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

What about destruction and destructiveness: Do we need it? or can we get by without it? Do we need a little bit to give us challenges -to keep us sharp (so we don't atrophy); and to weed out the weak and inferior people, in a social evolution type program? The idea that we need harshness/destruction to give us challenges (to keep us sharp), is invalid, since as we GROW(destruction-free), we encounter (non destructive)barriers to growth, and then overcome those barriers in non destructive ways. These are challenges which exist and which keep us sharp and we don't depend on destructiveness for this.

With destruction present, stagnation is also present, as people are unable to grow and outgrow the stagnation, as destruction destroys their growth and keeps them stagnant. It is actually the people caught in stagnation, who use destruction to give challenges to keep them sharp, who use destructiveness to weed out the inferior and to run their command system: -it is actually these people who are at a learning disadvantage because they have no experience overcoming the barriers to growth outside their stagnation, since their stagnation from destruction keeps them from growing. Those free from destruction's stagnation have the more well rounded education, as they are able to have experience overcoming barriers to growth beyond the area of stagnation; unlike those in stagnation who've never grown to those high levels. So this is a resounding denouncement of social evolution, and of evolution in general, that uses destruction to weed out the weak and inferior. No. Instead we should take the weak and inferior, and help them and bring them up to our level so we all advance together as opposed to our group fragmenting and pulling itself apart.

What about destruction and harshness? Why is it so popular? Well, destruction and harshness has an effect on people. People respond to it. People under the gun say, we'll do anything you ask if you'll just not hurt us. Destruction (punishment) can be used as a deterrent. People will obey your laws if you punish those who break our laws. It is a means of control to get people to do what you want. People will obey a boss and do what they say so the boss doesn't punish them.

Some people make a distinction between rewards vs punishment. And there is a valid distinction. To deny a reward if someone doesn't do what you say, isn't hurting them, and still leaves them to their own devices to overcome the non destructive barriers to growth they are up against: but to punish, if someone doesn't do what you say; is a direct harmful act. However, in the area of essentials, this distinction (between rewards vs punishment) no longer exists nor is valid, since to deny someone the reward of their essentials, is the same as punishing them, since without their essentials, a person's own body harms itself: so that here, harm is done and not avoided in either case.

Destruction then is popular as a means of control to get people to do what the boss says. It is what whole systems can be based on and how organizations and groups can function and be run on. -if you as an individual don't do everything the group wants, then they'll punish you or deny you (the reward of) your essentials, -which forces your body to harm you. If you don't do all they say, you'll be harmed, is the message. And this is how they get people together in a group to do things together. Can't we come up with a better way of running a group? that doesn't use destruction/harm?

Now, the effect of destruction: -that many people will obey -some even totally: is not the only effect of destruction: also a consequence of this very destruction, is that some or many are hurt and harmed (just to keep deterrence alive) (America has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates). And with people being harmed, growth is hindered thus resulting in stagnation. The price we pay for letting the bosses have their way under such a heavy handed system, is that the group is made a stagnant group by this. With the individuals brought low and kept on a short leash, there is less trouble from these individuals. Individuals here are easier to control; and it is true that if you give them more freedom and more resources, they will give you more trouble. But the individual is not going to be the source of trouble for the stagnant group. It is alternative groups -growth groups, that allow their individuals much more freedom and build up the individual position, that will give the stagnant groups trouble. Since this type of group doesn't harm their individuals nor keep them low; there will be growth over stagnation, and this will be a growing group that outperforms/does much better than the stagnant group. Individuals in the stagnant group will then abandon it and join the alternative growing group. So if the cost of freedom for our individuals, is to have a little more trouble from our individuals, then I say we should pay that price to order to have a growing group and not a stagnant one.

Now then. When a group has rules to enforce; some people get the job of policeman to enforce those laws. What I want to point out is that the job of policeman is a destructive one. That is what a policeman mainly does -is be destructive. They write tickets that take away your money, they put boots on your car so you can't drive it they arrest people and throw them in jail thus taking away their freedom, they club and shoot people. Basically all they do in their job is be destructive. I just want to establish that point first off: -that we can be nearly 100% certain that their job requires them to be destructive. Of course, they are only destructive to lawbreakers. Now if the laws they uphold/enforce are laws based on destruction vs growth (where a lawbreaker is always being destructive by breaking the law), then the police will be being destructive to a destructive lawbreaker. and will thus prevent that lawbreaker from doing their destruction onto innocent citizens. The innocent citizens, having been saved from a destructive act intended by a lawbreaker, can do more good having escaped being harmed; and the policeman then shares in being the cause of that good (along with the innocent citizens that have been spared).

But if the laws the police uphold, are not based on destruction vs growth, but are just the whims of some dictator or group of bosses, then those who break those laws are not destructive so that those police do destruction unto non destructive lawbreakers. In this case, the police have not caused any good, and are just as bad and harmful as destructive criminals and are worse than the non destructive lawbreakers and other innocent citizens. Just realize that if you ally yourself with destruction, it is not easy to turn that into something good. Although it can be done by policemen upholding just laws in as least destructive a way as possible. However, policemen upholding unjust laws -which cause them to do destruction unto people who do no destruction by their lawbreaking; are just one of the instruments of stagnation by which stagnant groups hold down their individuals and thereby stagnate, and are overgrown by growing groups. Policemen enforcing just laws is the only valid exception -otherwise the enforcement of other laws and rules causes much of the harm that stagnates that group and makes it a stagnant group.

If you set one mirror in front of you, and one mirror behind you: a person can see many duplicate images of themselves. As we humans go through generation after generation of humans; this process of living and dying and passing on genes to offspring, generation after generation; has effects on us, as well as all living (and dying) things; so that we are not duplicated exactly as the images in the mirrors are. This process of one generation living and dying and being replaced by the next generation: and then that generation in turn replaced by the next and so on and so forth -so that over the history of a life form there is a sequence of many generations on down the line: -this process of generational transfer itself, I suggest, has effects on the life form involved in it. One effect I suggest it has, is it causes a liking of sex or sexual desire to be amplified and selected for.

Another effect it has (I suggest), is it favors a system of reproduction by as few of the members are allowed to mate as is needed, resulting in sexual frustration for the rest of them. -Like the male walrus takes on a harem of cows and drives off the other males. -Just think: if a gene codes for a little more testosterone and makes a more aggressive male and the more aggressive males are able to corral and take all the females for themselves and prevent the other males from breeding; then the gene coding for more testosterone is passed on while the others are not -resulting in more aggressive males and favoring this setup where a dominant male drives off the other males and takes all the females for himself.

Generational transfer selects for a liking of sex. In the genetic variability (of sexual reproduction -as opposed to cloning or asexual reproduction) -some genes would code for the liking of sex while others code for not liking sex or being ambivalent to it. Those with genes for not liking or being ambivalent to sex would not have sex and thus not have offspring: thus these genes would be weeded out (not passed on). -leaving only genes for the liking of sex to be passed on from generation to generation. How do these our genes, cause us to like sex? Just as our bosses use punishments and rewards to get us to do what they want; nature also uses bodily punishments and rewards to get us to do what it wants. So that if adults aren't allowed to have sex, their body punishes and/or denies rewards to itself: thus keeping these people down low -at reduced capability; and thus in stagnation.

Now, another thing that generational transfer (evolution to some) selects for, is concubines, harems; and a frustration of the sex drive for all but a few. The animal kingdom is filled with a dominant male or female siring the majority of the offspring, while the rest go sexually frustrated -and thus brought low and in stagnation. Consider the behavior of having an aggressive drive to take and corral all the females to yourself, and females with a drive to passively congregate in groups to be sired by a dominant male: vs males and females freely intermixing. The one who is able to corral all the breeding to themselves is able to deny other breeding systems from being passed on, while causing this one system of a dominant animal breeding, to be the one passed on -to the extent that genes can control this. (And this benefits the group by toning down the variability of sexual reproduction so as to lock in the best addapted individual.)

Recall the concept of property and ownership: what does it mean to own something and to have something belong to you? It means that only you can use it -that others cannot use it, but you can. All the animals practice this concept of ownership religiously, in the area of mating; in that the dominant male does own the breeding rites to his harem, so that no other male may share in them. Perhaps our human concept of ownership is a throwback and comes from evolution and what the animals have been doing for eons: -as a byproduct or effect of generational transfer. -Where only the few rich enjoy the spoils while everyone else suffers in poverty. As thinking intelligent animals: are we going to passively accept this as reasonable if it is just an effect from generational transfer -of life passing from one generation to the next many times?

Now, what many animal systems have been doing for eons in that dominant animals breed the next generation while the rest are left in sexual frustration; has deeper advantages than just being the one selected for by generational transfer. You see, a long time ago in earth history, the prominent type of reproduction (by plants) was asexual -basically cloning exact copies of the parent, with an occasional mutation. But this strategy didn't work well because when a change in the environment occurred; these life forms were unable to adapt very fast to the new environment. Thus nature came up with sexual reproduction ie flowering plants. With sexual reproduction, the offspring were not exact clones of the parents, and greater variability was introduced into the gene pool. With sexual reproduction , life forms were more quickly able to adapt to changes in the environment, -due to being able to produce a more varied group of life forms.

Now, the best strategy would be to use the greater variability of sexual reproduction to quickly produce the best adapted animals to a changed environment: but once that new environment had stabilized -to then lock in that best-adapted-animal by then toning down the variability of sexual reproduction and going back to a less variable mode similar to cloning. When the environment is stable, and the variability of sexual reproduction has produced the nearly perfect animal suited to that environment, then it would be best for that animal to go back to cloning and abandon the variability of sexual reproduction, as any further varying of the perfect animal (for that environment), could only result in less perfect animals -thus wasting the group's life resources.

Thus when the environment is stable and we have the best suited animals; we don't want sexual reproduction (with its lots of variability): yet we wish to retain a sexual reproduction with the POTENTIAL for considerable variability in the event the environment becomes unstable in a catastrophe and changes markedly. Now, the advantage I speak of in having only the dominant males breeding; is in controlling the variability of the gene pool and offspring. You see, in addition to this system being selected for by generational transfer; it also delivers survival advantages to the group. By having only the dominant males sire offspring; the variability of sexual reproduction is suppressed (-since they all have the same father, they're more genetically similar than if they had different fathers). This also preserves a greater potential for variability within the process of sexual reproduction itself, as such isn't otherwise weeded out during times of environmental stability.

In the system of the dominant male chasing the other males away and corralling a harem for himself: although this system is both selected for by generational transfer; and also imparts survival advantages upon the group; it also causes the greatest sexual frustration of the sex drive (-the drive also being an effect of generational transfer). -The males chased away are all sexually frustrated. The harem, assuming an equal libido in the female, is also not well satisfied as many females have to share one male. Only the dominant male is sexually satisfied. Note that the sex drive is the other thing selected for by generational transfer, and that frustrating it is difficult; so that an animal system which may be attempting to lock in a best adapted animal in a stable environment (and thus better the groups survival); may fail to achieve this, as the great sexual frustration which is a byproduct of such an attempt, may cause the inferior frustrated males to breach this system. The inferior frustrated males may be able to breach the system that is preventing them from being sexually satisfied, and thus make a failure out of the group's attempt to better its survival in this way. -This is why in nature, not all animal systems follow this dominant male driving out the inferior males.

Now then. We are different from the animals in that we have greater intelligence. We might be able to come up with a better way to achieve the same goals, without all the sexual frustration. The animals are forced to use the sexual frustration way to achieve this survival goal: we are not.

This, our intelligence, has been expressed in religion and what controls there are on how we mate and reproduce.

In the days of old, are stories of sultans and harems, and of kings with their concubines. This is just like the animal systems where dominant males claim ownership over the females. But great sexual frustration is the disadvantage from that way. So where we are now, is that a compromise has been reached. Sexual frustration has been eased a bit in allowing each person a mate, while still retaining some sexual frustration. And what sexual frustration remains is now more easily enforced (to remain).

Religion has eased the stagnation from sexual frustration some, by eliminating the dominant male/harem concept, and replacing it with the one man one woman way. Yet, religion doesn't want to go too far with this easing sexual frustration, as ownership is still maintained over the sexual area by the spouse.

As an aside note: the idea of God as the biggest, most dominant male, and that he corrals the nuns for himself, is just repulsive to me. God is big because He is good and kind and benevolent and from the power of good: not because he has bred himself up into the heavens.

So, as thinking people, perhaps we could gain the best of both worlds instead of settling for compromise in all areas -that is we put up with some sexual frustration in order to obtain some reduction in the variability of our reproduction (during times of stable environment).

Perhaps we could go back to only the dominant or chosen men siring offspring. But to eliminate the sexual frustration this would cause; free sex would be allowed; yet no offspring from such free sex would be allowed. -when the environment is stable. But when catastrophes occur then free sex plus offspring from that free sex would be the chosen mode.

Now, the idea of dominant males fathering the human population is probably too barbaric (and too much like the animals) for most people, including myself. (I cannot guarantee that these ideas are even the truth -they just seem to fit. -you have a mind too. Think for yourself. Mine is only to suggest and make aware.)

So, we could have monogamy that we have now, except that marriage would now be a contract between one man and one woman concerning the siring of children, and would not cover sex between individuals that didn't involve the conception of children (ie with a condom or between partners where the woman was past child bearing age).

With harems and dominant males, there is maximum sexual frustration. Previously I saw no use or validity for any sexual frustration. But recently I realize that it does have a benefit -that of locking in the best adapted animal for a current stable environment, once the variability of sexual reproduction has generated that best adapted animal. Even so: even though I now realize the benefit and reasoning behind it: I as a thinking intelligent animal, believe that there is a better way to obtain this benefit, without the sexual frustration (and its corresponding stagnation from destruction within our bodies). Animals have no other option but this sexual frustration way. It has taken animals this long to generate capable and intelligent humans: who now can obtain this benefit in better ways, not relying on so much sexual frustration.

I see the white supremacist as a group of people trying to tone down the variability of their reproduction and lock in what they believe to be the superior human; while the inferior but oversexed non whites threatening to destroy all their hard work (of putting up with being sexually frustrated). So they go out and kill non whites. Racism has a root here too. Mustn't let the races intermarry, due to the great variability in the offspring that would generate.

What irks me, is that if this toning down the variability of our reproduction in times of stability, is behind all this -with religion's regulation of sex, to racism, to hate groups; then we as thinking humans, ought to be able to come up with a better way to accomplish this than the animals, that doesn't rely on sexual frustration.

Evolution (or generational transfer) and adapting to an environment; are not very good systems. Due to their stagnation (from the presence of destruction), they never get beyond where they are at in their current environment. They do very well within their current environment though. But when the environment changes, they must start all over and do it all over again, because their experience and skill at coping with anything beyond the current environment; is nil.

The systems in stagnation of adapting to current environments, are not very good systems, but may be all we've got. All we can do is work with what we've got and make the best of it.

God is beyond using stagnant methods. The method of evolution and toning down variability in our reproduction using sexual frustration, are methods based in stagnation and are stagnant methods. God is certainly the most dominant male, but He would not use these methods. The set of genes discarded by evolution in adaptation to the last environment, may very well be selected for in the next environment, as the environment changes. Evolution never gets the big picture, and is forced to forever repeat its mistakes in stagnation. If the sexual frustration of some animal systems (-the ones with the dominant male driving out the other males) if the religion of some animal systems is just as good as our religion, then the intelligence and better skills we have, have not been of any use here: and thus are just things to be fooled and boondoggled and tricked into self eliminating and being discarded. If the purpose of some preaching is to stun the mind and remove our greater mind and skills, then I think we can do better than that. I thought the evolutionists and creationists didn't get along. For the creationists to utilize evolution to

For religion to utilize evolution to accomplish goals, is no better than the animals, and is a stagnant and poor way to do things. The Bible can be interpreted many ways: unfortunately, the present day interpretation by religion, tends to rely on evolutionary adaptation and sexual frustration to decrease variability in our reproduction. Of course, this is just coincidental, and religion I am sure, never consciously used sexual frustration to accomplish these ends. But it does point to an indicator that religion has come from out of the traditions of men through the ages and has been distilled from that -with no outside help strongly evident.

I've spoken incorrectly if I say that God is not within the scriptures. What I mean to say, is that those parts of religious writings including the scriptures which promote and/or cause sexual frustration: are of the traditions of men; -are from men and their past -even from animals; and are not from God nor the glory of God. For whatever other reasons and motivations religions impose sexual frustrations: a major reason and use for sexual frustration still is in the evolutionary, adaptability, genetic system. The evolutionary system is a stagnant system infected of destruction, that we animals experience as a consequence of us living and dying here on this earth generation after generation. God, if He ever came from such a system; now is much beyond it, and now uses evil free methods (which are growing and not stagnant). God does not use the evolutionary method. Man and animals use what situation they find themselves in (the evolutionary method) as they compete against each other for a better spot on this planet. Whatever religion claims as other reasons for its imposed sexual frustrations: there still remains this major benefit from sexual frustration according to the system of evolution/adaptation. Even many animal systems utilize such sexual frustrations for this benefit, even more so than we and our religions do. Yes, it is true that the new testament does not rely heavily on sexual frustration since it does not inflict the maximum frustration as is found in harems and concubines and many wives; but instead settles for the compromise of one man one woman (if one cannot contain). Thus I cannot say and was incorrect in saying that this religion solely is the tradition of men. Yet, this our religion aspires to sexual frustration even beyond that found in the harems and concubines system. -although perhaps with a higher purpose yet that higher purpose is not sexual frustration nor imposed sexual compliance but is instead a personal matter.

The biological fact is that we reproduce sexually (not asexual). (God made them male and female). And the thing about sexual reproduction is that although this method is superior and needed for adapting to changes in the environment; it is an inferior method for reproducing in a stable environment -which is most of the time -so that most of the time, the variability of sexual reproduction will need to be toned down as much as possible: and this is where the sexual frustration comes in. You may say religion has other reasons and higher purposes for imposing sexual frustration; but I say that in this aspect and area the animals do just as good and have just as good a 'religion' if we believe sexual frustration is the key to obeying our God. It would be confused whether the source of this sexual frustration was from God, or from the evolutionary adaptation system. This sexual frustration is well ingrained in many animal systems. (It also has a destructiveness and a stagnation of its own.) I find that its source is from the tradition of men and from the history of men and animals -that history bearing down upon us. I do not see God as using stagnant destruction laden methods like we are forced to, but instead, evil free, growing methods. In my personal experience, I am convinced at least for myself that there are spiritual beings of goodness (angels if you will). There have been so many times I've been saved from destruction by what I feel has been an outside intervention, that I cannot count them. And my personal experience also convinces me of the existence of strongly destructive spiritual forces/beings. So, I believe. But what I don't see, or believe is that these beings of goodness and kindness and benevolence have anything to do with the use of any kind of sexual frustration for any purpose. I just don't buy it and I don't see the connection. Instead, I see the use of sexual frustration by religion or otherwise, as something that has come from men and the traditions of men.

