselves have broken their own law (thou shalt not
kill), and should also carry out the same sentence against themselves and their
law, thus bringing everything to reduced capability so that there is nothing
beyond what we are now here at reduced capability life here on earth. It just
doesn't make sense: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do you believe in
capital punishment? yes. Do you believe in even enforcement of the law? yes.
Well, somebody has to put the murderer to death. (The murder will not kill
himself will he?) (Let the murderers kill themselves and leave me out of any
killing.) Is not he who put the murderer to death: hasn't he also killed? And
since he has killed, shouldn't he also be put to death, according to the law
that if somebody kills, they should be put to death? The thing is that what the
law attempts to stamp out (destructive behavior), the law does so by engaging in
destructive behavior. The law (both of man and the Bi!
ble) brings in and engages in and contains what it aims to !
stamp out. Will it ever stamp out destruction? The answer is, yes: when the law
and lawmakers/enforcers do to themselves what they do to others, they will then
bring our whole society to reduced capability where separation of the f! orces
can occur and the evil (destruction) die. Only when the law and lawkeepers do to
others, will the destruction be ended. Otherwise, the law and lawkeepers just
keep introducing the destruction they act against and it will always be with us,
keeping us in the stagnation that comes from having evil around. Since the law
contains the destruction it seeks to stamp out, the law seems to say that we
must have destruction and we can't be without it. Well, there is another way.
Destruction is not the only way. There is alternatively the possibility for life
free of destruction. This is the possibility I will be seeking to obtain. One of
the differences between good and evil is that Good is not scared of having it
done unto itself. But evildoers don't !
want the evil they do, create, and bring into the world, to come back and be
done to them. The law just completes the cycle and returns what the evildoer
produces(evil), back to the evildoer themselves, without having to drag the rest
of us and the whole society down to get to this point (where the evil the
evildoer does, returns to them). Yes, murderers will kill each other, but not
until they have brought us and the rest of society down to depravity. The law
just shortens the process (of the destructor receiving the destruction they
produce) so we who want nothing to do with destruction, don't have to be dragged
into it. This is the major purpose of the law. We who have no interest in doing
destructive things, have no kinship with the destruction of the law because we
have no destructiveness within us. With no destruction within us, the externa! l
destruction of the law has little hold on us, and we are able to shake it off
and deal with it in peace of mind, as we do with al!
l other external evils we encounter. But if you are going t!
o participate in the destructiveness of the law, then destructiveness is already
within you. And if a whole society craves to participate in the destructiveness
in the law (craving revenge on criminals), then there is no need to have the
law, because all the law is for is to hasten the day that the evildoer's evil
returns to them, so the rest of us who want no part of destruction, won't have
to be dragged into it. But if everybody already craves destruction and has
destructiveness (of the law) within them and everybody hates each other, then
there is no point to the law as far as protecting those who want no part of
destruction because there is nobody who isn't into destruction. -They all have
destruction within them. So it would be better for this society to be lawless.
Otherwise it would destroy itself and cease to exist. We want an environment of
reduced capability, not total desolation. And the added destruction from the law
would move the society towards total desolation.!
  But in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate, and the evil
dies, so that some good comes out of this society. So it's better for there to
be no law and for God to give these people up to their own cravings, in a
society that hates. When the law picks on people who don't have (much)
destructiveness within them (such as being arrested for chewing gum or not
flushing a public toilet, or not washing your hands before eating or healing on
the Sabbath), then the law introduces destruction where there was none before.
One purpose the law can have is to shorten the process by which the evildoer's
evil comes back upon them so the rest of us won't have to be drawn into their
destruction. But in this case, the law here has subverted that purpose and has
taken the role of the evildoer in a lawless society; as this law drags people
into destruction who don't have such destruction within them. This law needs to
have hastened, the day the destruction it does, comes back upon!
  it. (If it can't take what it dishes out; it shouldn't be !
in the kitchen.) (Eventually the destruction it produces WILL come back upon it,
but in this case, all involved will be dragged into it like it or not.) If you
insist on an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, (in order to insist on
executing murderers): realize that this system uses destruction in order to
stamp out destruction. If destruction works so well and is the preferred choice
of the system; why is it then trying to stamp it out? And if you insist on
strict adherence to this system, then you must be consistent. If a lecherous man
stalks, hugs and kisses an attractive member of the opposite sex, then his
punishment must be for a member of the opposite sex to stalk, kiss and hug him;
according to this system of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Concerning sexual love: How can a thing be right and wrong at the same time? I
say it can't. Either an action is good, or evil, or a combination of the two in
different areas. When a husband has sex with his wife; that!
  is supposed to be OK. But when a man has sex with a woman not his wife, that is
supposed to be terribly wrong. (If the same man and the same woman have sex, but
with different marital ties, this act can range from acceptable and OK, to
terribly wrong, depending on the marital ties.) But it is the same act in both
cases. A man is physically capable of loving only one woman at a time. When a
couple first gets married, their sexual passion is as hot as ever. But after a
time, due to sameness and lack of variety, that passion may wane. I mean, if you
ate the same meal day in and day out; you might get bored with it, even if it
was your favorite food. But if the intense sexual passion between a newly
married husband and wife is OK, then why is that intense sexual passion not OK
b! etween any man and woman? Either a thing is good, or it is bad. But we go
about treating an action as perfectly acceptable and good and then due to a few
technicalities, we treat essentially the same act!
ion as totally unacceptable and terribly wrong. And we do s!
o without a second thought. Essentially it is the same act in both cases. The
inherent goodnesses and/or destructivenesses are going to be present in the act
in both cases. Simon says touch your nose. Touch your nose. (Simon is a 3rd
party bureaucratic rule maker). Can a thing be changed from good to evil, evil
to good, just by putting the word or a blessing on it? If that is so, why has
not all the wrongs been righted, and paradise on earth yet been created with the
word and a blessing? More specifically, why hasn't the word or a blessing been
used to free us from our essentials and quasi essentials instead of leaving us
trapped of them? We can have Jesus' word or blessing upon us if we choose, but
that doe! s not yet free us from our essentials/quasi essentials. "Give unto God
what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's". (In this case, our eating, and
our reproductive function appear to be yet Caesar's, as they are still our
essentials/quasi essentials. Dictating how we!
