Here is the third 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.