Now then. With that being said and out of the way, I must proclaim that human sexuality is tricky, imperfect and also a stagnant thing; and that unless you know how to do your essentials and quasi essentials in the best way you can; that the other stuff just doesn't matter.

Human sexuality is imperfect and can be frustrating, and often frustrates itself: and that's not religions fault. but instead is solely the fault of the imperfect nature of human sexuality itself. So instead of my cutting down society's attempted solutions; let me propose my own solution. If I do not have anything to replace the ways I criticize, then might as well go back to the old criticized ways, as something is better than no way at all. -feel free to attempt your own solutions if you have ideas.

Now I wish to correct an error in concepts. Previously I had said we want to avoid focused growth, (or that focused growth causes problems that additionally need to be handled), and preferentially do overall growth. I now wish to somewhat reverse that idea.

There are two modes of action we can act with. We can be more reserved and held-back -not snapping up every action that comes along. Or we can be unhindered in our action, doing whatever we like, and being open to every action that comes along. Now if we do all we like and are unhindered, we do many actions, and this represents an overall growth. But the force of destructiveness has its way of being part of many of the possible actions we can do: -so that to avoid it, one has to markedly limit the possible actions they do. But since we're not limiting our actions but are being unhindered, we don't avoid these destructive parts of actions; but include them. Since we have a greater selection of actions we have more options. We have overall growth and enjoy the benefits of interrelatedness. We can get things done faster, and do/produce more this way in the short run/individually. But since the presence of destruction is included, this becomes a stagnant system at some level as what we built up a short time ago, gets knocked down -and we keep building up and getting knocked down over and over. Yes, the presence of destruction is the overriding factor. The interrelatedness and overall growth, provide for greater achievements and higher growth rates, but stagnation still takes hold -just at a higher capability level. There is always the temptation to produce/do a little bit more (individually), by doing a way that achieves this but that also does more destruction (drive the slaves a little harder. crack the whip a little more).

Now then: alternatively, there is the mode-of-action of being more reserved and held back -of not doing everything you want. If we restrain ourselves from doing some ways because they contain too much destruction as part of them, then we will have limited the number and type of ways available to us. We will do less things. Since we're doing fewer things, we can say we're more focused. We avoid evil/destruction, but have to put up with lower (individual) growth. Since we do fewer things, we are thus unbalanced concerning interrelated needs; so we don't achieve overall growth, But the growth we do achieve is long lasting due to the freedom from destruction.

So now I've presented two modes of action. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. What I propose is we use both, in hopes of gaining the advantages of both.

In the reserved/focused way, fewer good things are produced, and those that are, are of lower quality ›(at least at first)› -due to going it alone where interrelated needs aren't met, and overall growth isn't done.

What I propose is to do things in the unhindered way (which has higher short term growth and can do more individually) until that generates something good and valuable and worth saving: and then before that valuable something gets torn down, as we continue with the unhindered way: that we then lock this valuable something in by being more reserved with it and no longer doing so many ways which contain destruction in them, with it. Now this good and valuable something that we locked in and 'saved', continues to exist and also produce growth of its own. But what it will produce, will be of lesser quality and of a lower growth rate. The reason being, it now no longer has so many options of what it can do, because it's no longer unhindered, but is now more reserved and held back. -Now doing only a few things, it doesn't take advantage of the interrelatedness between things and of overall growth: and thus produces poor quality material compared to what it could do as unhindered. This poor quality material is then thrown back into the melting pot, by setting it at unhindered mode, unlike its parent which is at reserved/held back mode. ›(However, after a long time -many lifetimes; enough material is saved in reserved mode, so it provides some semblance of interrelatedness and overall growth)›.

What I propose, is that out of any production of an action, there is some of it of excellent quality some of average quality; and some of poor quality. -We then throw all but the best back into the melting pot of unhinderedness. -Or; we select the best to pull out of the melting pot of unhinderedness into the reserved mode.

Just remember that most of what is produced by the ›(early›) reserved mode, is of lesser quality and will thus be mostly all set to unhindered mode. -just the opposite of its parent.

Now then. So far it seems like all the lesser quality material will always be unhindered. But this is only a method for doing essentials. This will be so as long as we're satisfying an essential or some need is pulling at us. But when we're satisfied in our essential and we wish to rest; we then no longer do unhindered mode with the lesser quality material, but instead, also do reserved mode with them. You see, unhindered mode includes destruction in many of its ways. Essentials contain destruction/evil in them anyway, so this isn't introducing any new evil, when we're satisfying essentials. But when we're done with essentials for a time and wish to rest, we get out of this method of doing essentials, and put out the flames of evil until our need (from us not yet being overall enough nor interrelated enough in our evilfree (reserved) way), pulls us back into doing essentials again.

Finally, lets not forget that an additional function of the unhindered material, is to preferentially fill the vacuum that destruction creates -that is, both the destruction within essentials; and the destruction of evil attacks (not related to essentials).

Note that as we add to the abstinent parts, -(what abstinent parts we do have, have come from and were once the unhindered mode). As our lesser quality parts are still working the unhindered mode: they are then not chosen to be abstinent parts at the point the previous abstinent parts were, but remain in unhindered mode, to achieve the higher growth that the current existing abstinent parts wish they could. Only when these unhindered parts go beyond the current abstinent parts, are they then chosen. And this repeats until the essential is completed. In other words, do it again. go round the 2nd time. Come back for seconds. (But the abstinent parts are not what go round a second time: only the unhindered parts.

A question comes to mind: can't we achieve the complete essential once in held back, or abstinent mode, and then forever more do it in unhindered mode (according to these rules)? Well, the purpose of the held back mode, was to save out the best from the unhindered mode. It is a production, and the unhindered mode is always producing (as long as we're in it), and so good material is constantly needing to be saved, so no, we can't just achieve the essential once in held back mode. But on the other hand it is the held back mode which has the needs which motivate the choosing from out of the unhindered mode. Thus when one stage of an essential is achieved in the held back mode (as delivered/chosen from the unhindered mode); then the held back mode's need for that stage is satiated, while it then finds need for the next stage. Thus what is chosen next from the unhindered mode, (for the held back mode), is not more of the same stage.

Or: why save only one type of material into the held back mode, and by doing so prevent the unhindered mode from creating the next stage, so that only one stage is saved? No. -Do not limit what the held back mode saves. Instead, once some current stage is saved: if necessary ((to generate the next stage), -allow the best of the current stage now to remain in unhindered mode until it generates the next stage; then save the best of the next stage. Repeat this process until the complete essential is both saved in held back mode, and expressed in unhindered mode (with some material in 'saved', and some in 'expressed').

Lets look at this again from the viewpoint of need.

Remember that whenever we temporarily have no need of an essential, we no longer do any unhindered mode, not even with our lesser quality parts. The unhindered mode generates a more valuable part intermittently and randomly, and not in a consistent or organized way: A piece here, a piece over there. As we save out valuable pieces from the unhindered mode, we get a hodgepodge of distantly connected pieces. Each of these mostly isolated pieces, has interrelated needs for other areas where there's usually not yet another valuable high quality piece (saved from the unhindered mode) to be interrelated with. These lonely, isolated high pieces then feel a lot of need. This is compounded by their new mode - the held back mode; where they're no longer able to use any means available, but are now limited to actions that are destruction free. It's mainly this need of the held back mode that drive us. Any need in the unhindered mode is quickly satisfied by it doing what it wants and the use of its interrelated network to deliver satisfaction.

To satisfy the needs of the held back mode, the held back material does not then re enter the unhindered mode, as then the valuable material would no longer be saved out as it re entered the fray: it would be short lived in the fast paced unhindered mode. Instead, the needs are met by changing the lesser material from its resting stance of a held back mode, to the activity of the unhindered mode; and then selectively saving out valuable material it generates, that the held back mode needs. Once the held back mode's needs are met, then there's no longer a need for the unhindered mode, and the lesser material returns to a held back mode. Now, lesser material in held back mode is even less able to satisfy its needs, mainly due to being limited in what it is allowed to do (as it can no longer do just anything it wants). And so these needs then intermittently pull the lesser materials out of rest and into its unhindered mode. (This is unlike the valuable parts in held back mode which never reenter the unhindered mode -alternating back and forth between unhindered and held back modes). But of course, in the unhindered mode, these needs are quickly met, and the lesser material falls back into rest in a held back mode. The lesser material then cycles between unhindered and held back modes when not serving the needs of the valuable parts of the held back mode.

Oh, and just remember: at the point where material is chosen to be saved out of the unhindered mode: -not all is chosen, only the best.

Also note that just because the unhindered mode hasn't yet generated a needed material for the advanced material in held back mode, doesn't mean that that need doesn't exist. It does, and it motivates us to keep on generating in the unhindered mode (with the lesser material).

And then when the unhindered mode finally does generate that material type, and you then choose the best of it to go to held back mode: the remaining material has the choice of being unhindered or resting as held back. -but at this time of need satisfying, it almost always chooses to be unhindered until the held back mode's needs are satisfied.

Now, when the held back mode's needs are satisfied, as may happen when enough material covering all the different areas makes it to held back mode: then it is conceivable that the needs of the lesser quality materials would then drive any unhindered mode. (Here, the lesser material's needs would be quickly satisfied in unhindered mode and so would go to rest in a held back mode (where their needs would again grow). The lesser material would thus cycle rapidly between unhindered and held back mode. Now, in unhindered mode, when some new material is chosen to be high quality held back mode, that then creates need in the held back mode due to this one thing's interrelated need for other high quality areas, -if the previous high quality completed whole had left this system and no longer received from the unhindered mode due to being self sufficient in itself -and growth would thus continue.

Yet there will be times when no need pulls on us. In these times its important to return all the (lesser quality) material in unhindered mode; to held back mode. In held back mode, this lesser material won't cease to exist, and will still continue to do things: just not so actively -just a little more held back (in what it does).

In general, whenever you allow any unhindered mode: don't forget to also periodically choose the best of that out of there, into the held back mode -as exceptional items periodically appear in this unhindered mode.

Now when there is a destructive force or evil attack nearby; and you in response activate some of your lesser quality material (from their rest in held back mode), into unhindered mode -(in order to have material to preferentially feed to the vacuum created by destruction): also choose out, into held back mode; exceptional items that are generated there, if you can get to them before the evil destroys them. And also remember that when preparing material to feed the vacuums created by destruction: that we share or split the unhindered area between feeding the vacuum from the destruction of an evil attack; and supplying our (interrelated) needs.

I remember the Bible verses in the Gospel where Jesus tells of the Pharirisses saying: they heap up burdens upon men, grievous to be born, yet against them they lift not a finger. And then the following verse Jesus says to obey the Law (of Moses). And Jesus also says to take his yolk upon you for his burden is light.

Previously I hadn't understood this set of verses, but now I make some sense of them: With the harem master; that places heavy burdens of sexual frustration on other men, but he himself experiences no sexual frustration.

With the compromise of one man one woman, the burden is light compared to that of the harem system. With this compromise, enforcement of this light burden of sexual frustration is much more sure; thus some sexual frustration is more sure and is ensured. This keeps us on track for toning down the genetic variability from our sexual reproduction; whereas harem systems are much more unstable, as hoards of extremely sexually frustrated men are always trying to break through that system; and when they do, thus defeating the harem system's ability to tone down variability from sexual reproduction. Once we settle in to accepting that level of sexual frustration from the compromise way, and are able to handle it; then we can progress to further stages of sexual frustration as we are able.

And then there is the Bible verse 'no man comes to the Father but by me (or this compromise way). This seems to be the message of Christianity and what Jesus wants as I see things now. Well, if we adopt a new interpretation of the Bible to consider marriage as a vow concerning the siring of children only, but not concerning relief of sexual drive (not involving children): then I would agree that it is a very light burden, and I will sign on with it and do my part. But the compromise way we have now; which preserves some degree of sexual frustration: I don't know. If I can find a better way, I mean if we're to save ourselves, then this is just me saving myself. You see, the way this looks, is that we find our way to God (as a society), on our own strength -that we do the work to increase our power until we find God (using the two edged sword of genetic variability when we need it, but much toned down variability when there is a stable environment -ie using evolution and adaptation to keep our society improving in power till we 'find God' -as opposed to eternally stagnating). Quite frankly, if we are doing it on our own, and I see a better way that avoids the stagnation (produced within my body from sexual frustration); that also achieves the goals that the sexual frustration was intended to achieve; then I'm going to take it. Oh I respect what Christianity is trying to do with its sexual frustration -in order to improve the quality of we life forms as we change and adapt and compete against the other life forms, from generation to generation. I also have those same goals for the improvement of life out of stagnation. But this use of sexual frustration and evolution and adaptation: this way is not a pure or evil free way. It's not a pure way of a high capability God coming and helping us out, but is a way we do ourselves with what we already have at our low capability. (Jesus said 'only God is good'.) It does save society from an eternal stagnation: causing it instead to grow and eventually find God. But just as Christ convinces us to abandon a grievous burden for a light one, and also fights stagnation: I convince to abandon more of that burden for a very light burden, and I also fight the same stagnation. Because I am up front as to what is going on here and why it is sought that our sexuality be regulated: I can find the way with the least needed sexual frustration. The scriptures give laws and commandments which regulate our sexuality and bring sexual frustration, but do not explain why. -So how can we evaluate their effectiveness or know their purpose? -unless we discover their purpose in our mind, we as thinking beings, cannot. But I have explained why. If you knew that you were going to have to do it from your own strength; you probably would have said who needs church and wouldn't have gotten together in groups in kindness. But now that you have formed groups and gotten together, its time to be free -in your individual selves -to improve the position of the individual against stagnation,..

You may say that this isn't the purpose of the Biblical laws concerning our sexuality.. But I say, for whatever purpose, they have the effect of de

Oops, this train of thought was lost. Sorry.

The Bible says we must purify OURSELVES (even as He is pure). And since we can't be saved unless we're pure: doesn't it follow that our purifying ourselves is part of salvation? Well, perhaps God will exert effort to purify the stragglers who weren't able to purify themselves. Actually, though these are condemned to Hell.

Religion wants and needs something that passes through you and me. Do you think God would ever need something we must produce? Well, religion does. Religion wants control of the genetic variability of our reproduction (of our sexual reproduction). It doesn't come out and say this explicitly; yet this is one of the major effects of religion's commandments over our sexual area. Well, I wish religion the best of luck in obtaining this; yet unfortunately; some of us do not have the control of the sexual reproduction that religion wants -that is within them, that was born into them -which they are attached to, but do not control. But when religion seeks to destroy those who do not have what religion wants, in an attempt to gain the control it wants -by only allowing the breeding of individuals that posses that control; by eliminating from the breeding pool those who have not (that control)? -then a system using destruction is invoked by such religion -and where destruction is, -is stagnation. The stagnation religion seeks to escape through controlling genetics of reproduction; It finds through its use of destruction to achieve this goal. Instead, lets try to achieve this goal (of genetic control) without the heavy use of destruction -ie without damning and condemning to Hell those who lack such control. (Lets not redo Hitler). I am reminded of the Bible story of Jacob and Essau. Jacob was written in a favorable light for tricking and taking away Essau's birthright. The message from this story, I feel, is to be hard on the hairy man. They did kind of mention about Essau's hairiness. Trick him and kick him out. Yea. Be ware of the hairy man. Hair means excess testosterone. And excess testosterone means excessive sex drive. Yea, we want to keep the hairy guys out of the breeding pool. Remember to shave now. It's important!

Now damning and condemning to Hell in the afterlife, those who are marked as 'heathens'; has no effect on these people in the present life directly. But it does have an effect on these people in the present life. It marks them out to the faithful, as people to be preyed upon, taken from, enslaved, and finally disposed of in the present life. The frustration that religion builds up in the faithful can be relieved by them taking it out on those marked as heathen or infidel. This use of destruction by religion, dooms it from ever escaping stagnation. It has the good of the genetic control it achieves to feed its system of destruction for ever and ever and ever -ever in stagnation. God exists. God is love. God is beyond religion -the condemnations of hellfire and brimstone of wailing and gnashing of teeth, of being excommunicated from God's kingdom (of love).

Jesus claims that we are not servants, but friends, because servants don't know what the master is doing. He claims to be up front with His friends. I claim that this religion has not been up front concerning the purpose for its commands over our sexuality, but has just passed onto us a tradition developed by some religious animals. Raised by wolves? Yea you bet. more than we could ever know.

Torture and hellfire may exist but it is from we ourselves. May God deliver us from ourselves and our predicament -from our impurity (from which religion requires we purify ourselves). If not, then nature will deliver (save) a few (statistically speaking), in a long drawn out process where eventually a good God is created, if one doesn't now exist.

Let us now worship a God of love, and a savior sent by such God; a God who does not ultimately proclaim methods that are of stagnation nor that depend on destruction, or stagnant methods like evolution and adaptation that have always been part of our predicament in the first place. If it's up to us, then it's up to us, but whatever the case, this is the goal to be proclaimed and set forth in stone -that is, use of methods above stagnant methods that we find ourselves in. Meanness will not prevail. Meanness is inferior. Even a religion with writings of meanness will be replaced with a religion with writings of only kindness and love. -in time. I hope Jesus can come through for us and me. I hope in Jesus for this. I will not condemn nor hate Jesus (as the Bible claims the world does)) whatever my case: it will be Jesus who condemns me if any condemning is to be done. But if Jesus condemns me, then that's His loss not mine, as far as I'm concerned. And for no one will I settle for a stagnant system that depends on destruction (of life) as part of it. Because I know that that's not of the most powerful God -A God who is a God of LOVE and kindness.

Now I want to get back into my newest method to do essentials. Note that material (even high quality material)), when placed in held back mode; doesn't cease to exist (completely). Although it isn't able to do as much, and its options are more limited (as it can no longer use ways containing destruction); -it is still able to act in evil free ways; and even helps in satisfying needs as best it can (when there are needs needing to be satisfied). End note.

Now then, let me give you the overview.

This thing is mainly driven by need. Only when there's needs needing to be satisfied, do we ever go into unhindered mode with anything. As we've discussed: need can exist in either the lesser material and/or the higher quality material. We've also discussed that: need mainly exists in the higher quality material -due to it being generated in isolated pieces by the unhindered mode; and because it is limited in its options by its eternal held back mode stance. And then I went through an explanation of how the lesser material in the unhindered mode eventually generates all the interrelated high quality material-areas so that that one group of high quality material is complete and no longer needs and no longer receives high quality material generated from the unhindered mode (butt generates its own material, self sufficiently). At this point, that leaves only the lesser material (which cycles between unhindered, and held back mode) to have any need at all. It is this period of no need in the high quality material -need only in the cycling low quality material, that I wish to now expand on. From it generates a new set of isolated high quality material, which then has need; so the high quality material needs, again. But how does it do this? When the lesser material is in held back mode, it begins to generate need. It then returns to unhindered mode, where it then (quickly) satisfies its need. No longer needy, it returns again to held back mode -cycling like this over and over again. How does this generate high quality material (that eternally remains in held back mode)/ Well, when the lesser material is in unhindered mode, it generates a spread of material -some of lesser quality, some of higher quality, as it satisfies its needs.