  are to do these, is definitely Caesar's way, and they are thus correctly
rendered to Caesar. But let us try to escape Caesar and Caesar's controlling
dictates that hide behind Biblical commands.) The only logical assertion that
makes sense is that all sexual desire contains some error/destruction and is
wrong: but that like eating, we can't get by without it. (So that God is willing
to process and purify a certain degree, a limited amount, of sexuality; but not
an undue amount of it.) Therefore allowances are made to allow a limited amount
of it. Well, if allowances are going to be made, then I'd like more of a
selection of ways; and I'd like to have a hand, and understanding in the
fashioning of these allowances: since this area so deeply effects us all. Its
obvious that sexual passion is being limited by these rules over sex. But sexual
passion itself, is defective. If we love only those whom are attractive; whom we
are sexually attracted to; then this limits our love. The !
love of God will not be limited. And God loves everyone irr!
egardless of their attractiveness. In this respect, God is a more prolific lover
than any sexual lover. What I suggest, is that ! we are what we are and all we
need do, is acknowledge this and that our sexuality is defective (imperfect);
take additional action to quarantine or deal with the evil in it. And that once
we do this, we do not need to try and prevent it from coming out. In the Bible
it says "To those that have, more will be given and to those that have not, that
little they have will be taken away and given to that has". Or the rich get
richer, and the poor get poorer. Doesn't it seem like this is the way it is?
-That the rich are getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Well, what about
God? God has done very well and is far richer than the richest man. Thus between
God and the rich (and all the rest of us), we will all loose it all to God. But
if we as the poor make ourselves part of God, we will inherit a share of it all
because we are part of God. How do we !
do that? The Bible says God is love. If we act in loving ways and generate our
income through loving ways, then we will have made ourselves a part of God
through this. If we believe on Jesus Christ we will have made ourselves part of
God. So this is how many of the last can become first and the first last. But
those who become rich through meanness and underhande! dness, will loose this
wealth to God who is far wealthier and more powerful. And since they have not
made themselves a part of God, they won't get any of it back as inheritance and
will loose it for good. One thing about welfare I have to admit, (although I
don't like what the republicans are doing when they cut off welfare); is that if
you refuse to give someone a handout, you haven't done destruction to them. You
aren't helping them, but you haven't done a harmful act to them either. Now, if
you control their environment so you hinder their access to materials and
prevent them from making a living like you do, then!
  you are the cause of a destructive act. But just refusing !
to help someone (that you've never helped before), contains no destructive
action. Likewise, when a woman brings a child into the world through sexual
activity, it's not her fault that human children are born with a destructive
force within them whereby if they're not cared for, they die. I mean, its not
the rich man's fault that humans are under the condition whereby if they don't
get enough food they starve to death. Yes, one would hope that a mother would
love her children and care for them out of her own choice. And if she doesn't,
the state should step in and do so out of its own choice. But to try to hold
mothers accountable for neglecting their children, I think goes a bit far. (I'm
not talking about abuse here. Abuse does contain destructive acts.) If we are
going to hold mothers accountable and punish them, then we should hold rich men
accountable for the plight of the poor and punish them, because neither has
helped when help was needed. Are we going to legislate lov!
e? Now you may say that because a mother created and brought into this w! orld,
a little baby; that she is accountable. (We have to put the burden off on
someone when the rest of us don't want to help out.) But if that is the case,
then we must hold this woman's mother (and father) accountable for creating this
woman in such a way, that the babies she had, have this destructive force within
them that without care and food, they die (which is the human condition: we are
trying to blame the human condition on the mother). And not only the mother of
the woman, but her mother, and the mother before her, and before her, all the
way back to Eve and Adam, helped contribute to the existence of the destructive
force within a baby which kills it if not given care and food. And then not only
them, but also God, because He created these people in such a way that they
could fall from grace. If you're going to hold a mother accountable because she
created a child, you must also hold God acc!
ountable because HE created us. And I think to myself: they!
  have alr! eady held God accountable: -they nailed Him to a tree. So if you want
to take your place with those who crucified Christ, then go ahead and be
judgmental and condemn those mothers who you feel haven't sacrificed enough for
their children. I'm not saying it's right or good to not help your children.
It's not. But if you're moved to do something; help the child, don't judge and
condemn the mother, nor force sterilize the mother, nor imprison the mother. The
work mothers do in raising their kids is just as important if not more so than
any work done in a factory. It is fitting that mothers should partake of the
materials our society makes. They should be paid. I've been told that the Bible
tells mothers to take care of their kids. I'm not surprised. It's just common
sense. But the Bible here also states that every 'man' shall be rewarded for
their own labor. And if we pay a factory worker for their work, we should also
pay a mother for hers. Many mothers have raised ki!
ds for no pay, but I'm saying and the Bible is saying that it's right that they
should be paid. Now if the republicans take away welfare for these single
mothers, and these single mothers can't find a job or a high enough paying job,
then they won't be able to take care of their kids, and social services will
take them away from their mothers; and put them in foster care. It costs money
to pay people to take care of foster children. And if you elimina! te foster
care, destitute mothers will just drop their kids off at hospitals and someone
will have to pay to take care of them and it won't be them without money. It's
going to cost more this way than before. Why not just pay the mothers in the
form of welfare? When will you realize that raising the children is as valid a
job and deserving of pay as any office or factory job or capital gain from smart
investment, that you do for a living? Why do you single out certain types of
work and say that they are less worthy and refuse to!
  pay? (Just because men and women naturally form family uni!
ts and tend to take care of their kids naturally without pay: ie human sexuality
provides the incentive for a little free labor.) May the stripping of pay you've
done to these mothers, come back on you, without the rest of us having to be
drawn into it. -You produced it. It stinks. We want to be far from it, leaving
you with it. Some mothers may think they own their children (whether 5 or 55)
because they brought them into the world and are required to take care of them:
therefore that care doesn't ever end. But no one can own another. Remember that
we shall all lose ownership to God (and only by being part of God do we inherit
all). Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now that's really something -to overcome
death. But if Jesus is still alive, we can't talk to him in the flesh these
days. He said He went away to heaven so He could send His Holy Spirit to us all.
Well, God is a Spirit first and foremost, and only took on a fleshly form for
our benefit. But because God is a Spirit!
, while we're flesh and are either spiritually dead or infants; this poses a
difficulty in communication: a communication barrier. So, our relationship with
God is difficult. It's not 'ideal' or the finished product. It's like us and
rocks. If rocks had some slow say of talking to each other, and they discussed
whether humans existed. They might have a suspicion we were there, but wouldn't
be able to be sure, due to their lack of being alive in our plane of life. We
know we exist, and just because some rocks don't believe it doesn't change it.
But I'm not so much concerned with the question of the existence of God; but
about the communication barrier. It's possible God could exist. It could happen.
But if so, it's difficult to have a relationship with a life form you can't see,
can't hear, and can't be sure if its not just your mind playing tricks on you,
or it's Him communicating with you. Or if it's an evil spirit fooling you. Yes,
we have the Bible a written instruction man!
ual, but written material can be interpreted differently if!
  the author is not readily available to clarify His writings. For example, John
6, 52-54/61-63: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this
man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life: and I will raise him up at the last day. /When Jesus knew in himself that
his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and
if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit
that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and they are life. Does this have something to do with sucking
someone off? Or perhaps, His epiglottis grows out for each to take a bite: or
perhaps He gives milk. How does one eat and drink of Jesus without hurting him?
Then there is the Biblical statements !
that if a man commits sin, he is a slave to sin: and later the command: 'slaves,
obey your master'. OK, we slaves to sin will just go ahead and obey our master:
sin; and thus become those vessels created for destruction (so that our entity
will no longer exist so that the good parts of us will be set free from the
destructive parts built into us). The commands about obeying authority and
obeying our masters, are irrelevant for the most part, because it's not so much
that we obey, but it's who we slaves choose to be our master and ruler over us
in the first place. (If you don't like your master, choose another one/join a
better group.) Unfortunately for us, one master (sin), is born into us, and
we're not able to choose away from it (there are some hungers and needs we're
unable to choose away from). John 7, 38-39: He that believeth on me, as the
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But
this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on!
  him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; !
because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 14, 16-18: And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
him hot, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 16,
26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of
me: John 14, 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Here we see that God doesn't
want to impose His presence on those who don't want Him, and thus preserves free
choice; -enhancing our advancement in choice. (Of course, it might be just our
mind playing tricks on us. But if God does!
n't exist now, we seek to create a benevolent God.) But this preservation of
free choice, if God does exist, hinders our communication with Him and makes the
relationship difficult. But in a world or evil as ours is, this is just the
strong medicine needed to separate the forces. So if you want for a loving God
to show His face, let's get rid of all the evil (lets allow the forces to
separate and the evil die). Part B The whole 'choosing away' (from earth) idea:
This most important 'choosing away' action we plant in our earthly-parts so it
will be present in our young-Godly-parts; is ill named. Actually, it should be
'choosing to stay put' instead of 'choosing away'! When a young Godly part is
created, it is created safe in God. If it chooses to stay there and not come to
the evil of the earth, it has then chosen wisely. A choice not to run away but
to stay put and stand one's ground in our earthly parts will serve us well as it
passes into Godly parts, when destruction destro!
ys (parts of) us. Once translated into our young Godly part!
s; this directive to stay put will keep our young Godly parts safe (in God).
However: if this directive isn't there or contains a directive to flee, then our
young Godly parts may wander or flee from their safety-in-God and find the evil
of this earth. So, we must replace 'choosing away' (referring to choosing away
from earth) in the previous writi! ngs (which are still valid), to 'choosing to
stay' (put in God). When we stop and do nothing, this is the same as doing all
choosing to stay, because when destruction generates Godly parts (from either
one), they don't wander off or join earthly parts. This may be why we feel
hesitation to doing things and would rather sit and do nothing. The following is
a continuation of the discussion of essentials vs non essentials -that is the
non evil group; and separation of the forces in reduced capability. In reduced
capability (where we've done incomplete fragmentation), separation of the forces
occurs. As the good becomes separate (even !
the good from non accepted 'mammon parts'); our higher earthly parts (which we
didn't fragment), then reach out to join these separate parts ONCE THEY BECOME
SEPARATE. Once all the good has made it into the safety of these higher parts,
then one of two things we make happen: (1)-If the good is from one of our
essentials or quasi essentials where evil is always lurking nearby, and total
separation from evil hasn't been obtained; then we do an inc fragmentation near
the border of that evil. The size of the inc fragmentation zone is determined by
how lively-and-capable the evil is. But since most of the life and good from
this area has just transferred to our 'high parts', there is little life
remaining for this evil, thus the zone needn't be large. But we still must do
some inc fragmentation here to keep the evil from getting into the rich high
parts here. (2)-Now, if the separated good (out of the red cap zone) is from a
Non essential and thus has no evil close by and is comple!
tely separate from evil; then no elaborate inc fragmentatio!
n need be done to protect the high parts that moved to contact this good part. A
short contact by 'high capability earthly parts', with good that partially
separates in reduced capability; helps separate this good further: (as it grows
into the high parts, while the evil can't (right away)). But once the good has
grown into the high parts, the high parts' nurturing environment needs to be
removed (by inc fragmenting) so the evil won't also infect the high parts.