(When a material is acting in unhindered mode, it either generates more of itself, or more of something else. If a need for a particular material is trying to be satisfied by that very material in unhindered mode, yet this material doesn't produce itself (but produces something else); then one must instead, throw the lesser parts of a precursor material, into unhindered mode -of a different material (one that produces the current material for which there is now a need for). -instead of trying to get the material which satisfies the need, to produce more of itself.)

When a material is generating in unhindered mode to satisfy its need, it generates lesser quality material, and also higher quality material, randomly, (beyond its control). Its only purpose in generating is to satisfy need.

But we can arbitrarily decide what is higher quality material vs lesser material, and save some of the higher material out. But if we save too much out (on a regular basis), we may interfere with the material-in-unhindered-mode's ability to satisfy its/other's need. And if we always save out too much, then the material will never satisfy its need and will always remain in unhindered mode (and won't cycle). And what is the purpose of saving out a percentage all the time? The purpose is to save out higher quality material to overcome its transient nature in the unhindered mode -making it long lasting in a held back mode. But if the material isn't of any higher quality, then why save it out?, just to be saving out a percentage? No, we don't save out quantity but only save out when we positively recognize quality. And since the unhindered mode doesn't generate quality on a regular basis, but instead does so randomly: we thus do not hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying its needs, too much: so that a lot of the time, we save out nothing; and the material cycles (between unhindered and held back mode). So how do we recognize quality? At what high quality; at what exact point is the trigger to save out, vs, letting it remain in unhindered mode? Well here is where the self sufficient high quality whole (that has removed itself from this process) comes in. We use it as a comparison. -as a standard. Whenever a material is as high a quality as that of the self sufficient material (when it was first generated); then at this exact point do we then save it out eternally into held back mode (never to cycle to unhindered mode again). These occasional saving-out actions do slightly hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying its need; (making material spend a little longer in unhindered mode in one of the cycles); but it is not to anybody's detriment and is of no real consequence.

Now, I forgot to mention that there can be a specific point in the cycle where we choose to save out high quality material. Since this material already frequents the held back mode, (as it cycles); in order to keep this mental regulation simple; and also not to disturb the unhindered mode's satisfying its needs; we can just let any newly generated high quality material remain in held back mode, while only returning the lesser material to unhindered mode (as we cycle). But remember; the test determining how high quality a material is, was in the previous unhindered part of the cycle; and not in the present held back part of the cycle, -(as nothing produces well in held back mode).

This is unlike the situation where the needs of the high-quality-permanently-held-back-mode are driving things. There, we plucked high quality material right from the unhindered mode. But here we wait till the needs of the unhindered mode are satisfied and all the material has cycled to held back mode anyway.

Referring back: I caution not to re activate the permanently saved out high quality material to the unhindered mode (thinking it is low quality material), just because it is producing like low quality material. Remember, the division of what is permanently held back mode vs material to be cycled, is determined only in the unhindered mode (by comparing the generated unhindered material to self sufficient high quality held back material)

We don't use a standard to determine how long we accumulate need, remaining in held back mode. -We do not accumulate need. This is a misnomer. Our need itself is what determines whether we do unhindered mode or not. There is an exact point at which if we do not act to prevent it; our internal destruction will destroy parts of us: hence our need. As we act in the held back mode, we're able to do less; and we depend on the material we achieved previously in the unhindered mode. As that is used up/wears out, we (as non self sufficient material) slowly approach that exact point of need where destruction will occur to us. When we reach that exact point, we are in need, and are then allowed to go into an unhindered mode again with our lower material. This has nothing to do with the standard supplied by the self sufficient high material.

We first began as children. (As children, we did what we wanted, but had little power.) Then we grew into adults. (As adults, we have more power, but no longer do what we want, but are bound more firmly by rules.) Then we became parents, and the cycle begins again. Some of these adults have become self sufficient -no longer needing to periodically return to childish mode. They then become standards. You see, we need a standard to determine where the exact cutoff point between what we treat as childish material, and what we treat as adult material. We need a standard to determine if a material makes the grade to be saved out permanently as high quality material vs if we let it continue to cycle and do not save it out. We need a standard to determine the exact cutoff point. It is the self sufficient high quality material that, for one of its purposes, serves as this standard (which we compare the material in question to).

Now then; from the point of view of this self sufficient standard material: it no longer has needs it can't itself satisfy: neither does it itself return to unhindered mode, nor does it motivate any other material to return to unhindered mode. But is this self sufficient standard material static, or is it growing? If it's not growing, then it's no better than the stagnation of the unhindered mode. But since it's free of the evil and the needs of essentials, then it is growing. Yet the new material that it grows isn't (at first) self sufficient or even high material, like it is. That new material must also go through a period of improvement and cycling and unhindered modes. Thus that the self sufficient standard material isn't completely out of touch with unhinderedness and its existence does (indirectly) result in increased unhinderedness (due to its growth). So our unhindered mode really hasn't lost touch with these self sufficient standards in any way.

Now then; lets go through an example of this method for doing essentials, to show the workings of this method. Say there's an essential item or action or material we need. There is the action to produce that material, (usually involving other materials (in addition to the needed material itself)); and there is the action to consume and enjoy the needed material (usually only involving the material itself). When we start out to satisfy this essential, we have very little of the needed material; and we are into producing it. Thus when we apply an unhindered mode to all lesser quality materials, then we apply it to what all lesser quality material now exists. Thus the essential material yet to be created (that thus doesn't yet exist), is not included here. When it is created, it is in held back mode; -because, being just created, it hasn't yet been activated to help out the other areas, and thus is (so far) innocent of any unhinderedness. If we leave it in held back mode, then it is less effective in satisfying our need, so that we can produce more of it: so that when the need is eventually satisfied, and we switch everything to held back mode: we will be able to stay in held back mode and not immediately be thrown into need again -(which would immediately force us to return to unhindered mode again). So we leave the newly produced material (in this unhindered mode part of the cycle), in the held back mode. Now once we produce enough of the needed material and satisfy our need, we go with everything to the held back mode. Since we had let the new material in held back mode (in the previous unhindered mode), we don't suffer a loss in need-satisfying as a result of that changeover to held back mode, and we can thus stay in held back mode for a reasonable time and are not forced to eternally be trapped in an unhindered mode.

Now then. Just remember to unhinder the lesser parts of the material that produces the essential material, as well as eventually (in the next cycle), the newly created essential material itself.

Note that as the newly created material (which we leave in held back mode) satisfies our need; all the remaining lesser material in unhindered mode then joins it in held back mode, as we change over to held back mode -due to our need being satisfied. This is the rest that makes us no longer wicked. (Recall: 'no rest for the wicked'.) Once we're done resting, and are at the point of need again; we again go to the unhindered mode with all lesser material, including, this time, the material that we produced new in the last unhindered part of the cycle. But of course, as always, the new material (of all types) that we produce in this unhindered part of the cycle; we leave in held back mode (until the next cycle).

I want to be specific on just exactly what our point-of-need is. If our situation forces evil to be done no matter what (whether we be held back or unhindered) then just because our unhindered state allows ways containing evil; doesn't necessarily mean more evil will be done. If we can do an unhindered mode whereby the evil is just shifted around by such a mode, (resulting in the same amount of evil being done) then our act to be unhindered won't have caused any increase in evil. Thus depending on the size of the evil that our situation forces upon us, we can then employ similar quantities of unhindered mode, which only shifts that evil around (within us) but does not increase evil. So, we can be in need a little, or a lot; and respond accordingly with a little or a lot of unhinderedness.

But usually when we have reached the point of need; if we proceed correctly, we remain in unhindered mode until the essential is satiated. As we act (in unhindered mode) to satiate our essential; our need becomes less: then in response, we decrease the percentage of the lesser material that we have in unhindered mode (by switching some of it to held back mode). Thus the satisfaction of our essential need continues until it is completely satisfied, and the lesser material is then all in held back mode -until the next time we become in need and must again return to unhindered mode with this lesser material -now including the lesser material from the previous satisfaction of essential, that before we had let remain 'innocent' in held back mode.

When we first go to held back mode, we have satisfied our need. As we continue, that material generates new material -with much low quality (due to the limiting nature of the held back mode). That newer material keeps accumulating and overwhelming the satisfied material, and may cause the whole to need again.

Sometimes the action to satisfy need, is itself a whole, made up of sequential precursor stages, that must be redone all over the next time need is to be satisfied.

And there are further specifics about our needs concerning our essentials, as expounded upon (much) earlier. These all play into how and what we do when (if) we again become needy.

Now, when we first reach the point of need, our need may be small. And it may not be worth it to go through all the processes of satisfying such a small need. There's nothing requiring us to satisfy a small need immediately as it appears, with a small unhinderedness; as we would be constantly bothered with switching back and forth between held back mode and a small unhindered mode. (We would have no rest.) The evil that destroys within us due to our need of essentials/quasi essentials isn't our fault and we didn't cause it and we aren't required to satisfy the first little bit of it right away. Of course if we wait too long, its destruction will grow too large and will destroy us. But the time we put up with it before we satisfy it, is up to us. So we choose a time to suit us, -usually which doesn't require us to be attending every little need the moment it appears (which would require us to be constantly switching between held back and a small unhindered mode) -although we can do this if need be. -But a time which isn't too long either -where the need of the essential would do irreversible destruction to us. (Recall that the need is continually destroying, and that an act to satisfy isn't destructive in itself, but just enjoins new material into the arena where the evil in the need has access to it.)

Now I wish to say a (another) word about betrayal: and not just betrayal, but also about the everyday pain and suffering of missing someone, that that someone cannot help and isn't the cause of.

What if someone were to pretend to like you and showed an undue, too good to be true interest in you; and then when they got what they wanted, they turned around and stabbed you in the back and left you to twist in the wind -throwing you away like a banana peeling?

What if someone liked you at first and was your friend, but then got tired of you or found someone/(something) else, and left you?

What if someone who still liked you, had to go away on a long trip (due to business or national duty or death/abduction or others interfering to prevent togetherness), and left you all alone (for awhile)? All of these things cause us pain and suffering. How do we deal with this pain and suffering?

Not everybody who shows an interest in you is out to betray you: but neither is everybody who shows this interest in you; sincere. And when we don't know who is sincere and who is not; what do we do? Well I would say to respond positively to all interests for the sake of those who are sincere -those who are insincere will eventually work themselves out.

What do we do against this hurt of being left alone?

Recall that wherever there is a destructiveness, it creates a vacuum; and that we unhinder our lesser materials and let them be sucked into that vacuum, while holding back our more valuable materials and even moving them away from that vacuum.

In this case we value our memories of friendship with the missing person; and even our own words to them telling them how and that we love them, before or as they left, are part of this valuable material.

We then move this valuable material away from the area of destruction. In the case of a betrayer/insincere person, we'd move the valuable material away from this present person themselves, as they are the source of destructiveness in this case.

Then we unhinder some of our low quality material and let it be sucked into the vacuum (In other words, piss on it.) Now this low unhindered material, since we removed the high material, is on its own: and its needs are solely based on the unhindered mode. It thus cycles rapidly between unhindered and held back mode (We also remove the occasional high material generated in this unhindered mode -which is a random generation, -which may by chance generate some more of the missing person in all manner of forms, -if not destroyed: as this low unhindered material awaits destruction.)

Now of course, away from the vacuum and the area of destructiveness, we have all our valuable high material, which we continue to grow with and work with in love. -And the satisfaction of needs here, have a large base in the held back mode (and are satisfied as discussed previously).

In reference back to doing essentials: note at some stages (nearing the completion of an essential); that much of our lesser material can be in held back mode, while we intricately work with a small portion (of lesser material) in unhindered mode -as we satisfy the last of our essential need. But when an evil attack simultaneously besets us at this point in our essential; we don't respond against it with just that small portion of lesser material in unhindered mode: -no, we unhinder all the lesser material in a full blown unhinderedness to be fed to the vacuum of their evil attack. -The intricacies of small portions of the lesser material in unhinderedness (with the rest in held back), is reserved solely for our end satisfaction of our essential needs. End reference.

It is good for me to repeat my advice concerning the frequency we respond to our need in order to satisfy it. For optimal gain, we do not respond all the time we have any little need (unless of course, there's something new to be added); as that would require much effort in switching back and fourth between unhindered and held back modes at such a high frequency. -no different than the need-drive of just lesser material in unhindered mode.

But neither do we wait too long to satisfy our need (in a really low frequency), as the destruction in our need would take too much of a toll, and lower us too low.

Profoundly speaking: should we or should we not be concerned with the destruction of (our) life? If we are not to care about the destruction of any form of capability (or life), then why should we care about saving anything? -about being 'saved' or preserving anything? -if it is all valueless -if our consciousness is valueless. -So if it all doesn't matter no matter what we do, then you won't mind if I value life and try to go with that (since that's what I find myself being in this situation -I'm alive)). Since my actions at life are supposedly futile anyway and cannot succeed; there's no need for you to resist them in any way; -if you believe I should not value my life. Why change what is? I'm alive. Let's leave it at that. Lets go with that. But if you take away from my life here on earth because you say that I shouldn't value what I am here on earth, then you yourself are interfering with life here on earth. -And if you value what happens to life here on earth, then so do I, and will be against destructions of life and stagnant systems here on earth. end profundity.

As a human being, you may find yourself attracted to the opposite sex. You may then in response to that, marry one person. Now, you're allowed to respond to your spouse but to every other member of the opposite sex, you may not respond. In this area (of responding to attraction to the opposite sex) growth is cut short at 1. There is no growth in this area allowed. Evil and destruction are concepts and areas -it is best if we cause for no growth in these areas (the evil area) to occur. But our attraction and response are not totally evil, and in fact contain much good. Just like many things here on earth are not totally good nor totally evil, so is this thing (and in fact this thing has much good in it) -But most other earthly things don't have their growth cut to one like this thing does. What is the purpose for such singling out and limiting? Religion has already done it; but has not revealed its purpose for doing so. Even so, I bet there still is a purpose behind it, even though not revealed. What are they hiding? Lets speculate. (You've read my speculations).

In order to obey these religious rules, we then need to satisfy our needs concerning others of the opposite sex, in small bits as soon as they appear, so that they do not grow into the action of the forbidden act of sexual response. But this is inconvenient and requires us to do much switching between unhindered and held back modes.

Religion interferes with and takes away from our life here on earth, in this area. Religion also preaches the futility of trying to save our earthly life. "if you try to save your life you will loose it". To loose life is destructive. (But will you loose your earthly life because religion takes it away from you; or because of other destructive effects of earthly life itself?) Yes, earthly life does contain destruction, on its own, even without religious interference. But so does this religious interference in this area: thus this religious interference is no better, and no worse, than earthly life itself -and is thus an extension of earthly life. If it is part of earthly life; then its command to loose it for Jesus' sake, applies to itself also. So, give up this religious interference in the sexual area, as well as the sexual area itself as well as all the rest of earthly life, for Jesus' sake; and occasionally you will be sexually satisfied in ways outside the religious rules, but still for Jesus' sake anyway. And this is the best and optimal position, as I have already mentioned. Moderation in all things, including religious prohibitions on our sexuality. You see, if this religious interference does not help us out of our predicament in ways above our earthly ways -in ways free from destruction of our earthly life; then those religious ways are no better than our other earthly ways. (are not above our other earthly ways and are thus subject to the rules applied to earthly ways) Now, if you refuse to give up your religious rules (which are a part of your earthly life) for Jesus' sake, then you will not gain eternal life (according to the Bible promise).

A thing is that the religious rules over sexuality; and our earthly life in this area, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. So that if you give up one, you cannot give up the other, at any particular point in time. Thus do the best you can, by alternating; and by giving up one at one time, and another at another time. There is no compromise for any instantaneous point in time. This is concerning the obeying of Jesus' saying to give up your (earthly) life for Jesus' sake. The frequency at which you switch isn't determined internally and is therefore up to you. May I suggest a switching frequency that is optimal -as expounded upon previously in my advice on optimal switching.

The Gospel reveals: If you try to save your (earthly) life, you'll loose it. If you loose your (earthly) life for Jesus, you'll gain eternal life. Either way, you loose your earthly life. But if you voluntarily give up your earthly life for Jesus, will God then reward you with eternal life:

Well, both ways involve the loss of (earthly) life -loss being a destructive thing; the concept of loss being applied to the loss of eternal life, as something to be avoided. But would God really wish to reward us any different either way? Since both ways involve loss, both ways are earthly -the next verse defines eternal life as being free from loss -where moth and rust do not corrupt -where thieves do not break through nor steal. But since (voluntary) loss of earthly life for Jesus, also involves loss; this way is not any different from other earthly ways. God's ways are free from loss and destruction. He would not find much pleasure in one way of loss over another, just because it was done in His honor and name; -since eternal life is free from loss, while these ways are all full of loss.

Who can say what way God will use or advocate to save us. But in any case; this way of voluntary loss of earthly life for Jesus, is an earthly way and not an eternal way due to its use of loss; and is therefore also to be given up, if we are to actually give up our earthly life for Jesus.

Now, one might say that because one voluntarily sacrifices their earthly life, that this sacrificial act exonerates them of any wrongdoing and thus makes this a heavenly way -and part of our eternal life -something not to be given up. Yet loss and destruction are present in both ways just the same. Why would it make a difference to God whether we voluntarily gave up our earthly life (including our earthly essentials and quasi essentials -the lusts of the flesh); or these were taken away from us by the destruction within earthly life? In order to obtain the pearl of great price (eternal life); we must sell all that we have (our earthly life) and buy it. Why are we required to voluntarily give up our earthly life in order to obtain eternal life from God?