Processing the good of our essentials that comes out of the red-cap-zone can be
quite engaging with all the fragmentation actions. But let's not forget the much
easier joining (by our high parts) of the 100% choosing to stay that also
separates out of the red-cap-zone. It requires no re-fragmentation or the
elaborate process we do for purifying our essentials. (We) our high parts don't
control what comes out of the red-cap-zone. (The high parts don't enter the
red-cap-zone, but wait for the good to grow/move out of the!
  red-cap-zone. -Otherwise the high parts would bring this zone out of reduced
capability). The high parts don't do the separation, (other than to bring to
reduced capability via inc fragmentation; whereby the high part that did so
would no longer be a high part, but would now be the red cap zone itself).
Separation then is done solely by the reduced capability of the red-cap-zone.
The high parts just join what has become separate. Some things separate out of
the red-cap-zone faster than others. Those things with more evil (such as
essentials) take longer. As 100%gogr; 100%choosing to stay; and our basic
consciousness (that is, the Non essentials) soon separate from the red-cap-zone
and are joined by our high parts, that leaves essentials left over. So after a
time, the red-cap-zone becomes mostly essentials. Even with the constant
introduction of fresh material, there is still a glut of essentials there. As of
now, we have a 3 tier system. We have godly parts; we have high ear!
thly parts which we do at our maximum earthly growth; and w!
e have the reduced capability fragmentation zone. We've come up with systems of:
1) exposing our high parts to small pieces of our essentials at a time; and 2)
waiting till the forces separate in the red cap zone and contacting the good
that separated, but then fragmenting that connection after a time: - in essence,
exposing whole material (not pieces) to our high parts for a limited moment of
time. This next writing requires an adjustment in thought. Now, we're not
considering a plan to cleans our essentials by doing small parts of them with
our non-evil-group. Here we're considering Godly parts (and making sure young
Godly parts remain safe in God). Now, the previous plans/systems may be good to
satisfy our earthly life, but may conflict with the creation of Godly parts. We
need to create 'choosing to stay' in our earthly parts, so when destruction
acts, 'choosing to stay' will be translated into our Godly parts. But when we
choose-to-JOIN-with things that have obtained some!
  separation from evil, with our high earthly parts: -when this gets translated
into Godly parts (when we fragment the connection here): (Our joining action
will be translated into the young Godly parts, causing them to join earthly
parts). -We don't want our Godly parts joining to where there is even any
connection to evil. And I don't see any way to really avoid it, and still hold
this method. A solution to the problem I do see, is to maintain an environment
of reduced capability even though Godly parts are being brought down. (It helps
that they are young Godly parts.) The idea is to get the Godly parts that come
back to earth via the wrong programming, to be at reduced capability. Since the
Godly parts when young, start out at the same capability as the earthly parts
they came from; and since they choose right away to come out of their safety
with God and into the evil of the earth: then they won't grow much. (Oops: But
really, I'm fooling myself.) Once 'rightly programmed'!
  earthly parts have been fragmented and thereby removed, th!
e remnant, mostly 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, will be at reduced
capability because they no longer have the 'rightly programmed' earthly parts to
help them. Once enough 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented,
we'll want to stop this (fragmentation of 'rightly programmed' earthly parts) so
we won't bring things to total desolation. So after a point, we then fragment
the fragmentation action. -(That's the inc fragmentation). (At first we do only
a fragmentation upon the most pure and evil-free earthly parts (the good die
young), and then only later (once reduced capability has been reached), do we
fragment this first fragmentation action; as well as the 'wrongly programmed'
earthly parts, plus fragment the fragmentation of 'wrongly programmed' earthly
parts.) Oops I'm still fooling myself. One point I had failed to consider, was
that the reduced capability Godly parts would not be able to move very far from
God right away, and that because of their separ!
ation from evil, they would grow. So that by the time they made it back to join
the things of this earth, they would be quite capable and of high capability.
The solution to this, is the inc fragmentation (that comes from fragmenting the
fragmentation action) (in the wrongly programmed Godly parts). With
fragmentation action (because inc fragmentation fragments everything including
itself) also translated into Godly parts, the fragmentation keeps the material
which is traveling to earth, at reduced capability. And when that fragmentation
sends material back to Godly parts; they too join new translated fragmentation.
Since fragmenting sends things to be Godly parts; fragmenting the fragmentation
action, sends fragmentation action itself as a Godly part. And this
fragmentation present in the Godly parts,! keeps these wrongly programmed Godly
parts at reduced capability, in their journey back to earth. So all we need do,
is to also make sure we fragment the fragmentation action (!
in parts that have a love for things on this earth). Anothe!
r related dilemma, is that posed by the separating of the forces themselves. The
idea was that the good was able to grow out away from the evil (in this reduced
capability environment, which tested the 'metal' of each force). But the act of
good moving out away from evil, is an act of escape. It's not an action of
confronting evil, but of getting away from it. This is what the separation
action is. If this action of escape and 'getting away' is translated into Godly
parts, it will cause them to move out and get away from their safety in God.
What then shall we do; seeing that the separation action is fundamental to all
we've been talking about? What we can do, is just let things run their course,
in a wise decision. Originally, when things start out and with nothing done to
them, they are still and don't contain 'running away' action. Reduced capability
then selects those parts of good best able to get away from the evil and in a
good position to escape. With these, their orig!
inal 'stay put' stance, is changed to 'getting away' action. But with the rest
of good which doesn't have a favorable opportunity/capability to escape the
evil, we let remain in 'stay put' stance. When destruction destroys parts with
the stay put stance, their corresponding Godly parts remain safe in God. It is
these parts within the grasp of evil, that haven't a good opportunity to escape,
that our heavenly treasure is built up with, as they pass through destruction
and go to God. When destruction tries to destroy
parts-with-the-separation-action (that are trying to get away/separate from
evil); since we've chosen parts with a good opportunity to escape, the
destruction is often unable to destroy them, and these parts then do not pass
through destruction and do not yet generate Godly parts. Now, sometimes,
destruction IS able to destroy some of them; and this directive to get separate
IS translated into Godly parts, which then act to get separate from their safety
in God. But!
  they don't come down to the evil of the earth either, sinc!
e their action is to get separate. They thus remain alone, and grow only slowly
due to their low starting capability (although eventually they would grow to
very high capability due to their separation from evil). Since they start off
with God as Godly parts, they are further away from evil than they started; and
the short distance they are able to go away from God with their low capability,
doesn't bring them that muc! h closer to evil. As they grow in capability, and
get closer to the evil of this earth, they then act to also avoid it too. So,
this separation material is somewhere between heaven and hell, whether of not it
passes through destruction. And even if evil captures and destroys some of this
material that has already passed through destruction (which doesn't happen often
-thus making it a poor food source for evil), the process just repeats itself
and the material returns to this limbo between God and evil. So, all that desire
separation will attain separation. (On!
ly parts that love this world, will return to the evil of this world after that
directive is translated into Godly parts.) There are 3 possible situations: high
capability, reduced capability, and desolation. What happens when an evil brings
parts of us to desolation (to nothing)? We may want to be at reduced capability
for separation of the forces, but not totally destroyed and brought to nothing.
At reduced capability, some good is able to separate and get away from the evil;
but at total desolation, it is totally destroyed; it is not able to get away,
and is brought to nothing. Now, whatever is being totally destroyed is unable to
do much of anything. When an evil is totally destroying a part of us, it's
tempting for nearby reduced capability parts to try and help it out. But that's
not good. The part under total destruction is incapable of anything and thus
stays put, so the young Godly parts produced, also stay put safe in God. But if
a reduced capability part tries to he!
lp out; it probably won't be able to free the part under to!
tal destruction (due to its reduced capability), bu! t will just give it enough
ability to make a feeble escape attempt. Now, even the reduced capability parts
now no longer escape and separate from evil as they lose resources to helping
the part under certain destruction. And the propped up part that was in certain
destruction and is now almost in certain destruction, will have just enough to
make a feeble escape attempt, which when translated to its Godly part (when the
escape almost certainly fails and evil finally destroys it), will cause the
young Godly part to escape from God, and doom it to the evil of this earth, or
to lonely separation. No, it's better if the surrounding reduced capability
parts don't help the part under total destruction. Then, the red-cap-zone isn't
drained to total destruction every one, but remains to continue separation of
the forces, whereby some good escapes evil, and separation of the forces is
achieved; and whereby the Godly parts generated f!
rom the part under total destruction, remain safe in God and store up our
treasure in Heaven. Now, high capability parts may move in to rescue the good
under total destruction, and then quickly move (fragment) away due to the
presence of evil. But they will be successful at saving the good and SEPARATING
the good due to their high capability. Why cause those parts not suited to
escape, to bear the burden of escape, when they can 'stay put' and be together
with God in their Godly parts? Even with those parts suited to escape, we may
want to instead stay put and be with God with them. But since separation of the
forces is such a fundamental empowerment, that may undermine the power of God if
we did this. But let us limit escape to those parts having a good opportunity to
succeed in it. Note that our act to 'not help', isn't a destructive act. No
decrease (in capability) has been done by not helping (where we previously
haven't helped). No increase has been done either, but that'!
s no decrease. To 'not help' doesn't mean we've hurt. On th!
e other hand, our act to inc fragment, invariable does some destruction,
although we minimize that as much as possible. We can employ the action of 'not
helping' to take the place of fragmentation: -as a better way to enact reduced
capability and quarantine the evil, since this action does no destruction
(unlike fragmentation). Parts less well off, may be so, due to evil destroying
in them. Thus if better off parts, do not help the lesser parts, then the evil
won't be fed, and it will thus be unable to spread. Unfortunately, the act of
'not helping' isn't enough but is only part of things; as we still need inc
fragmentation in some areas. (Even in doing our essentials, where instead of
'not helping', we limit our creating (which is forced to contain 'helping') to
only a small section at a time; we employ fragmentation). We do inc
fragmentation in parts that have a love for things of this earth (that is, our
essentials). Otherwise, we replace fragmentation with 'not helping'. O!
ur act to 'not help', however, can put us at reduced capability after a certain
point. The act by better parts to 'not help', enhances/supports the separation
that occurs at reduced capability. This allows the better parts to escape
reduced capability and move to higher capability, thus leaving the evil alone to
die. The 'not helping' and 'not sharing' has its function in reduced capability
to support the separation of the forces that occurs there. But once parts are
beyond this, and have achieved separation from evil, then the 'not sharing' and
'not helping' has outlived its usefulness and even becomes a hindrance to
further advancement. If the higher parts there continue to compete among
themselves and the better parts don't share (even after evil is gone), then this
prevents growth from taking hold, and stagnates the group just above reduced
capability. (-Which is the same result as the togetherness of good and evil it
just escaped from.) Capability and life ho! pefully are!
  more than a fixed step above the inanimate. Capability and!
  life are the keys to crossing barriers. And 'helping' and 'sharing', are the
actual crossing of barriers, and are part of growth and growth of life (what
evil free life is). So instead of holding onto the reduced capability which
would hold us back (needlessly since evil had already been escaped from), our
evil free parts no longer do 'not helping' but now share all; with the higher
parts helping the lesser parts. This is the way it should be. Where shall we
draw the line between helping vs not helping? Well Jesus indicates at the
barrier between ourselves and others. The individual position is the reduced
capability position compared to the group. It is here (in reduced capability)
that separation of the forces occurs; and where we do 'not helping' to enhance
that process of separation. -If we put ourselves in front of an evil so the evil
will get us instead of others. All this does is exchange one part for another.