In my plan to defeat evil as described at the beginning of this book; one fogoHC came to earth to confront the force of evil/destruction. This force then did separation of the forces with his/her HC (high capability); according to my plan anyway. Concerning our flesh and desires of the flesh pertaining to our quasi essentials: we must take on new material so that the destruction within us -within our quasi essentials, destroys that new material, otherwise, it would do destruction to us. But Jesus is against this love of self. He wants us to stop sparing our self, and to allow the evil to destroy in our self, and for us to voluntarily give up our self (our earthly life); and NOT to find other material for the destruction to eat instead thus sparing (temporarily) ourself. When we stop bringing in other material for the destruction within our quasi essential to destroy instead of us; then it destroys parts of us. In the sexual area, since we are allowed one mate; that destruction in us is not unto death. When we stop bringing in other material for the destruction within our quasi essential to destroy instead of us; then it destroys parts of us. We thus voluntarily give up or sacrifice our earthly life for Jesus. What is occurring here is separation of the forces. When the evil is not fed, that is a separation of the forces. But in my proposed plan, it is the confronting fogoHC who does the separation of the forces. If all that were needed were for us to give permission for Jesus to come into us and separate the forces in our quasi essentials, I would do it. But according to the Bible, we are required to purify ourselves (even as he is pure). We are required to separate the forces in our own area- concerning our own flesh and quasi essentials. And this is the clincher: since we are only of earthly power: for us to perform this (within ourselves), is therefore an earthly act and an earthly way -a part of earthly life: I therefore also sacrifice and give this up as well, in my voluntary giving up of my earthly life. Now, if after I had invited Jesus in to take over and had given Jesus permission to separate the forces within my flesh, he then came and did this for me; then it would be an act of God and of eternal life. But then I would no longer have a problem. Why does the Bible want me to purify myself -to make myself pure (even as he is pure), instead of letting Jesus do it? I mean, if we could free ourselves from the destruction in our flesh in our own earthly life; wouldn't we have done it already by our own natural death? What is so great about impaling ourselves upon the destruction within our flesh in a sacrificial mode? Sure, it causes separation of the forces, but we are dead (or parts of us are dead) -awaiting resurrection by God the father. Why should we tell God when to resurrect us/parts of us (by performing separation of the forces): why not let God determine when He is ready to resurrect us/parts of us by allowing the one He sent to us to confront evil, to separate the forces, instead of us doing it? I mean, I've asked Jesus in and given permission to release me from my flesh: yet I still get horny with members of the opposite sex and feel sexual pain if not relieved. If I am to obey the Bible law concerning sexuality, then I still find myself having to suffer loss and find myself having to perform separation of the forces myself in this my fleshly area. Perhaps this all has to do with getting us as individuals to control the variability of our sexual reproduction so that we can remain the dominant species -and as a society, advance, instead of stagnate -unfortunately the attempt to do this, being according to the way of evolution, which itself is prone to stagnation, -being an earthly way not free from evil. But since I must suffer and sacrifice my earthly life and I must perform separation of the forces in this area(and since I am only of earthly power): then this act is an earthly act and a part of earthly life --to also be given up, according to Jesus' own words.

When God is ready to free us from evil, he will send us a Jesus who will separate the forces within us including within our flesh (without requiring us to do it) as the time God frees us from evil is up to God, not us. We may try to free ourselves from evil but God's attempt to free us from evil is more sure than our attempts -since we haven't completely succeeded as of yet even after many tries. If we could do this ourselves, then we'd have done it already. But since we need God's help, let us not try to force that help out of Him, but instead allow Him to act when He is ready. In the mean time, we continue to try: but let us now try in ways not limited to orthodox prescribed ways. Let me reiterate, that in my prescribed method, that we do do some abstinence and suffer some destruction of the self, as responding to every little need we get the moment we get it, would consume (destroy) more resources than the destruction in the essential would have. We wait awhile, but we don't wait forever; and when the optimal point arrives, we then act to satisfy our essential.

Oops. I wish to correct some errors. Previously I had mentioned that we don't accumulate need. But my current stance is that we do accumulate need, since satisfying every little bit of need as it appears would be too costly; and is the reason behind my use of the term 'optimum'.

A more serious correction is that of feeding an evil attack, our lesser material, and unhindering it. The first question is, why do we unhinder it? Well, since it is not going to be saved, but instead destroyed; and since the purpose of held back mode is to save out and preserve: we thus unhinder it so it won't feel any need (which is the cost of the held back mode). Now, previously I had indicated that unhindered material that is alone, cycles rapidly between held back and unhindered modes (due to the quick satisfaction of its need when in unhindered mode). But this use of unhindered mode against evil attack, isn't need driven. It isn't being used to satisfy a regular essential, but to fill the vacuum from an irregular evil attack: so that we don't cycle it back and forth between unhindered and held back modes according to its internal need, but instead leave it in constant unhindered mode to respond to the external evil attack's vacuum. Since it is always in unhindered mode, and that we involve all of the lesser material; our usual method for saving out any high quality material this lesser material IN UNHINDERED MODE generates, (the saving out, being done in a held back part of a cycle): doesn't work (because there is no held back part of the cycle because there is no cycle). We must therefore act specially and pick out high material that is occasionally generated, and do so directly from this (constant) unhindered mode. (Usually, when the lesser material cycles between held back and unhindered mode; we wait till a held back mode part of the cycle to save out any generated high material.)

Now, perhaps we needn't involve ALL the lesser material for an extended period. The purpose is to fill the vacuum created by the destruction of the evil attack. Once whatever lesser material is sucked in and fills the vacuum, then the remaining lesser material can revert to need-drive-and-cycling; until the destruction destroys sucked material, and the vacuum pulls again. end corrections.

Getting back to religion: so far I've made kind of a mess of it. But after looking at it in a different light, I'm not so sure we're so far apart. The centerpiece of it, is to give up your earthly life and receive eternal life. This isn't so far from what I recommend. Earthly life contains loss or destruction (as we've expounded upon) and eternal life is free from destruction. Earthly life then is like the unhindered mode, while eternal life is like the held back mode. I was under the mistakened idea that we could not experience eternal life while we were here on earth, but had to wait till we died and were in heaven. -that we gave up our earthly life and were left with nothing -a vacuum (while here on earth). But now I see that as long as we act in (loving) ways free from any destructiveness; that is eternal life, even here on earth: while ways containing destruction -includes essential doings, involving our flesh; are earthly ways. And in our method, we do earthly ways or unhindered mode, when we need it; but give it up as we no longer need it. So that we do give up our earthly life (unhindered mode), and replace it with eternal life (held back mode); as a large part of our method. So maybe the truly living God and Christ alive, who I cannot deny; and I myself; aren't so far apart and are even in tune. But as for these (religious) traditions of men: I've had it up to the nth degree over my head, with them.

So now we don't give up our earthly religious restrictions in a regular cycle, but now do so only as we have need (equal or above the cost of switching). So when I need something, I give up my giving up of that earthly life; and when I am full, I then give up that earthly life itself. Works for me. Note: if doing an essential, and then after being filled; switch to held back mode: that material still exists, and acts, but acts with no more evil, including no further essential . But my point is that we find similar material in both unhindered and held back modes, its just that they act differently.

Lets be honest: God may act to save us and make us eternal but He wouldn't do it by using rewards, or having us SELL things to BUY pearls (of great price) (Why would Christ be upset and cast money changers from the temple, if He does the same?) While God tarries to set us all free from evil; we humans, in the interim, can also act to try to be free from evil. Let us call this human act to give up things and our life, for an eternal reward, for what it is: an attempt by MAN to be free from evil. A powerful God (one who could save us) would not need anything that we could supply Him (other than our permission). If we wish for God to notice us and attempt to gain His favor, we should keep trying to get free from evil and not give up here. Unfortunately, religion can cause us to give up here. If evil(destruction) is right in front of our face, then obviously, God has not yet freed us from it: so while it is yet upon us: and while we wait for God to free us: continue to act to try to get free of it.

Let me make it clear; the new logic remains: One may say you just can't give up your earthly life, you must give it up for Jesus' sake, in order for God to reward you with eternal life. And Jesus spells out how he wants us to live life and what we are to give up. But in the area of giving up our giving up of earthly life, no instructions are given. Thus if we say a 'for Jesus' sake' at the end; this area should be OK, even though other areas go against being given up. If you don't think this will fly, then you may find me at the judgment, where God would say 'how can you expect me to reward you with eternal life when you have not given up all (earthly life) that you have (like in the sexual area, where my method doesn't comply exactly with the compromise reached with it by Jesus). But I'd have to say "how can you reward anybody with eternal life using this, since these other people who gave up everything else, did not even try to give up the part of their earthly life whereby they gave up the other parts of their earthly life; let alone try to do this for Jesus' sake? Note that if you don't try to give up your earthly life (including the earthly giving up of earthly life, itself), then essentially you are saving it: -recall that if you try to save your earthly life, you will loose it --without obtaining the promise of the reward of eternal life. One may say that this is only one aspect of earthly life and that they had given up every other aspect: well I can say that the sexual area is only one aspect of earthly life and that I had given up every other area; or that riches were only one aspect, and that I had given up every other area. One may say that using my definition of eternal life -as anything containing no destruction; that the act of giving up earthly life is thus part of eternal life, thus not to be given up. But this sacrificial act of giving up earthly life, IS associated with destruction. It may not be the direct cause of the destruction. The destructive agent exists in us prior to this act. Yet an act that requires us to place a destructive agent upon a certain area, whence that area then has some destruction done to it by the agent: I would say that act has been the cause of some specific destruction, even if it has not increased (and may have even decreased) the overall destruction. Like, a shooting gun is a destructive agent. If I require that it be pointed at person A, then even though I may have had nothing to do with creating the shooting gun: but I would still consider myself guilty of murder -as king David was considered guilty of murder for sending bathsheba's husband to the front lines. So even here, this sacrificial act cannot be considered as eternal life; as sacrifice, although noble, still contains destruction.

On a scale of capability, we're at our lowly earthly life. Above us is an all powerful God, free from evil. Below us is death and nothingness. We with our lowly earthly life can try to achieve greater heights and try to become up with the all powerful God. But that's such a long shot that most likely we won't be one who succeeds. But if there already exists an all powerful God, we can ally with Him, and go to death -it is much easier to go to death; then depend on Him to resurrect us.

What I'm talking about here, is separation of the forces. Within our essentials -within our flesh, are destructive forces, whereby we must take in outside material so the destruction destroys it, instead of us. But when the forces (destruction and growth) are separated; the destruction within our essentials and flesh is no longer provided with outside material and is forced to consume us; and parts of us die and we die; as the force of evil dies. Then God the Father resurrects us. This plan works. Like the people of the heaven's gate cult: that would work if there was someone out there to pick up the pieces and catch us. Yes that would be the way to deal with the force of evil that lives within us, so we could be purified and join God. But this only works if there is a God the father out there to pick up the pieces and resurrect us afterwards. If there is even the remote chance that there does not yet exist a God the Father out there to resurrect us; then we will need our earthly lives to try our slim chance to go in the upward direction -of escaping the evil without dying -without giving up our life, so as to create a God the Father. With our situation now: we have a God who is hidden -who has not absolutely proved His existence to us. So concerning these sacrificial acts on our part whereby we give up our earthly life according to Jesus' directions: I say it should be up to Jesus to perform the separation of the forces thus causing the removal of (parts of) our earthly life (after we give Him permission to do so): and not for us to give up our earthly life (in a sacrificial act). -because our sacrificially giving up such life, detrimentally effects the long term overall attempt(s) to create a God the Father. Of course if there already exists a God the Father, then there is no need to try and create one in the long drawn out way --(which is the only way we as lowly earthly life, have). But if there is even the remote chance that there doesn't yet exist a God the Father, then the plan will not work, as there won't be any one out there to resurrect us after we are dead. So that a God who hasn't absolutely proved His existence, must understand that it is then up to Him -through the one He sends -his son Jesus Christ, to perform the separation of the forces (which causes us to loose (parts of) our earthly life).-: and not up to us. -A reason being that we know our lack of all-knowingness -we know that we are easily fooled. And that we now realize that in the possible situation where God-the-Father is in the process of being created: that it would be detrimental to that creation, for us to give up our earthly life in a sacrificial act. And since God has not yet ruled out this possibility by showing absolutely that He exists, then this remains a possibility. So, to love God, in all possibilities, we should wait on Him (through Jesus Christ) to perform separation of the forces, resulting in the death of (parts of) our earthly life; and not do this ourselves, in a sacrificial act of giving up our earthly lives, thus thrusting upon God, a need to resurrect us (parts of us). -which He may or may not be ready to perform at this present time.

But what if it were not a question of God's power needed to separate the forces; but instead was the dirtiness of the job? The very abhorrence of allying with an agent of destruction, directing it (to be done to yourself), thus associating you with destruction; is the thing that requires each of us to do his/her fair (individual) share; so that no one person should shoulder the burden and blame of doing it for everybody. So then, now we are back to doing this to ourselves. Plus, we can't put a quick end to our suffering by causing our own death. In order to make a quick end and put us out of our suffering, would require us to become an agent of destruction -as opposed to just refusing to feed the already existing agents of destruction (which causes them to slowly consume us). By becoming an agent of destruction ourselves, we choose before God, for destruction. So that it would seem we are stuck suffering.

But there is a time to die; and a time to live. There is no suffering. The confusion comes between confusing two different doings that we do: when we die (to our earthly life and flesh); and when we live. You see, when it is time to separate the forces (within us) and for us to die (as God is ready to resurrect us and free us from evil); then we will no longer have any use for doing anything else. There will be no need to go to work; no need to eat; no need to satisfy our sexual needs, because it is now time to die. So that we clear our agenda and do absolutely nothing, but await death. The suffering comes when we try to do the actions of life while at the same time, preparing to die. And of course, we must have a signal from God when it is time to do this: and that will be when Christ comes in his power and glory (his 2nd coming). But we are instructed to prepare ourselves for Christ's 2nd coming; and are threatened with being cut asunder to hell and given our part with the unbelievers if we do not. This requires us to suffer -when we don't have to. God would not require this. This once again brings up the issue of trying to create God the Father if he doesn't yet exist; vs acting with God the Father if he does exist. Because if God were visible, it would be time to die, thus cleansing ourselves from evil; and joining Him. But since God is not visible; our living (and not preparing to die (in suffering)), has a purpose of covering the possibility that God the Father is not yet created (and also other purposes of life). For what purpose would we carry on the actions of earthly life, if God were ready to resurrect us? But if God were not ready to receive us; requiring us to prepare for when He was ready (prior to when he was ready), would cause us to suffer as we would be forced to do both the actions of life, and the actions of death, together; which would cause the forces of destruction and the forces of growth to be done together over our lifetime: -the very thing we are trying to eliminate (we're trying to separate the forces) here in this. So do not prepare for when God is ready to take you (2nd coming), before He is ready to take you, by now performing the actions of death: but instead do the actions of earthly life now, until that time. (then when it is time , then do the actions of death unto joining God.) -and thereby show God that you are against the togetherness of the forces of growth and the forces of destruction.

Where if you prepare for this time (when God is ready to take you) by doing the actions of death -of sacrificially directing the agents of destruction within you, upon yourself, in a giving up of your earthly life: you show to God that you choose the forces of destruction and good together. -that that is what you want (for Him to provide you). God has no cause to make you suffer prior to His readiness to resurrect you. In fact He abhors the suffering caused by togetherness of the forces; as He himself lives completely separate from the forces of destruction, and desires this for you. Choose life, not eternal death.

When it is time to live, go with life, and do the actions of life. When it is time to die, put away the actions of life, and do the actions of death; that is, separate the forces -that is, do not take in outside material to feed the destruction within your flesh; whence that destruction then consumes you. You thus choose for separation of the forces.

To prepare for when God is ready to take you, before He is ready to take you, causes the mixing of the actions of death and the actions of life, causing the togetherness of the forces of good and evil by your hand (with its corresponding suffering). It is the choice of torment and suffering. -the wrong choice as far as I'm concerned.

Nature has hijacked our ability to be attracted to others and feel good -really good about others; to be directed at the opposite sex. And religion and nature then limit that: so that we don't feel really good with very many people.

Because of this limiting and hijacking; we form family units, but beyond the family units; everyone else is an outsider. It is this being divided up as little bands of family units while everyone else is pretty much an outsider; that makes life cold and impersonal. Being cold and impersonal and treating as outsiders, everyone outside the family unit; isn't a good way to be -a stagnant way. (and of course there are even those who find themselves unable to be loving even within their family unit). But if the attraction we feel which nature has hijacked to be towards the opposite sex, were instead spread to everyone and neither limited; this would cause people to stick together more and be more of a community. Such a force would make us kinder and gentler and not so stagnant. As we recall from the Biblical account, that Jesus wasn't too interested in persecuting people for sexual offenses, like everybody else was, including his followers.

(Hell requires one to be alive in some sense otherwise one couldn't experience suffering, and thus is not the lowest point -on a scale of capability.)

On a scale of capability, we as earthly life, are in the middle: with an almighty evil-free God above us; with death and nothingness below us. In order to try and reach the higher plane of oneness with God, we could struggle upwards in our earthly life, in an attempt to free ourselves from evil and reach God; or we could go in the opposite direction, go to death, and depend on God to resurrect us. Apparently, another compromise has been made between these two ways. We are to sacrifice and give up some of our life (according to Jesus' instruction on how to live our life and bear our cross -ie for Jesus' sake); but not all of our life. -Because Jesus doesn't require we give up all our life (at least not right away), with his instructions on how we are to live our life. So we sacrifice parts of our life; but not all of our life -so that we do have some life, but it is a life in suffering (we are to hate our life). This compromise between life and death directions, partially answers my concern about not thrusting upon God, our life, needing to be resurrected, but waiting for God to give us a signal when He wants us to deliver our life (through death) to Him for resurrection. It says all time is a good time to include at least some of this: and that this compromise has been reached here where God isn't indicating one way or the other due to His being hidden. With all of these compromises; it kind of reminds you of politics and politicians. The purpose of compromise is to cover all the bases so that you're not taken totally lacking in any of the possibilities. But in this compromise, that FAILS, and this compromise is the cause of the worst possible situation. Because God is hidden, and has not shown himself -absolutely proving His existence; we cannot be absolutely sure He exists at this time -(or is yet to be created). We are instructed to have faith; to believe and hope for that which we do not yet have. We require a sign -a signal from God, before we sacrifice even parts of our life: not because we don't believe in God; but to choose against the possibility of doing evil. Now, just because we allow for the possibility that God doesn't exist yet: we also allow for the possibility that He does exist now, and is just hiding from us -so we don't kill ourselves so He will resurrect us -He must have a purpose for us to be alive here. The fact that He is hiding and hasn't shown himself absolutely, is a sign that He wants us to live life and go in the upward direction; and that he doesn't want us to sacrifice that life to him (yet) -that he has a purpose for us living. We are of low power and are not all knowing, and are easily fooled. That is one thing we can be certain of in this time. We know that we aren't all knowing. We are certain that we are uncertain. Because we are certain that we don't absolutely know that God exists (because God is hidden); we must cover the possibility that maybe God doesn't exist yet; as well as the possibility that He does exist now. If our situation happens to be the possibility that God doesn't exist yet; then for us to sacrifice all or any part of our life, would represent a destruction of life from this time until a time in the distant future when God was created and did resurrect that life. If you wish to choose the force of destruction, then go and do that. But we wish to choose against destruction, by not doing that. So that if God wishes for us to go the way of death and then resurrection, then we require that He give us an absolute sign -because with this requirement, we choose against evil/destruction in the possibility where God doesn't exist yet, in our situation of being lowly and not all knowing (we, being certain of the lowliness of our own position).

And of this compromise: -to mix the ways of struggling upwards to God, vs, going to death and awaiting resurrection: note that the ways of life and the ways of death are of opposing directions: and that to mix them together, causes the togetherness of the forces of good and evil -of growth and destruction. If you wish to choose the togetherness of the forces, then you go and do so. But we wish to choose against the togetherness of these forces; as such togetherness is a choice for the force of evil, because the force of evil requires the togetherness of these two forces for its existence; while the force of good does not. So that to choose for the togetherness of the forces here, is a choice for the force of evil. And you will know it too, by the suffering it causes you, if you try it. Now then: where to from here?