The evil still needs to be dealt with and still wants to de!
stroy someone -now us. But now we have a free hand to deal with it as we see
fit. We then act differently within ourselves by 'not sharing' within ourselves,
to deal with the evil. The parts of ourselves that evil is destroying, we deny
help from coming from our other parts. This may be the self denial Christ wants
us to do. The place to deal with evil, is within yourself, since that is the
reduced capability position (where the ! environment is right to deal with
evil). The force of evil can't exist alone, and must bring along a force of good
with it (whereas the force of good CAN exist alone). So if we find a way to
separate the forces in an evil encounter then we can make it a profitable
encounter by freeing the good that the evil brought along with it. When
destruction has destroyed our meager 'stay put' parts and they are safe in God;
that then doesn't leave much in our earthly parts. We may wonder why we haven't
accomplished much or made much of our life. And people may !
point out that we haven't. But before we become concerned a!
bout amounting to something and accomplishing something and growing; the force
of destruction and coercion needs to be dealt with first, before we even think
about bettering ourselves or generating just growth. Because even if we did
bring our Godly parts down to earth to try and amount to something; the force of
destruction and coercion would just feed on them and destroy what they produced
so that we still wouldn't accomplish all that much anyway. If we brought down
our Godly parts to make it above reduced capability, then the forces wouldn't
separate. (The good-and-evil we're able to bring in at reduced capability is all
we can process.) No, it's better to store up treasure in heaven! where the force
of destruction can't get it (where moth and rust doth not corrupt neither do
thieves break through and steal). In the following writing, the 'not sharing
mode' represents the red cap zone of previous writing, as 'not sharing' is one
of the techniques used to produce reduced cap!
ability: so that if we later invalidate 'not sharing' as a method, the red cap
zone is still valid. Because it takes longer for our essentials to separate than
for our Non-essentials; there remains a glut of the essentials in the
red-cap-zone. If no new starting material came in (was created), the essentials
would eventually separate out of the red-cap-zone, eliminating their glut there.
But our high parts are alive. They bridge barriers as life does, and find/create
more new material. So, to start out, the high parts are rich in Non-essentials
as these separate first; (with the essentials remaining behind in the
red-cap-zone to form a glut of those there). With a continuing addition of new
material to the red-cap-zone, a glut of essentials remains in the red-cap-zone.
But with the (delayed) increase of more evil-free-essentials joining the high
parts, the Flow to the high pats soon contains the same proportion of
Non-essentials to essentials as the original material. And even!
tually, the high parts become so structured. Only when the !
high parts run into a barrie! r and the generation of new material is slowed, do
the proportions change. To facilitate enjoyment of our purified essentials and
preserve individuality, what I suggest, is to do the change to 'sharing' mode,
and, the joining by high parts, in two separate steps. I want to go over the
doing of an essential. (An early attempt) When an essential has been completed
and joined by our high parts, it causes our high parts to create and do other
things. The doing of essentials is not the only thing that our high parts do.
This is a time for us to branch out into other things and do other things. Since
our essentials are completed. Getting back to our essentials: When our high
parts are creating/doing a new thing, they do so in 'sharing' mode. -Even in an
essential and if it means feeding an evil. -Because there is no other way to
CREATE. But when the high parts continue on creating in this new thing and they
create a basic consciousness within it: that b!
asic consciousness acts to cause a 'not sharing' mode, and stops the high parts
from sharing with this created thing. This spurs the high parts to create even
more, but somewhere else. (But the high parts don't do this change to 'not
sharing'. -(Because the high parts are in 'sharing' mode.)) And as the high
parts create the same 'new' stage again, they do so in 'sharing' mode until our
basic consciousness is again created as part of this new thing; and it then acts
gain to stop the pleasure sharing. Now, these things that have put themselves in
'not sharing', do not remain so, but eventually return to 'sharing' as they
become evil-free. First, most of our consciousness and associated Non-essentials
leave the created item and return to 'sharing', while the essentials remain
behind in 'not sharing'. Eventually the essentials separate and after that,
change themselves back to (unjoined) 'sharing' mode, -with the small amount of
consciousness that has remained with them. (If they!
  have no consciousness to change them to 'sharing' mode, th!
ey also have no consciousness to keep them still in 'not sharing' mode; and
their growth from (becoming evil-free) will cause them to change on their own,
to 'sharing' mode.) The thing is, that the high parts have no control over the
essential's course through the red-cap-zone and finally to the 'sharing' mode.
When the consciousness appears, and changes a creating essential to 'not
sharing' mode; the high parts have no choice but to start creating anew; and
they create the same beginning stage of the essential until consciousness is
also created here; whence this creation too goes to 'not sharing' mode. Then the
high parts start fresh again and create anew the same beginning type fragment of
the essential, again starting in 'sharing' mode. And this continues over and
over until some of that beginning fragment of the essential in 'not sharing'
mode finally goes (of itself) into 'sharing' mode as it becomes evil free. When
this happens: then when the high parts create anew, the!
y work with these free beginning 'fragments' of the essential (in 'sharing'
mode) to WORK-with-them(not create them) to add/(create) further stages of the
essential. Both the beginning and further stages are in 'sharing' mode at this
time (and need to be so for the creating). Our high parts then go thr! ough the
same repetitive creating until some of the further-stages change (themselves) to
'sharing' mode. The high parts then work with this to create the next stage of
the essential. The complete essential in 'sharing' mode is thus obtained by
these methods. The repetitive nature of our method is to accommodate the high
part's ability and desire to create. One may find that the high parts' sharing
with the essential which contains evil, is bad. But the act of creating may
require a 'sharing' mode. It may be possible to put something that already
exists in a 'not sharing' mode: but the act of creating brings something into
existence where there was nothing before: This represen!
ts growth and 'sharing'. So to create, might force it to be!
  done in a 'sharing' mode. It is helpful to note that the created items have to
pass through reduced capability before they can be at high capability, as in the
going from nothing to something, reduced capability is passed through. Note that
in doing an essential; unlike an evil attack; we are unable to use 'not sharing'
to deal with the evil in the essential when we are creating the essential. Only
the inc fragmentation can transcend here and give additional assistance (to
provide reduced capability). In our suggested method here (of 'sharing' modes
and 'not sharing' modes), we are doing the essential piecemeal, so that the evil
is small and at reduced capability. Recall we previously proposed a method of
doing an essential piecemeal to wash it clean of evil. (With our piecemeal
method, we could let a rich environment remain in contact with a whole essential
for a short moment of time; or we could let the rich environment remain in
contact with a piece or stage of the essenti!
al for a much longer time.) In our piecemeal method the essential needs to be in
pieces, and that is accomplished by going to the 'not sharing' mode. Concerning
the trigger to 'not sharing' mode: if our high parts (although they created all
things evenly (both essentials, and Non-essentials) like we want for even
growth), didn't produce consciousness soon enough (because they were not yet
capable enough), and thus the piece of essential created was too large (which
allows the evil to infect the high parts)? Well, we just have to change the
suggested method. When some of the consciousness-of-the-high-parts move close in
with the piece of essential, if it needs to, it doesn't have to wait till the
high parts create new consciousness, but can separate itself from the high parts
and take the essential and itself into 'not sharing' mode. This consciousness
soon separates out and returns to 'sharing' mode, and grows to rejoin the high
parts again. (When the high parts are powerful e!
nough to create consciousness soon enough, then this method!
  is no longer done. Concerning the trigger as to when we change to 'not sharing'
mode: a better trigger, is if we grow into a new stage of the essential, we
should continue for a short while, then trigger a change to 'not sharing'. The
newness of the next stage of the essential should be our trigger. Note that just
because we change a piece of our essential to 'not sharing', doesn't mean it
ceases to exist. -It still continues on (eventually to separate out); but it no
longer experiences creation from the high parts. Remember that all evil-free
parts (of our essentials) quickly return to 'sharing'. This includes previous
completed essentials (which are now evil free after passing through the long
initial not sharing). The new insight is: the high parts now don't (usually)
have to create new stages of the essential from scratch, but work with already
existing, completed (evil-free) essential (the needed stage of), to just
generate more of it -the newly generated material being !
the new stage, which must then go through a long initial 'not sharing'. The high
parts can then move right on to the next stage by working with the cooresponding
already-completed-(evil-free)-essential. Actually, note that this isn't my
current mode of operation but is just a journal of what I've been through
before, and is like one of the possibilities that an essential may be done by.
Skip when boring or overcomplex. Now our high parts don't create each stage so
repetitively anymore. Earlier we did a stage repetitively, because we were
waiting for some of that to return to 'sharing' (from the long initial 'not
sharing'), so the high parts would have it to work with. But now, our high parts
are able to move onto the next stage right away, by working with already
existing previous-essential. Note that when our high parts are working with a
previous-complete-essential to produce a certain current stage, they may DEPEND
on (existing interrelated evil free OTHER previous-complete!
-essential stages)-A*, but the high parts don't also create!
  these other interrelated stages they're depending on here. (The high parts
WORK-with(not create) that A* to then create the current stage.) The way to make
sure the high parts aren't also creating other stages, is that they should exert
no effort. Whatever comes to the high parts with no effort on the high part's
part is OK. The high parts create only one stage at a time and it is sent to its
long initial 'not sharing' before they start to create the next stage. (This
creating only one stage at a time, is to quarantine evil in accordance with our
piecemeal method.) ›I am reminded of the Bible verse where comparison is made
between patiently enduring punishment that you don't deserve, vs that you do
deserve, in that it asks what reward could you expect (none), for patiently
enduring punishment for wrongdoing on your part. So, when guilty of wrongdoing,
don't patiently endure punishment (ie stay put stance), but instead try to
escape and make a break for it, as unacceptable mat!
erial, when killed, doesn't build up your heavenly treasure.› But the most
important addition is yet to come: In an attack by evil, if a part is destroyed
standing its ground; that will get translated in the Godly part, and that Godly
part will remain safe in God. But the worst situation occurs when a part of us
is destroyed that is loving something connected to the evil of this earth. When
that part is destroyed, its love for earthly items is also translated in the
Godly part; and that Godly part thus leaves its safety in God and returns to the
evil of this earth. The only trouble is that in its journey back; since it is
separate from evil, it grows well and becomes quite rich. And when it finally
joins to the earthly item (with the evil of this earth nearby); then the evil
has a rich food to feed it, that is from heaven and God. This is why bullies go
about and destroy a love you have of something on this earth, perhaps by taking
or destroying one of your prized possessions !
-so as to provide a rich food to feed the evil within them.!
  Because when the Godly part (generated by their destruction) returns to
something on earth that they control, it becomes a rich food for their evil to
feed on. The force of evil needs a rich enviro! nment and a rich food in order
to get around, because it also destroys what can support it, help it, and get it
around. The force of good on the other hand, doesn't need so rich an environment
or food. So if we can somehow 'poison' the heavenly food that comes back down to
earth, to be at mediocre capability (at reduced capability), then the earthly
evil will be frozen in its tracks because the food won't be rich enough for it;
but WILL be rich enough for whatever good is accompanying the earthly evil, to
allow it to escape/separate, so that the evil now starves and dies, alone. The
way to cause the food to not be so rich (that returns to earth from heaven due
to the love of an earthly thing being destroyed), is to fragment this love of an
earthly thing and also simultaneously fra!
gment this fragmentation action itself. You see, when the fragmentation action
itself is fragmented, its function is destroyed: so it thus joins the Godly
parts, that will return to earth. With fragmentation (action) now present in the
Godly food returning to earth, that food is fragmented and brought to reduced
capability; thus poisoning the food for the evil in the bully, so the evil in
them will die and the bully become good. (This includes sexual 'bullying'.