So far I've shown only the down side of preparing for Christ's second coming by sacrificing parts of our earthly life according to religion. There is a small up side (not of actually preparing for the 2nd coming, but to religion in general including talking about preparing for the 2nd coming).

The requirements to sacrifice for God, and the sexual restrictions resulting in isolated family units (where it is each family for themselves); causes, or can cause a situation of reduced capability. I would like to step out here to say that ultimately we are 'responsible' for our own actions, and that if we value the force of good, and life, that we should do what we can to avoid destruction and be free from it as much as possible, irregardless of religious rules. This is the true religion, and the true pleasing of God. The idea to love God and your neighbor, fits in nicely here. Jesus has hit the nail right on the head. What is all this other stuff over regulating human sexuality so closely. That is off track. The problem is with the statements about loosing your earthly life for God, in order to gain the reward of eternal life. OK, stepping back in:. The idea is to spoil the goods before anybody else can get to them. But this logic only works unto reduced capability; as if you completely destroy someone just to prevent a killer from doing it; then you are just doing the killer's (evil's) work for them (it).

Since we don't know who is going to rule us -it could be a good, kind ruler; or an evil, cruel one: then this setup of reduced capability in the material that rulers rule over; causes for only good rulers to be able to make much use of this material; while evil rulers are held back by it. So we have a good reason (a political reason) for preserving the family unit. -to prevent totalitarian and ideological regimes (like communism) from extracting absolute power and spreading their cruelties around. So when evil governments step in and try to control who you mate with -trying to breed humans for their evil purposes: then is the time to revolt and die against your government. (Recall Hitler's breeding program). So we need to preserve the family unit. To do so requires some enforcement (or incentive program) of the religious restrictions on sexuality in place today. However, here in America, we've gone too far with this. Here in present day America, there is little chance of a totalitarian government taking over. But there is excessive emphasis against any form of sexual deviation from what religion determines to be appropriate. The sex police are out in force. Recall that in an atmosphere of reduced capability the good can still bridge barriers and get together but the evil cannot. -but that in an atmosphere of desolation; neither the good nor the evil can bridge barriers or get out. The excessive enforcement of sexuality we do here in America has created an environment of sexual desolation where near absolute compliance is achieved and no one breaks the religious restrictions. (The compromise Jesus makes in the sexual area also helps this). Thus no government (or organization larger than the family unit) -good nor evil, is able to be sustained. This creates a vacuum in government, leaving the good unable to escape the evil, left behind with the evil -resulting in togetherness of good and evil. (This is no better than no family unit at all). Some discouragement of breaking the sexual restrictions is needed yes; but not to the extent of absolute or near absolute compliance (as if that is done, then it is the same result as if a totalitarian regime was allowed to reign with no family unit, as under Hitler. What we now need to realize is that we don't take these religious restrictions over sexuality so seriously. As I have shown, they have no serious basis in truth or path to eternal life. -except that of political truth-life-and goodness. What they should become, is as Santa Clause is for children. We know Santa Clause isn't real, but that we allow and maintain it to a degree, as a tradition; as it has its purpose. So should religious sexual restrictions be.

So now that the cat is out of the bag, repressive totalitarian regimes may use my logic to break up the family unit (against religious objections) and institute their own human breeding programs. That's no good. I debated with myself whether to release this information. But it is already too late since I've already released earlier material, before I realized this. And ultimately I think it is better to be informed. I think we can handle it. The idea is that now we know how to die (against repressive regimes). Acting (and even dying) against bad authorities, is different than dying for God (when God visibly appears). When God visibly appears we stop taking in material for feeding the destruction in our flesh; but neither do we any of the actions of life -we clear our agenda and do nothing; awaiting the separation of the forces within us.

But when going against evil authorities, we take all our lower quality material and unhinder it. After a short time, that lower material not involved or sucked into this, reverts back to what it was before; and continues our (adult) earthly life -if all is sucked in, then we die. The material that is involved or sucked in, remains eternally in unhindered mode (with the occasional escape of any high quality material generated). Being in unhindered mode, it never feels any need and is never need driven (until the destruction present, destroys it). -It is the eternal child --never feeling any adolescent need or need of essentials/quasi essentials.

This, I hope, allows us to preserve some semblance of a family unit; although I never want such preservation to be absolute: but one that allows for some wandering (by both partners of course).

So, one can call Him the king of compromise, but king of kings is much better -(kings and lords (as leaders) being masters of compromise themselves).

So; I'm impressed. Almost single handedly, this man, with no heavy use of divine power (except as a healer and such), has almost single handedly caused so much good. By tricking people into sacrificing for God, he causes them to help each other and form a community of togetherness and love (the Christian church). Not only that: by inciting people to sacrifice for God, this causes them to be at reduced capability. Because if left to their own devices, they would build up high earthly capability, and evil leaders would feed on this and would be sustained; and the end state (of being ruled by a tyrant) would be much worse than the light burden Jesus lays upon us. The reduced capability favors the emergence of only good leaders and good governments. -All because of Jesus and his church. Fitting is the tittle King of Kings and lord of lords -as He has thereby made the rulers to be good. Wow. What an accomplishment. How can one man provide so much? Jesus may say that only God is good, but by men's standards: Jesus was a good man. With what he had to work with; he did wonders. It may be true that we have been tricked into sacrificing for God, and that His compromise with sexual frustration -resulting in greater certainty of enforcement; has caused us some discomfort and has been a slight burden (which now at the end, threatens to stagnate what He has accomplished). He was just playing it safe- ensuring that His Church would pull through and reap some genetic benefits, some political benefits, some togetherness of the group benefits -even if not the maximum possible -the most certain instead. Recall the roman empire was ruling people with an iron hand in Jesus' time, and was quite a force to be overcome. It took awhile, but it got done. But now that we have accomplished what He set out for us to accomplish; this excessive enforcement threatens to stagnate these gains, as the people of today focus in on the letter of God's law; oblivious to the spirit of God's law. Now see! I have shown how loosely Jesus played you with His requirement for you to sacrifice for God: and all for your benefit. -You ought therefore not to take the letter of His laws so seriously, but instead emphasize the Spirit -Love. Love remains. Love and helping each other is what remains important through all this. I certainly have not disproved that: in fact have even strengthened it. As the story of the Good Samaritan points out: if your religion gets in the way of loving and caring for each other; it is of little use.

This enforcement of religious sexual restrictions, is a part of earthly life: what are you saving this for? Don't give up your chance at the reward of eternal life by holding onto this and not giving this up.

Give this part of earthly life up for God. Give it up for love.

The Bible says those who won't believe on Christ, do this because their deeds are evil and they don't want them brought into the light where they will be reproved. And the Bible is full of exhortations to obey the laws of God with our earthly deeds. So, what we do in our earthly deeds, seems to be quite important to God. It is important to obey a set of rules (that we are told, are from God). What we do in our earthly deeds seems to be quite important -here on earth where we don't act out of complete free will but are coerced by our needs. It would be nice if the rules had a common theme behind them, and were not just the whims of evolution. Because if the rules were just the whims of some elders of old, passed down over the generations; and had no solid theme: then to say obeying them pleased God and gave you eternal life, would be one statement. (Since God isn't limited by the whims of a group of elders of old or the earthly process of evolution.) 'what profiteth a man to gain the whole world (including worldly deeds) but loose your soul-your relationship with God.

Well, what about a set of rules based on destruction vs growth of life? Wouldn't God care about them? -since He is quite great in the area of (evil free) life?

We show God that we are against sin, by not sinning. We should also show God that we're against destructiveness the same way. -As our earthly deeds are said to be of importance to God in determining His response to us.

I want to reiterate that the act to sacrifice and suffer while also trying to live -a way of suffering through life (which by the way, is allowed by the scriptural promises favoring receiving the reward of eternal life); is a choice by us FOR the very destructiveness that makes our deeds evil, -shouldn't God care about the statement this deed makes? (This even causes Christ of the Bible to reject us due to our continuing to sin.) And that this way of suffering through life may have even been what drove us to desperation and caused us to ask Christ to save us in the first place -what we were seeking God to save us from in the first place).

Since I respect what Christianity has done and the good it has caused, I choose to work within its system. And people who don't like evil, who choose against evil (destructiveness); but who are trapped by it and are seeking help in getting free of it: find an appeal in Christianity. It is these people I wish to help and represent as I myself am one.

There are 3 promises of eternal life I am aware of in the Gospels. One is the one we've just discussed about giving up your earthly life for Christ's sake and you will gain eternal life. The next is that you need to do everything that Jesus says (ie whatever He commands). (Note that the saying to give up your earthly life for the reward of eternal life, isn't a command, but is a choice offered us). And finally is the promise that if we believe on Christ, we will have eternal life.

Obeying Christ's commandments is important and will give us eternal life, is one of the promises. But so is disobeying Christ's commands important and will give us eternal life in the second promise. Yes, since we obey in our earthly life; obedience is part of our earthly life and we have that as part of our earthly life. We are then told that if we give up our earthly life and all that we have, for Christ, and hate our earthly life, then we will gain eternal life. So here, we give up our obedience (a part of our earthly life) for Christ and the Gospel. To give up obedience in any specific incidence, means disobedience. So, both obedience and disobedience are given eternal life according to the Bible. Any moral direction or moral compass is shot. What remains out of all this, is to love one another -to love our neighbor as ourselves and to love God (excluding any sacrificial acts). Why? Because love (EXcluding sacrificial acts of love), contains no destructiveness. And things which are free of destruction are not earthly life but are eternal life -and we are not asked to give up our eternal life -only our earthly life.

What I don't get, is why would God, who is so much more powerful than us puny and needy individuals; why would He want us to sacrifice for Him? He has no needs and is self sufficient unto himself. He would not need any sacrifices from us. (in fact, one would think it would be upon Him to help us.) Now, our government, our church, and all organizations which are made of individuals and which rely on their individuals for their power; would need their individuals to give up some of their individual pursuits in order to act in unison -as a group. -But the benefits from that group action should outweigh anything the individual could do as an individual. -unless the group is misusing its power and is not a growing group, but is a stagnant group.

One may say that obedience to God is eternal and part of eternal life, and rightly so in some situations. But since our obedience to God here on earth (in some commands -especially governing sexuality), involves destruction done to us in order to obey (although not destruction unto death); it is therefore an earthly act. One may say, just consider as separate parts, the destructive aspect, and the eternal obedient aspect. But here on earth, we are unable to separate the destructive part from the obedient part, and since God doesn't do it for us; these parts remain together as an inseparable unit, to us puny earthlings. Therefore, to us, we must consider this whole unit, as an earthly act. -Recall: heavenly treasure does not suffer loss from rust or moth or thievery. -So that this earthly obedience is not heavenly (eternal) material, as it is associated with loss. (even though it is a light burden, it is still a burden, and therefore earthly life.) So that in order to obtain eternal life through this promise, we must give it up (as we must give up all (earthly material/life) we have). But 1 John says that transgression of the law is sin; and if we sin we don't have Christ. The Gospel of John chapter 3 says that if we don't have Christ (if we don't believe on Christ) then we are condemned already -and relates this to evil deeds. Thus we must find a way to give up our earthly obedience without disobeying. If we do nothing (or die) we are still obeying. If we wait till we die to give it up; then we haven't purchased the reward of eternal life. It is impossible. It is thus impossible for us to obtain eternal life through both of these promises. To give up our earthly life (for God) we must disobey -(to give up our earthly obedience); and that disobeying prevents us from gaining eternal life via obeying Christ. Now, if we obey Christ, then we haven't given up our earthly obedience, (a part of our earthly life), and thus we haven't purchased that pearl of great price (eternal life) by giving up all we have (all our earthly life) and following Christ.

Perhaps what is being referred to by obeying God's law, is only that obedience which does not cause us to suffer any loss in obeying. In such case, this obedience would no longer be earthly, but eternal life; which we are not required to give up. In the sexual area then, to obey the command not to commit adultery, we can just marry everybody we have sex with. Our organization utilizes a mental marriage license where we mentally (in silent prayer) defer to God just prior to sex. We secede from the American govt and each individual becomes a government of their own. Since we are so much less powerful than the American govt, we wish to cooperate with them and go along with all their laws, except the one governing polygamy.

This interpretation of Biblical law over our sexuality is no burden at all -concerning the destructiveness evolution has placed in our sex drive when we don't fulfill it. It does require us to share our material possessions with those we share our sexuality with. But that doesn't require we suffer any destruction. Thus, this interpretation of God's command over sexuality, is the only one that fits and allows all the promises of the Gospel for eternal life to be fulfilled. Cool huh? Now, although obedience to 'do not commit adultery' would allow we all the free sex we want; obtaining eternal life by giving up our earthly life, does not. Giving up our earthly life still includes giving up the giving up our earthly life, -since the giving up of our earthly life inescapably involves sacrifice and loss on our part, thus making it an earthly act -with no interpretation allowing it to be eternal life. (ie without loss). Giving up our earthly life causes a moderation in all things (including the religious sacrificing of giving up our earthly life): one man one woman is Paul's way. My way of abstinence for a time, and then limiting the unhindered mode; is just as valid and obedient, and additionally allows us to be closer and develop our friendships more deeply with all our friends of the opposite sex or the attractive sex. Let's love one another. Let's moderate the sexual restrictiveness of religion; because it is the righteous thing to do!

Realize that obeying God's commandments cannot be a burden to us -not even a light burden (as in my burden is light). -because if we suffer any loss from obeying these commands, that loss makes this an earthly act and not an eternal act. And only when God's command is part of eternal life are we allowed to not give it up, (by Jesus' promise of eternal life) whereby we give up all our EARTHLY life for Jesus sake to purchase the pearl of great price -eternal life. Otherwise the promises of eternal life in the Gospel and new testament, crash in their logic and do not make a lick of sense (if obeying Gods commands cause any destruction to us thereby making it an earthly act).

(The light burden Christ refers to comes not from obeying any of God's commandments, but from purchasing eternal life by giving up our earthly life -(this isn't a command); and even here, the burden is light, because we also give up this giving up of earthly life -resulting in a moderation in all things -a burden yes but a light one.

Ask yourself this: Given an all powerful all knowing God, -and I've also shown that such a God is benevolent: What purpose would He have in placing burdens upon us? (We're already in sorry shape without any additional burdens.) God would not place burdens upon us, but would instead FREE US FROM THE EVILS FORCED UPON US. If He wanted us changed, He would change us in our insides, and would not use commandments to cause our change. Commandments would only be to inform what God was like. If a person was obeying a commandment already because that's how they were on the inside, then the commandment would cause them no destruction and would thus be part of eternal life. But if a person were disobeying a commandment (because that's how they were on the inside) then for them to obey the commandment would cause them destruction as they threw out what they were before to conform to the commandment. For them, obeying would be an earthly act due to this destruction. (being part of earthly life we are asked to give up this earthly obedience (for God) in order to purchase eternal life -yet how do we give up obedience other than with disobedience; and disobedience to God's commandment condemns us to loose our eternal life -system crash; logic crash- The Gospel promises for eternal life don't work here.) The Bible says His commandments are not grievous -in fact, they are no burden at all nor can be.

It seems commandments are something man needs, and God just includes them for man's sake, but are not the main thrust of God. Love and kindness are God's main thrust. (There is no destruction involved in loving Love, and loving your neighbor (excluding sacrificial acts of love), so that this is eternal and part of eternal life.) (Sacrificial acts of love are part of earthly life.) Commands over eating only Kosher food and other such commands, place burdens upon us puny mortals, and are obviously the traditions of men, and are man's use of religion to get things done. As it stands now, no commandment that causes us (or others) any destruction by obeying it, fits in with the Gospel promises of eternal life. -it actually causes them to crash. Just think: there is no conceivable reason for a benevolent God to lay burdens upon us. --(our situation is already pretty crummy as it is). Instead, a benevolent God would act to save and rescue us from being trapped by destruction and destructiveness.

One might say God gives commandments to give us a choice -to preserve free will. But this is inaccurate - we here on earth do not have free will. -not when we are slaves to and coerced by all our essentials and quasi essentials.

It is when man has an agenda or evolution has an agenda (to increase sexual frustration), that man can use religion (through commandments) to get what they want done (whereby commandments become burdensome). But none of this fits in with the Gospel's promises of eternal life.

Love God and love your neighbor REMAINS -wholly separate and pure.

I just had a thought (in favor of religion, for a second): Since God has not yet shown Himself, he thus wishes for us to live. When we and Jesus sacrifice our life for God (in sacrificial love) we are thus disobeying God, for God's sake. (and have thus given up obedience to God for God's sake -according to the promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain eternal life. And since the law of God is one unit, not divisible into component parts ie, if you break any one aspect of the law, you've broken the whole law -where all other combinations (of obeying or disobeying the commandments) are disobedience, and only one combination (obedience in all the commandments) is obedience and keeping God's law. -since the law of God is one unit not divisible; then Christ's way of sacrifice is a valid way to give up obedience to the law, for God's sake.

However, this line of reasoning doesn't hold water. True, obedience to the whole law of God is given up here; but the requirement is for to give up all you have -all your earthly life. The obedience to the individual commandments, although not the whole law of God, are still earthly actions and part of earthly life. If these earthly actions of obeying individual commandments (earthly because they cause you suffering to do them) are not given up, then you are saving your earthly life (a part of), and thus have invalidated your claim to eternal life through the promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain eternal life. (ie: giving up obedience in one aspect/area, doesn't absolve failing to give up obedience in other aspects; as all earthly life is to be given up.) Obedience to individual commandments may be considered as one whole for the purpose of obeying God's law; but for the purpose of their identity as earthly life, they cause us suffering in individual separate areas; we do them separately; and are thus individual separate earthly actions -(if we suppose they are allowed to cause us suffering in obeying them). Thus my insistence that obeying the commandments and the law of God cannot cause you suffering (otherwise the promises of eternal life in the gospel disagree): remains. . . . that suffering in individual areas not being given up until death, thereby eliminating the idea of prolonged suffering while alive.

Recently I've discovered that there is a place for this choosing to suffer while we live. This choice for evil (for evil and good together), can be used against an external evil attack. The method used here, turns -the fact that we're bound by our essentials-, to our advantage by using the evil in our essentials, within us, to bring us to reduced capability for separation of the forces. (This method replaces the method if inc. fragmentation). The idea is that when there is an external evil attack whereby an external evil is feeding upon you: you're already in suffering, so that if you instead allow your own internal evil from your essentials to bring you to suffering, this spoils the food before the external evil can get to it, and thus starves the external evil and causes the forces to separate in the external world.

With your essentials, you take in outside material so that the destruction within you will destroy that material and won't destroy you. When you take in and consume that outside material, that makes you more alive. But if an external evil (perhaps in the form of a boss deriving some production from you with the side consequence being some of your life is destroyed) does then destroy that life; then you have gained nothing and also have depleted your supply of material you use to feed your essential. But if you instead hold back the material you use to feed your essential (only to the point of suffering, not death), then the evil within your essential destroys you and your life instead (but only to the point of suffering). Thus there is no rich food for the external evil to feed on, and with this reduced capability food, the forces separate here and the external evil is thus defeated. Plus, since you didn't consume much material for your essential; you then still have it to give you high life where you can get free of external evils. Thus the suffering-while-you-live of religion, has a place and can be used as one method against evil.