Including marginally that which occurs when one person is infatuated with
another, but the other person destroys development of that infatuation (an
earthly love) by not allowing a relationship to occur. Just inc fragment your
infatuation here so the heartbreaker will be made good.) So, the most important
addition, is to add this inc fragmentation in our earthly loves (our
essentials). Whether we are able to obtain our essentials, or some bully
prevents us from obtaining our essentials" the response is the same: in bot!
h cases, we will need to deal with the evils present, by in!
c fragmenting these earthly loves. This is an additional thing we can do (in
addition to our just described piecemeal method of dealing with our essentials).
This is especially helpful since we can't do 'not sharing' when we create our
essential (although 'not sharing' does make up a part of our piecemeal method,
but not the direct part.) Inc fragmentation serves as a backup for what our
piecemeal method misses (after the fact). Let's put everything together, as to
how we deal with evil both within our essentials, and external evils. As just
mentioned, when dealing with evil within an earthly love of an essential, we use
the piecemeal method, backed up by inc fragmentation. (Note that when we've done
inc fragmentation on something once; we don't do it again and again, unless that
something has passed through destruction again and is coming down as a rich
Godly part again. In that case, we do do it again, once.) And, every once in
awhile, we may want to do an essential without !
the piecemeal method or any other method, and allow our high parts to
grow/create a complete essential all at once; and then clean it up after the
fact, with the backup inc fragmentation (method); -for any special qualities the
essential would deliver only this way. Note that if there was no God, there
would be no rich Godly parts coming back from when destruction acted, and there
thus would be no rich food for evil/destruction to feed on and maintain
stagnation indefinitely. But since there is so much evil in our world; we can
see that there exists this rich food from
Godly-parts-returning-of-an-earthly-love; and that there thus exists God. Once
we realize this and believe in God, we can poison the rich food through inc
fragmentation of the Godly parts, of our earthly loves, to cast out evil and put
an end to it which is currently in so much abundance due to the existence of a
benevolent God. Oh I guess there are other explanations as to why there is so
much evil and stagnati!
on; but there is also this reason. One may wonder how we wi!
ll all be able to be together as one when we are all so different and all prefer
different activities. Well, actually, it's not so difficult. Many things are
compatible with each other and can coexist along side without one detracting
from another. I've covered how to put things together in my discussion on
balanced intermediate focus and the common mind. But there is one thing that is
incompatible. The concept of good/growth is incompatible with that of
destruction and evil. Here again we've already discussed this, in great depth. A
correction: When Godly parts are created, God saves all the good while leaving
all the evil/destruction behind. But God doesn't just leave the evil in an
eternal sleep after it has self destructed when it becomes alone; but resurrects
it to then live in Hell -as God doesn't pass judgment between good and evil, but
lets these things judge themselves by what they themselves produce. So, the
destructiveness of translated fragmentation as well as all !
other evils is not absorbed into God as a Godly part, but makes up the Hellbound
parts. The translated fragmentation then acts to tone down the goodness that
resurrects these parts so that they are at reduced capability and can continue
to separate out, and not at high capability where the forces would remain
together in torment. A more in depth discussion: The force of evil has its main
strength in how it can control living things. (For example, put the force of
evil with the rocks and the inanimate (which is the end result of evil's
action), and not much is accomplished by the force of evil even in millions of
years (whereas the force of good would make much with this or with what it
produces): the rocks and the inanimate are not much affected or bothered by
evil.) Thus if we can overcome evil's control on our mind, we have won most of
the battle. One would hope we'd all have the wisdom to reject destruction as our
enemy, since destruction is anti life. Since we are alive an!
d if we know how valuable and good life is, then we'll valu!
e life over the inanimate, and not be lured by individual short term gains from
destruction; since that collectively results in everyone's loss of
life-and-gains-made. But if a person's life is miserable anyway, they won't have
much to loose. -Here is a reason against making the majority of a population
live in poverty. Our essentials contain both good and evil and we're unable to
separate them. Because of this evil; our high parts act to prevent our
essentials from being done as long as possible. But this prevents anything from
being done, and prevents the good and evil of our essential from coming out so
that the good and evil could separate. Now; the good-and-evil of our essential
remains with the torment of the togetherness of these forces for as long as we
act to keep our essential 'as is' within us. Yet, if we bring out our essential
with lots of growth, then the evil in it will be well fed and won't die or
separate, and our torment will continue and be magnified. So we !
want to bring out our essential, -(to change its original state of togetherness
of the forces by allowing the forces to separate), but we want to do so in an
environment of reduced capability and low growth so the forces will separate.
Note: When your bodily doings are inside you, they are thus together with y! our
high parts; and thus are not at reduced capability. When you bring them out,
then they can be away from your high parts, and at reduced capability. Recall
when we covered not interfering with our body's doings: Then we were concerned
about using every bit of high part's resources to do choosing to stay; leaving
nothing to add nor detract from the body's doings. Well, here we remove all
action by the high parts, not to save resources for some purpose, but to: 1)
remove all growth of the high parts, and 2) to allow the feeble bodily doings to
come out (since they are no longer being blocked by the high parts) so that the
forces will separate, at this low growth, reduc!
ed capability environment. So not only do the high parts no!
t help any; the high parts also remove their blocking so they don't hinder any
either. This is yet another way we can cleanse our essentials. Lets call it the
'bodily doings' way. Now, since the current piecemeal method depends on the high
parts working with previously completed (evil free) essential; we can precede
the piecemeal method with a bodily doings way to provide the original essential.
Then there is the after-the-fact backup method using inc fragmentation in the
wrongly programmed Godly parts (or hellbound parts) that are returning to earth
due to an earthly love. This method provides high growth in the production of
essentials which may provide things the low growth methods don't provide. So we
can intersperse this method between the low growth ones as needed. This method
also allows for