Another method of acting against destruction, involves unhindered and held back modes. When an external destruction destroys, it leaves a hole, a vacuum, which pulls at the other surrounding material to fill it. We first let all our lesser material go to unhindered mode and see what of it this vacuum claims. The material it sucks in, we leave eternally in unhindered mode. The lesser material not sucked in, we return to held back mode. Usually we let our need determine when we go to unhindered mode. But here in the vacuum, the need is so great that nearly as soon as we would switch to held back mode, a great need would quickly grow from satisfaction so that no sooner than we switched to held back mode, we would have to switch again, back to unhindered mode. So that instead of wasting resources switching so rapidly, we just leave it in unhindered mode.

Now with this material never doing any held back mode, this transfers a vacuum to the array of material in held back mode. Note that the material not sucked into the original vacuum, since it is in held back mode a good part of the time; it grows better and outgrows the completely unhindered material, which although it never feels need; is in stagnation. Material that is outside the type affected by the original vacuum and destruction, is then pulled into the secondary vacuum in the held back area, and fills the function of a type which it originally was not. Allow this to occur. Whereas the material caught in the original vacuum, although it fills the hole that is there; it never gets out to fill that need and secondary vacuum in the held back area. So look not to material of the type affected by destruction, but instead surrounding material of the other types to eventually fill the need caused by the loss of the affected material/area. Place your higher consciousness and life in this direction and do not waste it in the area where destruction and its vacuum has claimed material and sucked it in. This is how the secondary vacuum can cause us to suffer need in the array of held back material when we think we are filling a need by plugging the original vacuum -and how if we let it, the array of other materials outside the area / type of the original affected material can satisfy and fill that secondary need. Just concentrate outside the affected area, while still filling the original vacuum with the affected area/material.

I've been asked what my position is concerning people having sex just for fun (as opposed to sex for the purposes of reproduction/procreation). First let me say that with sex as other things, the best way is moderation in all things. -Because if we are constantly attending to and keeping our sexual needs satisfied; this will consume ((destroy) more life resources than if we neglected (abstained from) satisfying the sexual needs, at least for awhile. Moderation is the key here. (But not necessarily monogamous moderation). Note that since the sexual area is a quasiessential, containing destruction; vacuums are created; and in filling those vacuums, secondary vacuums are created in the held back array -where we feel need the most). Thus we often need to satisfy needs generated by sexuality, with material outside the sexual area (by concentrating outside the sexual area) with material outside the sexual area, that through growth and development, also works its way into the secondary vacuum -working its way also into the held back part of the sexual area.

now, as for the question: Evolution (and/or God) has determined that sex is pleasurable, or fun independently of us. (The reason being to encourage the production of offspring -not by commanding us to bear offspring, but by how we feel inside). So that whenever we have sex, its going to be fun, and fun not due to anything we have initiated, but because that's the way evolution and/or God has fashioned it. (although in the case of women, this isn't always the case due to them not having as much freedom of choice as men have had over history over the generations -see earlier material). But in general, sex is fun. So that whenever we have sex whether for fun, or for procreation: that sex is going to be fun. Since we weren't included in the fashioning of sex (into being something fun) as done by evolution and/or God; what makes you think that you can play a part in what evolution and/or God is doing with it now? Evolution and or God will do with sex as they will, without including you or I as a permanent part of that action. It is easy to see that evolution and/or God intends that the purpose of sex is for procreation, and that the fun is just the method used to entice us into performing that function. But for us to then act to try to assist evolution/God to that end (by insisting that all acts of sex should result in procreation); is an attempt by us to be a part of evolution/God's fashioning of sex and sexuality. We were not a part of this before; what makes you think that God will include you now? Evolution/God have their own way of causing people to procreate -and that is by making it fun. What makes you think you can change God's method to one of your own design? If you wish to be part of evolution/God's action in the sexual area; then you must enhance the fun aspect of your and others sexuality.

Note that we as a society, (because of death), must produce offspring to replace what death takes away. This is why evolution/God has fashioned sex to be fun. Now, it is not necessary for every act of (fun) sex to achieve offspring and procreation, for this goal to be met. Thus even when people do sex only for fun, they're often unable to prevent offspring from occurring, even if most of the sex was fun only, with only some of the sex being fun plus procreation. -This still meets the goal of producing offspring to replace what death takes away and/or expand population into favorable areas. Only when society as a whole causes most all their sex to be fun only, is this goal thwarted and evolution/God disobeyed. Another angle: Let me ask you: do you have a problem with people having fun in general? Is fun itself a harmful or destructive thing? Do you think people need to be prevented from having fun and that fun should be stamped out? -isn't stamping out fun destructive of a non destructive thing? Only living things have fun -it is part of life and the edifying of life. If you are against fun, it seems to me you are against this our imperfect life and are moving toward (the direction of) the inanimate ie: mortify (put to death) the deeds of the flesh -in the direction of death -nothingness ie the inanimate. And if imperfect (fleshly) life is to be put to death, is any life to be saved? or is it all death, destruction -the force of destruction?

Looking at this from another angle: evolution warps the "fun" or pleasure a person's life would produce (as a living person), to be directed towards the task of reproduction. Now then: just because a person's "fun" or pleasure -a part of being alive and a part of life - has been warped by evolution and is now imperfect: does this mean it must be discarded? (in answer, I say no and yes. -we should continue with it to plug the need it now fills; but as for replacing what it once was in its previous pure and perfect fun - that is done outside this area; and it is near impossible to use this area to re-achieve that former perfection.) In conclusion, I would say then (but not I - evolution/God), that it is OK for 2 consenting adults to have sex just for fun, but not to total exclusiveness. Moderation remains the key even here..

Concerning this "fun", wrapped around the task of reproduction: it is now a quasi essential, where destruction is involved: where in addition to having fun to do it; it is irritating and contains (mild) destruction to abstain from it. How do we deal with essentials in this country? Do we arrest people and put them in jail for eating? Animals had to be KILLED so that we can eat -do we arrest for murder? What about thou shalt not kill? Animals are raised in confined spaces and not allowed to run free so that the feed will be converted to animal poundage most efficiently. Do we then arrest the corporate farmers for animal cruelty?

Let me jump to another subject. This concerns the violation of a person's will. What are the consequences of doing something good to another person against their will? Let me restate my conviction that what is important is the distinction between things that are destructive of life vs things that are constructive (or growing in life). -and that other distinctions are not so important. Now the violation of a person's will always involves some destructiveness of (thought) life. So that doing something good to someone against their will, then is not perfect. But because the thing done against their will was good (and not destructive); the destruction done here is not excessive. Of course, this line of thinking does not apply to sex, because sex itself is not all good, but is a mixture of good and destruction. I just want to make the point that violating a person's will, is not the all important criterion that one might think it to be (the boss does it to you all the time). -now if you are seeding perfection, then it is very important. and it is a good thing in itself to work with a person and get their cooperation, as violating a will does represent a measured amount of destruction. But in some circumstances where no path is free of destruction, it's conceivable that the best path to take could be to violate a person's will to do something good. Once again, the purpose of this line of thought is to establish that the violation of will is not an absolute untouchable criterion, but instead, destruction vs growth is that absolute criterion.

Now then, I have also been asked to define my position on rape. They say that rape is a control issue. I would say that it is obviously an issue of who controls who can initiate sex. I can understand rape in the harem model where sexually frustrated inferior males attempt to violate the harem system which prevents them from breeding. But this idea of rape, touches another issue that is more important to our situation today. It is the female of our species who risks the most from the act of sex. She is saddled with the burden of the offspring the burden of bearing the offspring, in old days the burden of feeding offspring with the milk of her breast. Just a lot of burden for one night of fun. And she is more likely to be the victim of STD's transmitted in the act of sex. Thus to be fair, I think women should be the boss of the sexual area. They should have the right to choose. Instead of the man asking the woman out, it is the woman who should ask choose which man she wants and be asking him out. The idea of a man raping a woman, violates this idea, and I am therefore against it. Now a man may feel very horny towards a woman, but we men should realize that the way to get women to feel horny back towards us, is to allow them the choice of with who and when they will have sex. You see, if women have choice, then the genes coding for increased sexual desire in women will be selected for, and those for ambivalence towards sex will be weeded out. But if men go around raping women and forcing themselves on them, then women won't have choice and the genes for sexual ambivalence in women will remain and won't be weeded out. Men are beset with the problem of sexual desire and being horny -and this is the result of them having choice and having their way in this area over history. So by birth, most of us men are in a fix as to how to cool the heat. What I would suggest is that it is in our best interest to work for causing the women to have the same hot sexual desire that we are beset with, so that we can cool/satisfy our desires together in a non destructive way. -that is by two consenting adults together. -because violating a person's will is destructive, and killing that person afterwards so they won't report you, is even more destructive. We want to avoid destructiveness. So we men cause women to share our horniness, by allowing them choice and not forcing ourselves on them.

Now, if religious organizations deny men access to willing women, and that the only way men are going to cool their desire is by violating unwilling women, then I don't think quite as much of a crime has been committed here as compared to if a man has access to willing women, but chooses instead to force unwilling women.

Now, religion that wants to minimize or eliminate the sexual desire that men and women have between each other, might allow forcing unwilling women, so that the genes favoring unwillingness would be selected. But that hardly seems fair or compassionate; and I think we'd thereby loose the cooperation of the fairer sex and also incite their wrath. Here, the factor of destruction and stagnation by forcing all the burdens onto women, would drag that society down -to be overgrown by growing societies which try to eliminate destructiveness and try to improve the conditions of the lowest position.

Now then. I realize you women have been burdened upon and have been made the scapegoat to receive all that is undesirable. But if you are poor, no matter what sex, this has also happened to you. And then on top of that these aberrant men impose their unwanted sex on you. That does it That's the last straw. Your wrath is justifiably unleashed and you let them have it with both barrels. These aberrant men then become the final scapegoat: receiving wrath from women not only for their sexual crimes against women, but also from women for what society as a whole has done to women; and also wrath from religious minded officials who wish to stamp out sexuality. I understand that women are frustrated (and not just from sexual criminals), and I certainly don't blame them, nor think that they should be the ones to fix this -women are already overburdened. But as for my position on rape: I think today's punishment doesn't fit the crime and that it is excessive. I do not think rape is as destructive as murder. (and therefore shouldn't receive the sentence of a murderer.

I think rape is more comparable to assault and should receive similar sentencing. Of course there is the problem of the rapist re-offending and I agree that that is more of a problem than for other crimes. Perhaps a special halfway house or something.

With rape, there needn't be much physical harm -the main damage is emotional/psychological. But if we are to criminally punish for emotional duress, there is one thing I bear witness to: The overburdening society does to women, is not received well by all women. Some are able to handle it without too much bitterness; but others do not and become what I would call "bitchy". The emotional damage that these women can do to the unsuspecting, naive, dreamy headed male, (as I once was); is large. And no one goes to jail for that emotional damage. Neither would I want them to, as I feel criminal punishment is just a continuation of destruction and destructiveness. We can all hurt each other and cause us to evermore flounder in stagnation: but instead, let us get away and free from all destructiveness as we are able, and thereby make our world a better kinder friendlier place for all.

This is done by always improving the lowliest position in a given society.

Now, concerning my sexual feelings. With these, I'll be more concerned with working in my methods for essentials and quasiessentials and improving the growth vs destruction status, as opposed to gaining permission to feel sexually. -as this is the nature of essentials -like it or not we are forced and are not guiltless. In my method, I will not be doing life in suffering, which is the choice for evil (and good together), (except on those odd occasions where this is needed to deal with an external evil attack).

The quasi essential, human sexuality, has destruction in it. Religious minded women who attack me because I won't suffer in the sexual area; is also a destruction I have access to. In response to all this destruction I then unhinder all my lesser material. Shortly afterwards, I return all the lesser material not sucked into these destructions, back to the more restful held back mode: while leaving the material involved and sucked in, eternally in unhindered mode. -Just because it is unhindered doesn't mean it's going full tilt all the time -unhindered means all options are open: high activity rates may vary according to changes in what's being responded to; yet it is the same material doing this unhindered response. (an aside note: if worshipping the devil is one of the options you pick up being unhindered; the suffering through life of Christ's religion is a good way to be freed from that foolishness.)

OK. Leaving the tangents I get back to the matter at hand (essentials): Because I let some material go eternally in unhindered mode, (to fill the vacuum created by the destructions)(thus no longer spending time in held back mode); a secondary vacuum will be created in my held back area. I then focus my more advanced consciousness/new growth, upon the lesser material that was not sucked in, and away from the material that was sucked in (and is in eternal unhindered mode); and act to grow that so it fills my need of the secondary vacuum in my held back area.

I prefer loving relationships of equality between men and women and disdain controlling relationships where men try to control women (or vice versa).

Let me go at this again. Concerning sexuality: The concept of violating a person's will, indicates that someone has a will and command over an area which they are the boss. It is a concept based on ownership whereby boundaries over a person's body and even a person's spirit and feelings, can be defined. However, the force of good is based on cooperation and interrelatedness. We are all interrelated. We can each help each other. And the different areas and aspects of ourselves are interrelated and each depends on all the others. The concept of ownership here, is a foreign thing and doesn't fit. Ownership means denying others access. Interrelatedness on the other hand is just the opposite, and is the benefits we can all receive through sharing access with each other. The concept of will and ownership has no place here. The only thing that reigns as a supreme will, is whether something is destructive of life vs helps in the growth of life. That is the only criterion.

Wherever there is destruction, there is a problem needing to be dealt with. That's what irks me. It doesn't matter who the destruction belongs to -who it is attacking. The fact that it exists, irregardless of who the unlucky slob or area being affected is; is reason enough for us all to act and deal with it. And not just deal with it: deal with it in a good way. We cannot stand behind -it's not my problem -the problem doesn't belong to me -as this ownership junk here just isolates us, and isolated we cannot interrelate to help each other out. But on the other hand, isolation and ownership over your own personal space, is much better than a misguided group effort to assault you in trying to purify some evil out of you. Because of this, you must have the option of dropping out of groups and becoming an individual, and this is the place of individuality and ownership. But the main benefits are found in joining the right group, and supplying each others interrelated needs. And the 'rightness' of a group, would be based on what is growing in life vs what is destructive of life. Any common sense will tell you that what is eternal cannot contain a lot of destructiveness within it -as when something is destroyed, it comes to an end -not very eternal eh?

When all the interrelated parts (of a held back array) are present and helping each other; all are satisfied and there is no need. But when one of the interrelated parts is missing, then all the other parts feel need. And they all then send their lesser quality sections into unhindered mode periodically, because of that need. But the unhindered mode allows for destructive actions. And destruction destroys parts and creates more need. It would be much better if the missing part in the interrelated held back array never went to fill where destruction destroyed.

But the need and the suffering is too great. There is destruction. And that destruction can cause the held back mode to feel great need. But in the unhindered mode, this material feels no need at all, yet it generates more destruction here. Also occasionally generated in the unhindered mode, is the occasional high quality material.

Now, when there is a destruction, it creates a vacuum that sucks other material in. That material sucked in, feels great need unless it goes completely to the unhindered mode. When it does, that creates a secondary vacuum in the held back array. The whole held back array then feels need due to this secondary vacuum and loss of the held back aspect of that area. But if the held back area continues to do things in a held back way; the other surrounding held back things will be sucked into that secondary vacuum; and the held back array will be satisfied and no longer feel need. -And the unhindered mode here also feels no need. So we should work with and in the held back mode, when there is a secondary vacuum. -(this allows for periodic cycling to unhindered mode by lesser parts here; but such is still much less unhinderedness than the material eternally and always in unhinderedness). (Yet the reason for that periodic cycling is because there is a secondary vacuum (ie, -need in the held back array)- Once the secondary vacuum is filled (either from held back material generated from unhindered mode, or already existing surrounding held back material), the periodic cycling will stop not just for the material that fills the vacuum, but also for all the rest of the lesser material.) So when we feel the need of a secondary vacuum -ie whenever we feel any need -all we need to do, is to work and act in and do things in the held back mode. Of course, this all started when a part of us was overtaken by destruction, and it went into total unhindered mode. So we have the total unhindered doing. But we additionally need to also act outside that, and go in our main consciousness with the more growing (non stagnant) held back mode -not in the totally unhindered material affected by the destruction; but in the surrounding material, not affected by the destruction (in held back mode). Only if you stay with the total unhindered material and don't act in the surrounding held back mode( to grow and generate new material to fill the secondary vacuum); will the secondary vacuum then remain and you continue to feel need and be continually unsatisfied. -As it is only in the held back mode where you feel need; and where you must act (away from the unhindered area) to fill that need.

This is how in the quasi essential of human sexuality, the destruction therein can cause one to have sex over and over again, but not be satisfied. The sex is the unhindered part. The sex is done to relieve the need from the destruction in that area. This creates a secondary vacuum. Also needed, is action in the held back array (outside the sex), to alleviate the need caused by the secondary vacuum; which was in turn caused by the sex itself. This is how we deal with destruction when our held back mode fails to withstand the suffering of going up against destruction directly; and affected areas do go unhindered. This is not abstinence. But it is not corruption either. We are all interrelated and we draw from each other. But if we satisfy our sexual needs as outlined above, we will not bring our interrelated groups down to corruption, as we would if our need went unsatisfied even though we were constantly acting to satisfy it. Where does the concept of rape fit in? It is the antiquated concept of ownership and individuality whereby members of a corrupted group seek to escape it and join a better group by becoming individual and leaving the group, but where the corrupted group tries to prevent them from leaving. But the corrupted people were only this way because they don't know any better. -driven by a sexual need that no matter how much sex they do; isn't satisfied. It all boils down to that which is destructive vs that which is growing; and how well we deal with destruction. Because if we are able to be satisfied in our sexuality, then we won't need to repeatedly force others into sex.

As for being offended because someone is attracted to you:

sexual feelings do not yet cause a woman to become pregnant, nor place years of burden from bearing and raising a child, on a woman. Thus sexual feelings, or the 'fun' part of sex, in not placing large burdens upon women; do not have the potential for as much destruction/harm as a physical encounter. So that sexual feelings are not the same as a physical encounter, concerning the criterion of destruction/harm vs growth of life. But if expressing your attraction to someone without contact is punished; then that prevents this difference from being expressed. It encourages one to dispense with personal restraint: as if one is going to be punished whether they try to gain sexual release through voluntary, mutually pleasurable sex, or forced sex; then it eggs one on, to dispense with the work needed to obtain cooperation; and just take what one wants; and then to kill the victim afterwards so they won't report it. Much much more violence and destruction of life is in part, caused by sexually intolerant authority.

What is needed, is the way to deal with destruction and destructiveness.

The rapist doesn't know how to deal with the destruction in the quasi essential of his sexuality; and neither does his victim who cries rape, know how to deal with the destruction the rapist does. Destruction is painful -(and you're supposed to bear up under that to the end and not go unhindered or resort to destruction yourself right?) Well neither the rapist nor the victim who cries rape, nor most everybody has been able to overcome their destructions (destructions in general). If crying rape helps the victim deal with the destructiveness, then by all means, cry out and prosecute. But I suggest we make good use of the method outlined here, so we can avoid suffering and also work our way out of destruction within our ways. That destruction exist, is enough to try and find ways to undo it and overcome it: in all situations: from the victims situation; from the oversexed man's situation; from everybody's situation.

Continuing with essential methods:

Note: when working outside the area which is affected by the destruction (an outside area) -in producing/acquiring new material to fill the secondary vacuum; remember that we do so mainly in held back mode, which is a more restful mode -so that although we need to be doing something, we are also not overexerting ourselves (which would require including destruction in our ways).

Note that when destruction destroys; it makes a difference what it destroys. If it 'destroys' inanimate material; then it is just a transformation, and not much harm has been done as compared to if it had destroyed the material of living things and had destroyed life.

Note that with my method, neither the unhindered mode, nor the held back mode, can be made to suffer by destruction. With destruction now unable to hurt us and cause us pain inside us, it is no longer an effective motivator. Thus the command and control structures of the greater organizations that we as individuals make up, will have to fund different motivators to function. With destruction out of favor; stagnation will be gotten away from and we can make the world a better place for life.

Compare this method to the separation of the forces. Separation of the forces works well when there is a God out there ready to catch us and resurrect us after we have gone to death. But when we're trapped of essentials, whereby if we enact separation of the forces there, we die, or suffer terribly: this method looses its effectiveness to us mere puny humans -in the area of those essentials/quasi essentials (although the method still remains quite effective in the hands of an all powerful God).

While we puny humans await God's action, we can make use of my proposed method; which although doesn't enact separation of the forces -but only where we are trapped by destruction: does remove much of the mental suffering from existing destruction; thereby removing it as an effective motivator; so that humans will no longer be tempted to use it to get things done. And without human support, destruction will cease to reign here on earth but will shrink like the shrinking force it is.

Note: if you find yourself completely taken over by controlling parents; an out of control boss; a religious cult; a totalitarian govt; any govt; a demon spirit; the devil; or even the essentials themselves: this is where Christ's suffering-through-life method is quite handy. You see, if you are completely taken over, then it is no longer you, but them. -there is no longer any "you" anymore in these situations. Thus if you cause yourself to suffer by restricting the intake of material you use to feed your essentials and quasi essentials, it is no longer you alone that suffers, but them also. -you thus bring their controlling system not to desolation but to reduced capability by this; where the forces separate and you can escape and be freed from such absolute control over you. (you are already in suffering because of their controlling system anyway).

Life liberated from such controlling systems, is then life of the spirit.

Spirit life that is free of destruction and suffering, is eternal life; and eternal life is not required to sacrifice by Christ's method/promise of eternal life. Only life that is already in suffering because of being already caught in other snares; is the non eternal earthly life, that Christ asks us to sacrifice to God. -but only to the point of suffering; not death.

It is with the spirit life free from destruction that we use to fill secondary vacuums, according to my proposed method; which I build on top of Christ's method of suffering through life, -(which only deals with the (part of) life that is caught of evil -that is not evil free). Note: when the only thing taking you over and controlling you is the essential or quasi essential; you can also (still) us use Christ's method of suffering -by restricting intake of essentials/quasi essentials, here. Even so, also remember to also activate (act) in the held back spiritual material outside the essential/quasi essentials, to grow material to fill the small secondary vacuum created by the small amount of the essential/quasi essential that you do do.

But wait a minute. If we restrict our intake of essentials so we are in suffering in the unhindered mode, then that defeats its purpose and definition. Unhinderedness means all options are open and we are not limited by concerns over including harm in our ways. We did the unhindered mode because the suffering (from a hole that a destruction made), was too great for that material in the held back mode. And now with my method; neither the held back mode, nor the unhindered mode need suffer anything. -Why would we wish to bring back any suffering? If we can free all our life from any suffering? Well, previously I had recommended that to choose this method of suffering through life, when we had no cause to, was an evil thing -a clear choice for evil fed by good. Then I suggested that in some circumstances where we were already trapped completely by a situation -where it was no longer us that did it -that we had lost our identity, that we could use this method (which uses the evil in our essentials), to our advantage. And now I just suggested we incorporate it with my method -this seems incompatible.

The main current reasoning behind allowing this suffering method to a limited degree, is that wherever there is destruction, should be at reduced capability for separation of the forces. Our method alone causes for there to be no suffering at all in either the held back or unhindered modes. But in the unhindered mode, a little suffering may be a good thing, because that's where evil/destruction is; and the suffering would bring this area to reduced capability for separation of the forces.

What I understand is this: it is best to do things evil-free even if we can't do as much ie the held back mode. But the reality is that in some things (our essentials) we are unable to do this. And in situations near a destruction, the suffering can be too great to remain with the held back mode. It is in these areas we allow the unhindered mode (in our lesser material). The suffering by material in the held back mode near a destruction, is intense extreme and unbearable and not under our control. -we cannot adjust the degree of suffering. When we go to the unhindered mode in this area, we then eliminate completely any suffering in this area. But by doing this we create a secondary vacuum in the remaining held back material/array, which causes them suffering. Using my method (which I'd refer back to my earlier writings as "balanced focus"); we then alleviate that suffering also; so that we don't have to suffer at all in any area. What I am toying with in allowing some suffering in the unhindered area; is that here, the degree of suffering is under our say so, and is totally up to us. -we adjust it to be what we are comfortable with. The reasoning FOR such suffering, is that this is where a destruction is, and that the suffering might bring this area to reduced capability (for separation of the forces). The reasoning AGAINST such suffering is that if we can free the living parts from suffering, then it is OK to let the inanimate 'be destroyed', as it isn't alive to notice anyway. So, I'm not really sure about what to do here. It is totally up to us and at our discretion. This idea to partially suffer, should be in your service; not as your master. Do what you (what your life instructs you) want to do and when your done, then you may return to a background mode of partially suffering here in the unhindered areas. Because if you want to do something, then it is thus affecting your life. And nothing -no inanimate thing is more important than (your - and others) life. But after your life is satisfied, then not wasting resources in the inanimate becomes more of a factor. -Resources in the inanimate are only so due to how they relate to and their potential to edify life. In this, I cannot say for any one way or solution, but that we all must individually do what we think is best.

Now, don't let concerns over this suffering method distract you from the work you need to do to alleviate secondary vacuums and the much more intense suffering that causes in the held back array.

So the limiting factor may be what you are able to concentrate on outside the areas affected by the destruction (this is the alleviation of secondary vacuums). -To enjoy what you can pay for with this alleviating of secondary vacuums. The remaining unhindered actions you refrain from because you are unable to handle the additional secondary vacuum they would cause; then represent your suffering in the unhindered area according to Christ's method. No. The degree of unhinderedness we do (to prevent suffering in an area with a destruction), and the corresponding alleviating of secondary vacuums from that; vs What unhinderedness in this area we REFRAIN from (even though we're capable of paying for it with alleviation of secondary vacuums); is what I am talking about when I say I'm not sure the exact level and that it is up to us.

What I suggest is to compare to the degree of suffering that made you leave the held back mode and go to unhinderedness in that area containing destruction in the first place. Use that as a measuring to compare to how much suffering you will occasionally allow.

But there is one factor that weighs heavily here that I had forgotten to consider. Choosing evil/destruction while under coercion and duress is one thing; but voluntarily choosing evil/destruction (the suffering through life choice is included here); is a choice before God, indicating to God what you want so that He may send you there -either to God who is now, or to God who will be in the future. I mean, the choices we make with our actions for sin and destruction, are said to weigh against us on judgment day before God: what about this choice for destruction that we make for suffering through life?

So, in order for you to choose suffering through life and use that method; there must be some duress and coercion.

In choosing to leave the held back mode and go unhindered; this has been a choice for destruction by you -yet it has been under duress and coercion by the suffering. Note that the destruction was there initially (not by your choice) and has been causing destruction of life right from the start -that's what you have been given to work with. Your choice to go unhindered has not increased the overall destruction -only shifted it around. All that is left, is that you haven't chosen destruction out of a free uncoerced will: but you do do that if you choose this suffering through life method of Christ's. So I wish to preserve the one thing I have left -that of not choosing destruction of a free will, by now, not doing Christ's method of suffering through life in any part of my life that is still mine. -Only when I am taken over (by others, by my essentials, etc) and it is no longer me anymore; then do I allow this and choose this. And I let my resistance to the advancement of evil, be how much suffering I will allow a held back material to endure before I go unhindered with it. -because after I go unhindered with it, that itself can stop further spread of destruction ((assuming I also alleviate its secondary vacuum it causes). Once I've gone unhindered with an area, the only thing left, is that I didn't do it voluntarily, but under inducement. Only when my unhinderedness in that area fails in preventing the spread of destruction, do I then adopt Christ's method of suffering through life here. Note that if we have prevented destruction from causing us to suffer; it will not have affected what is alive in us; and we then, with an uncoerced life force can work to eliminate its limitations to life altogether.

I'm going to get a bit intricate concerning the alleviation of secondary vacuums. Now, when we no longer need to do a part or stage in unhindered mode, (to alleviate suffering), we should revert with it back to held back mode. Once we get tired of a stage (ie, it has satisfied us), then we can (should) change it back to held back mode. (But before we get tired/satisfied of a stage, we have to actually do the stage and do it unhindered.)

In our methods, we see there's a connection between doing unhinderedness; and then in addition with different (outside) material, doing held-back-mode, -for to quench the secondary vacuum (in the held back array) caused by the first action. (-This throws back to my earlier balancing focus on gogr ie the gogr concept.) So that for our edification, we split our focus between doing unhinderedness; and doing held back mode. The new held back mode we do, kind of pays for the unhinderedness we do (so that we don't suffer in our held back array).

Now, concerning the TYPE of material that fills the secondary vacuums -it is best if the same type of material fills it. But if that isn't available, then other material types can fill it. (Note: all material types referred to here, are of the held back mode.)

Now, in the process of doing an essential's stage; as we start to become satisfied, we can increasingly revert to held back mode, till eventually the whole stage is in held back mode. When a large part of a stage is in held back mode; it can fill secondary vacuums not only for its own stage, but also for other stages (but only using the held back portion). Whereas when the held back part of a stage is small, it has difficulty even filling the secondary vacuum from its own stage (or area-type) -and it needs to either accept held back material from other stages; OR extra focus effort and work can be done to the small held back part (of that stage) so it generates more new held back material to fill its secondary vacuum.

Now then, the reason we devote the extra focus effort in that area, is to provide the same type of held-back-material to that specific secondary vacuum. A mistake we can make, is to try to apply this material we've worked so hard for, to all the other secondary vacuums (which are shortages in different types). Instead, when forced to work hard in our focus (on a small held back proportion (of a stage)); we use the generated material to fill secondary vacuum only in that area/type and refrain from spreading it around to secondary vacuum in other stages/areas/types. As a stage has a higher held-back-proportion and it is easier or effortless in our focus; we use this (excess) new held back material to then spread it around to other types of secondary vacuums in need.

Now then, in the sequential doing of an quasi/essential's stages: the previous stages are mainly in held back mode; the current stage has some degree of unhinderedness up to being mostly unhindered and only a small held back proportion; with the further stages being completely unhindered if they're being done at all. In order to break through to the next stage, we must first do it as all unhindered for a (short) while. In the current stage containing only a small held back proportion; we're working hard with that small proportion in our focus, to fill only that stage's secondary vacuum. With the next stage done completely unhindered, -since it is not of the same type (and wouldn't be specially benefited), we don't use the worked-hard-for, held back material of the current stage, even though it's right next door. Instead (to fill this secondary vacuum) we use material further away; from stages with higher held back proportion and even in all held back, where excess held back material comes much easier. -Since no material we use is going to match the type here (because there is no held back proportion at all being done at this stage), then we can use material from far away -from stages completely in held back mode, where there is effortless focus, to fill the secondary vacuum here. Such material has the similarity here in that both the vacuum and the filling material are from stages wholly in a single mode with no division between held back vs unhindered; which can make this far away material better suited to fill this vacuum. So in one situation, we have a lot of sharing of generated held-back-material to fill secondary vacuums, while in the other situation, we have a very tight hold on generated material to fill only the specific secondary vacuum of its type.

When in a stage with only a small heldback proportion, we need to exert effort here in order to generate enough heldback material to fill the secondary (2nd for short) vacuum of that stage -(created by the large unhindered portion). But instead, we could have generated heldback material from other stages/areas; to fill the 2nd vacuum of this stage (which it did not come from). But we don't like to do this because the type of generated held back material fits exactly in the 2ndvacuum of its own stage, but not exactly in the 2ndvacuums of other stages/areas. So at what point do we begin sharing material to 2ndvacuums of other stages? Well first we have the proportion of unhindered vs heldback modes; and this is based on our need and our progress into a stage. As we progress through an essential's stage, we start as all unhindered, and move to all held back. Near the start when the held back proportion is small, we must exert focus effort and really get into it in order to generate enough heldback material to fill the large 2ndvacuum here. Then, as the held back proportion gets larger, we need less and less effort (it becomes easier); until finally we need exert no focus effort at all, -(the held back proportion is large enough to generate enough material to fill the 2ndvacuum here on its own, with no added effort). The held back proportion continues to enlarge. As it does, excess held back material is generated, which can then be used to fill other 2ndvacuums, especially in the stages with all unhinderedness and no heldback proportion.

One might think that a gradual approach might work: where we share (to other 2ndvacuums) a small bit of held back material even from the stage with just a small held back proportion (where we have to work hard with it to generate material). But I am against this. I don't think a stage should share any material until its own 2ndvacuum is filled without any effort. You see, the basic unit of vacuum filling material, either fills unit sized vacuum, or it doesn't: -there is no in between. So the question is, which vacuum should it fill? and the answer is, it does best to fill the vacuum in its own type, and not of other types. The reason we exert effort instead of receiving effort-free material from other stages, is to get material that exactly fits its type of vacuum. To then turn around and take even the smallest bit of this material and give it to another stage's 2ndvacuum (of a different type), defeats that purpose. -why go to any effort, when effort free material from other stages is available to fill all the vacuums? So whenever any effort is used; that stage shares none of its held back material. Even concerning stages with excess material that do share/give material to other stages; they first fill their own 2ndvacuums with their own material type, and only the excess material (-that beyond that needed to fill this stage's vacuum with zero effort); is freed up and shared with whatever vacuum will have it.

So as we progress through a stage, first we need to exert much effort with the small held back proportion; then it becomes easier, and then effort free. We hold onto all material and do no sharing through this (even though it is getting easier). Then only when the stage is beyond effortless filling of its own 2ndvacuum, does it then share; and then only the excess part of its held back, vacuum filling material. Remember, we need this effort-free sharing to deliver material to completely unhindered stages (which are right next to stages with small held back proportions, which are in maximum effort).

So, in a sequential or multistage essential/quasi essential; some stages share material, while other stages do not

Note: in an evil attack, there is only one stage and only one unhindered vs held back proportion. And we may need to do focus work on the held back portion to fill the 2ndvacuum here.

Note: whether or not we get what we want in our doings, we still have to 'pay' for any unhinderedness by filling its 2ndvacuum (even from our sensory recognition of other people's individual existence). But when we don't get what we want/have need for; we keep doing unhinderednesses. When we do get what we want, we stop striving and do no more unhinderedness

Now, often an external stress will be such that we only need to do a little unhinderedness; only to the point of withholding some of the generated held back material (to fill 2ndvacuums of its own type) , while letting the rest go to any 2ndvacuum: -and not to the point of effort/requiring all the generated material to stay put. So, we can do this. We just do the end part of our method without having to go through the whole method in response to these minor stresses.

When we are attracted to the opposite sex; that is part of life and our life. When we pick someone and marry them and live as husband and wife; that is the exercise and growth of this part of our life. When we are attracted to other members of the opposite sex, (other than our spouse) but have to stop that so we can obey the rules; then this is us destroying / being destructive to that part of (our) life. This is the forces of growth and destruction together -(resulting in reduced capability). But here in our essential, the force of destruction is already present and feeding off good anyway. So that we haven't spoiled anything that wasn't already spoiled and the reduced capability produced by this in the sexual area is just what is needed for separation of the forces here. -It is a workable method, and even keeps our suffering and sexual frustration to that compromised level; which isn't as excessive as it could be.

So, where is the reduced capability in my method? Well, my method depends on the evil in the essential itself to bring reduced capability. It does this by our focus on our held back parts. As we focus and direct our major consciousness/effort to the part that is heldback, we deny this from the other portion, which is unhindered and is where the evil is. With the evil being denied much of our higher selves, it is not well fed and is thus at reduced capability. Note that we do unhinderedness sparingly -only as we need it. -(That if we can get by in the evil free, but slower, held back mode, we do so.) In our method, all our lesser material is available to go unhindered. Usually we aren't unhindered with all of it (for any extended length of time); but if and when we do find the need to be so, we can. When we are; since it is only the held back portions which feel 2ndvacuums: since there are no held back portions nearby, there is no need for our method's action of focus (which focuses and may additionally exert effort on the held back part). This makes our method quite simple and effort free in this situation (but as far as evil being done, we are doing maximum evil; apparently as forced to by a rough situation). Now, just one step off this position, where there is a small bit of held back part; we ARE in maximum focus effort and restriction of movement in types that fill 2ndvacuums, in our method. We don't wait for the unhindered area to generate held back material, but work with: existing held back material, and surrounding held back material. We set our held back vs unhindered proportion, as based on our need.

Comparing the traditional method vs my method:

Whatever evil there is in an essential: both methods allow for some to be done. -Whatever evil is done in sex with a person not-your-spouse; is also done in sex with your spouse (concerning the act itself). With my method, there is no suffering -we feel no need; whereas it is not completely so with the traditional method, considering the fickle nature of our attractions that come and go. Why did we allow for any satisfaction of the need in either method (since this allows evil to be done)? Because the need was too great and the suffering too much if we didn't. My method allows for a more complete satisfaction of that need, while still maintaining reduced capability in this area (as does the traditional method also in this area). Finally, my method doesn't require you to voluntarily in a non coerced choice to choose evil/destruction in order to achieve that reduced capability, like the traditional method does. My method eliminates more suffering. -Suffering being something associated with life and living things (inanimate objects can't suffer): suffering therefore represents destruction of life. My method doesn't employ suffering to bring to reduced capability for separation of the forces. The traditional method does. That non coerced choice for suffering (a choice for destruction) before God, as done in the traditional method, is not done in my method. So, due to my religious conviction, hope in God, and making a choice for good with my actions so God may edify that choice and help me achieve that choice for good completely: I thus choose against the traditional method and choose/do my method. You too can be a believer. Have I yet converted you?

Christ says, the greatest love a man can have is to sacrifice his life for another. True, that is the greatest love; but it is not the greatest destruction-free love. Recall, just having the highest production, is not the only criterion. Also important is the evil-free status of an action.

When the forces of evil and good (destruction and growth) are together, reduced capability and stagnation are the result. Some dislike living like this, and choose against such; but are forced to live this way anyway. It has been noted that reduced capability is an optimal environment for separation of the forces (which when good separates away from evil, it creates the other alternative of good-only, (which people are seeking)). Thus it might be reasoned that we should make everybody live at reduced capability and spread reduced capability all around so as to purify what is good to the highest degree. -and this would be done by asking people to voluntarily live in suffering. But recall that evil is able to perpetuate itself because reduced capability and suffering causes life in it to do more evil (necessary evils of survival). So that the more reduced capability and suffering we cause people to live in, the more new evil we thus cause to be generated. This doesn't get us our goal of ridding ourselves of evil, but instead, creates a trap of evil, where evil is perpetuated, and is at home. So, we thus do limit our use of reduced capability environments to only areas where evil is already present. But wait: we've just disproved the reasoning for the use of reduced capability and suffering as a blanket means of setting us free from evil -due to the new evil such reduced capability and suffering generates. Even if we limit the use of reduced capability/suffering to areas where evil already is, doesn't mean this will work. It may. It may not. We must realize that causing living things to live in suffering/reduced capability causes them to do more evil(destruction) -which causes continued reduced capability and suffering. The only benefit here comes when (good) things escape this reduced capability and suffering.

Let me review how a reduced capability environment causes separation of the forces. The reason is the cost of destruction. A force of destruction, destroys life and capability. What it destroys can't help it -cannot help it get around, grow and do things. Now, when there's plenty of excess capability and life around (in a high capability environment, above reduced capability), then there'll be enough to destroy as well as enough capability and life left over to do whatever the force of evil wants. But when capability and life are in more short supply, like in a reduced capability environment; then the destruction the force of good does, prevents it from doing and acting, growing or getting around, as what it destroys can no longer help this force of evil. But forces of good here, don't have that problem. Even though they are also short on resources, they don't destroy any of those resources, but just the opposite -work to produce more; so that they can do more, grow more and get around more than the forces of evil here. With good getting into more than evil; some of that good is thus free of evil -as evil cannot and does not cover all where good is. That good without the presence of evil can then grow better even more and even more get away from evil. And if the force of good is a conscious, living force of good, it can choose to get more away from the evil with the extra resources it has from not being destructive.

So that in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate and some good becomes free of evil. However; as for these now evil free forces of good growing out of this reduced capability environment: achieving high capability takes considerably longer, especially if the evil-free good starts out as very small. Note that what good, free from evil ultimately produces, is high capability, not reduced capability. To then cause good to live with what it produces, is to cause it to live at high capability, and this is where it is at home at. It's not at home at red cap.

In an environment of reduced capability; what would escape the reduced capability and suffering? -Forces of good would escape. Forces of good make things higher, thus forces of good (that escape) are usually living things. (life and living things are higher than inanimate things). But in the traditional method , in order to achieve reduced capability, living things are required to suffer from their essentials and thus not escape reduced capability and suffering. -But the only gain of reduced capability, is for living things to ESCAPE that reduced capability and suffering. But doing the traditional method nullifies that.

Let me zoom in on the concept of escape in the environment of reduced capability and suffering. It's one thing for a force of good to escape forces of evil that are present with it in reduced capability (and this occurs fairly readily and rapidly). It's quite another thing for that escaped and evil free force of good to built itself up enough to escape the environment of reduced capability -so that it is no longer at reduced capability but at high capability (and for a small force of good -one that starts out small, this could take eons). We're not interested in depending on the small production and increase that these small forces of good in the reduced capability zone, produce; -as the new evils that the reduced capability/suffering, force to be done, just traps these forces of good here for the most part. To cause these now evil-free forces of good in reduced capability to remain in reduced capability, isolates them from other evil-free forces of good, and also forces them to live with what they have chosen against. Reduced capability is the result of a choice for evil with a good to feed it. Evil-free forces of good have their home at high capability. Keeping these small evil-free forces of good at reduced capability, causes them to live with what they (by becoming evil free) have chosen against: and also forces them to work against the trap of evil with all the new evils the reduced capability causes, preventing these forces of good from growing out of the TRAP of evil very readily; which only happens occasionally. They will after a long time escape the trap of evil of reduced capability; but what is the sense of continuing to create God in the long hard road if God already exists? And wouldn't a God that already existed, be offended by a system that tried to create another one of Him, without including Him (all of Him, in His entirety, in all His power)? Yes, when God is reproducing; one would expect Him to take the lead in such an endeavor, and that it would not mainly be a human production.

The purpose of our use of reduced capability environments, is to separate the material involved in its forces so that forces of good separate from existing forces of evil. This is achieved fairly rapidly. (Some of the good separates completely from evil, fairly rapidly.) We can then remove the reduced capability environment (going back to normal feeding of essentials); and then the good already separated from evil can be removed/remove itself (from the reduced capability environment) and join the other forces of good at high capability.

Concerning the traditional method: If you voluntarily require that the part of your life connected with your essentials, be destroyed upon (by the evil in the essentials) -not completely, but just down to reduced capability and suffering; (by not feeding the essentials well); -that is one way to do things, but is it a good way? as compared to either dying, or not living in suffering. We take a simple observation -that the forces separate in reduced capability -that the good escapes the evil here and is able to be separate from the evil here (but does not escape the reduced capability environment) and we then require that life (this includes the life that would escape evil), be at reduced capability and suffering. What do we have here? The thing is that this suffering represents the abhorrent choice for evil (with a good to feed it), and with escape of forces of good discouraged so that this choice for evil (with a good to fed it), is stabilized. But is choosing not to suffer a better way? Well, not suffering seems to better open up the avenue of escape, where it enables us to attempt to build something more whereby we can try to escape with that.

But if we continue in reduced capability and suffering, the reduced capability/suffering generates or causes to be generated, more evils, which keeps things at reduced capability and suffering. Thus it creates a trap of evil that is difficult to escape. It is a choice for evil (with a good to feed it) -the traditional method of putting things in reduced capability and suffering is. Any other way than this, is a better way.

We should choose not to suffer -Because we wish to choose before God against the stabilized choice for destruction fed by good.

-Because we wish to exercise escape attempts, whereby we attempt to escape the traps of our essentials (of evil and reduced capability) with the improved and higher capability our life is at (when we satisfy our essentials above suffering.

-Because we wish to prevent the destructiveness we'd do if we lived in suffering, -due to that suffering. -the destructiveness we prevented, being a successful movement toward our goal of escape (from our essentials) (Of course by this same token of reducing evil done, we need to cease doing the evils of satisfying essentials, when we become satisfied in our essentials.)

Doing suffering all the time, not only shuts off the avenue of potential for escape; it also causes more evils to be done, that we wouldn't do if we didn't suffer: with those extra evils setting us further behind in what we build and our escape attempt. I may concede that an occasional bout of suffering (whereby we fail to feed our essentials well), may be good to wake us up as to what the problems are, and what we should be working on: but that for the most part, we should not live life in suffering (caused by voluntarily poorly feeding our essentials quasi essentials).

If we're careful, we can use reduced capability environments to separate the forces and purify material. We can use the reduced capability/suffering of the traditional method to achieve (some) separation of the forces. The purpose for doing this, is to achieve some separation of the forces as is what happens at reduced capability. But it doesn't take long to achieve this; and continued subjection of these forces to this reduced capability and suffering achieves no more and even results in new evils being done. We do not remain at this, as remaining here represents a choice for evil (fed by good) We instead revert to full satisfaction of essentials. So we don't force the meager forces of good here-now separate from evil, to continue in this reduced capability (to try to make their way out of this trap on their own -which would take eons). Once the task of separation of some of the forces is achieved; further subjection of these forces to reduced capability and suffering is only counter productive, and incurs the negative factors I've previously listed: that is: it becomes a choice for evil (fed by good) before God. It becomes a trap of evil where new evils are generated and evil perpetuates itself. Thus we after a short while, return to full feeding of the essentials.

So I now concede that we do use the traditional method on occasion; for short durations; to bring an environment of reduced capability, for purification(ie separation of forces in material in essentials) but that we don't do so for long, but instead, shortly switch out of it after a goodly amount of good separates out.

When I said that the use of the traditional method prevented escape; I was incorrect in meaning that the forces do not separate from each other, as the good does escape from any evil present here. But I was correct in meaning that continued use of the traditional method does keep these small now separate forces of good, from escaping well, their environment of reduced capability/suffering -which would often reinfect them with evil.

(We realize though that when we go back to full feeding of essentials, that we still cease doing essentials as we become full and satisfied of them, so as to minimize evil done.)

The traditional method is to restrict the intake of material used to feed our essentials/quasi essentials so that we are brought to reduced capability and suffering.

In my method, I claim the focus effort we do upon the held back proportion, keeps the area-infected-with-evil (the unhindered proportion), at reduced capability.

One thing I hadn't recently mentioned in the use of reduced capability environments to separate the forces; is that there must first be some good to separate out for this technique to work. So that when we use (my version of) the traditional method, we must do the essential fully fed first, and then restrict the essentials intake -to reduced capability/suffering. -If we started with restricting the intake (which causes the reduced capability), there would be little good there to separate out. (This may be why fat Tuesday comes before lent.)

Note that after you are well fed and then stop the intake of essentials: this doesn't cause you to suffer right away (after you have just been filled). It is at this time when the evil-free good from a the previous cycle can truly be removed to high capability environment. Then as you begin to hunger again, the reduced capability/suffering of the present cycle works its force separating effect on the remaining material here.

Note also that after a time, we must remove the reduced capability environment to allow the separated good to then join other high good free from evil and be a part of the(and its) choice for good only. So, thus, we are then back to full feeding of essentials here. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Now, isn't this how we normally do things anyway? We eat, become full, restrict or stop eating, wait till we get hungry again, then eat again etc. We do (my version of) the traditional method naturally with no need of observance of any religious rituals to achieve it. This method is already a part of us naturally. A problem comes as we become rich, when we're tempted by the deliciousness of the 'food' so that we seek to feed continuously, and don't wait to get hungry. When we disrupt our cycle of feeding, waiting to get hungry, feeding again, in favor of continuous feeding; we no longer free up material from evil, and it remains in togetherness with evil and stagnation.

Now, with my method, we start at maximum unhinderedness. This provides the good that will then be separated in the reduced capability environment to follow. As we move towards greater held back proportion -as our need/hunger for the essential is filled; our focus effort keeps the area containing evil at reduced capability. -also the containment of this material, -not allowing it to share with other material types, causes reduced capability -as the evil therein destroys down, but cannot get into other areas to destroy them down, thus resulting in reduced capability here more so than other areas. Then as we move to even higher held back proportion, we end the focus effort and then begin sharing some of the material. This thus ends the reduced capability environment, allowing the now separated good to then go free, share to all, and experience what it is (what evil free good ultimately produces).

Note that since this method doesn't use restriction of essentials intake(when we are in need of greater intake) to produce the reduced capability environment: this method then doesn't use increased doing of essential to remove the reduced capability environment. Since essentials contain destruction, they themselves can be a source of reduced capability environment. So that with my method, unlike the natural (traditional) method, we can truly be free of all reduced capability in the phase where we need to remove the reduced capability environment and return to high capability and set the evil-free good, free of reduced capability.

So, my method also fits in with the careful (proper) use of reduced capability environments to produce evil free good and remove evil.

Additionally, my method can work in conjunction with our natural cycle method (the traditional method). Because my method works to satisfy the needs and hungers we feel (including in the 2ndvacuums and held back array), it thus allows us to do a period of abstinence from feeding our essentials; thus allowing us to cycle; and get away from continuous feeding. Also, the use of cutting into the end part of my method to handle small needs, allows us to minimize our response to every little temptation (to feed) -to respond incrementally, without having to go through the whole essential in response to every little temptation to feed; thus minimizing the doing of essential; thus allowing us to produce periods where we do less essential; thus allowing us to do some form of a cycle, and not collapse into continuous feeding.

So, these are just suggested methods of doing our essentials. Note we've shown that the unmodified traditional method of always putting our essential area in reduced capability; is invalid due to the reduced capability causing new evils to be done, thus perpetuating evil. I refer to my discussion at the beginning of this book where it is described how the TRAP of evil works, and that this reduced capability if uninterrupted, just keeps perpetuating evil -so that you might as well say that you are choosing before God to choose evil, if you practice this uninterrupted reduced capability.

Then we went on to describe how to use this reduced capability in an interrupted fashion where we don't apply it all the time; if carefully used that it can free us from evil.

In the sexual area: to follow the rules of: build up mating with only one spouse, but destroy desires/actions of mating with any other than that one spouse; is the reduced capability environment we apply. But we need to interrupt this reduced capability intermittently with a fuller feeding of this quasi essential. This is what we are missing in today's society, with the religious enforcers being too powerful. So lets get with it. Free it up a little hunh? You don't have to choose stabilized evil like you're doing now.

The enforcers now allow a reduced capability satisfaction of essentials/quasi essentials. Why do we allow any satisfaction of essentials at all, since essentials quasi essentials contain evil/destruction? Well, if we didn't allow any, we would be evil-free in that we'd have done no evil/destruction ourselves. But the pain, the suffering, and the destruction done to us would be so great that we would be completely destroyed (we wouldn't survive). And after we had been destroyed, destruction itself would then cease. So to keep destruction alive, we allow some satisfaction, a reduced capability satisfaction, of our essentials to keep evil/destruction alive? No. To keep US alive, we allow satisfaction of our essentials. To continue improving 'us'; to be more free from destruction -of the destructive forces in our essentials; we should use reduced capability more properly than we are doing now. -Being more intermittent and cyclic with it is a good start. -because not all of us choose the togetherness of the forces, but instead opt for good only.

The attraction a person feels towards the opposite (or whatever) sex, is one component of a person. To obey the rules, one nurtures and grows one part of this -(their attraction to their spouse or prospective spouse): while one destroys or hinders from growing the other part -(their attraction to the rest of the opposite sex). When you do both growth and destruction to (slightly different parts of) a thing, you cause the togetherness of the forces (of growth and destruction); which results in reduced capability and stagnation in this area. By itself, it is a choice for evil (fed by a good). But this area -this sexual quasi essential, already has evil in it. Thus these rules can be seen as a preemptive strike, to spoil the high capability food here before the evil in this quasi essential can feed on it. Even so, there still needs to be a break in the reduced capability, to allow the good* -purified by the shrinking of evil, and separation of the forces, that this method produces; *to escape (the reduced capability) in a timely fashion (so it is not unduly TRAPPED there.)

Till now, I've suggested that for part of our cycle, we need to be in suffering (in order to bring a temporary environment of reduced capability). But pain and suffering is the way evil perpetuates itself, causing new evils to be done. -Nothing we do in the unhindered part will alleviate that -(because the suffering is in the held back part); and what we do in the unhindered part just adds more (new) evils. -When destruction destroys; it is not the part destroyed that feels pain and loss, but the surrounding remaining parts that were not directly effected by the destruction. The choice of a (lesser) held back part to go unhindered, is where new destruction is done. It is pain and suffering that causes (lesser) held back parts to do this. The filling of 2ndvacuums by the held back area (using my method), is not the doing of new evil, but does put an end to the pain and suffering so that destruction can cause no further evil to be done and cannot perpetuate itself. The prevention of additional material being sucked into the evil, is the starving of evil we've been looking for. It creates a reduced capability environment for that evil (where that evil is): and it accomplishes this, by the alleviation of our suffering; not by making us suffer. If our life can be made free from the pain and suffering that destruction can potentially cause; then it cannot cause us to do new evils. And evil by itself, without any outside help, (without us), creates its own reduced capability and separates on its own. We ourselves are its rich food, whereby if it can make us suffer, it can get us to feed it well and perpetuate it. Deny it yourself, and it will be at reduced capability. Thus, I now do not allow for any suffering in the methods I endorse.

Note that when a held back part becomes unhindered and does some evil in order to satisfy an essential (whereby it takes in material so the destruction (from the essential) destroys the material taken in, instead of the person), note that evil overall has not been dealt with -just shuffled around. Destruction is still done, just to different materials/life forms. The destruction still exists to continues to cause pain and suffering. Since it is the surrounding things that suffer (and not the destroyed part), by shifting the destruction away from one, one thus becomes the surrounding parts and thus suffers more.

Whenever destruction gets into an area, it brings it to reduced capability. At reduced capability, evil has a good to feed it, but the situation is unstable; and at reduced capability the forces separate, leaving evil alone, without a good to feed it. Evil seeks to infect high capability and burn it down to reduced capability. In my method of filling 2ndvacuums in a non evil way, pain and suffering are alleviated. But since in the traditional method (including my version); pain and suffering are what cause a reduced capability environment; the alleviating of the pain and suffering by my method, prevents the creating of a reduced capability environment. But it is pain and suffering that causes evil-free held back material to go unhindered and do evil in the first place. So that by eliminating the pain and suffering, we not only eliminate a reduced capability environment, we also eliminate evil. A high capability environment without evil is our alternative for good only; and is what we want. Thus we do my method here and alleviate pain and suffering and thus remove us from doing evil in the first place. -Evil free high capability does not need to be at reduced capability. Only where evil is needs to be at reduced capability as we seek to deny evil any high capability food to feed on. With my method Since we eliminated the source of (further) evil here (that is, reduced capability and suffering), there is no need to bring a reduced capability environment. Only where we're unable to eliminate the evil (with its accompanying reduced capability and suffering), do we also then seek to deny it high capability food and bring its food to reduced capability -to act preemptively to spoil its high capability food by bringing it to reduced capability before it can feed on it. (Thus causing evil to shrink.) Thus my method of filling 2ndvacuums works to prevent and eliminate the evil (further evil)) in the first place; and only evil that cannot be eliminated is applied the natural (traditional) method. -and that would be in areas outside our held back life, as my method saves our held back array life from this. By then denying our held back array from the evil of our unhindered area; this then generates the reduced capability in the unhindered area that we seek for it; and we thus do not use suffering to bring reduced capability here, as the parts in the unhindered area, do not suffer (that is why they've gone unhindered -to alleviate their suffering), even though my method brings them to reduced capability. Thus with my method, which prevents the further spread of evil; there is no need for a preemptive strike to spoil that held back area before the evil can get to it. This is how my method of focusing on the held back proportion, causes reduced capability, not in the held back proportion, but only in the unhindered proportion.

The crux of my argument is, that if you can remove evil in the first place, there is no need to subject that area to preemptive strikes to bring the area to reduced capability to spoil that area before the evil being acted against can feed on it.

Referring back to my words on the preemptive strike that brings reduced capability to the sexual quasi essential area via following the rules: With my method, the evil within is dealt with, so that this preemptive strike is now just a choice for evil (fed by a good), and no longer is a valid way to deal with the evil within, and no longer represents that; but now only represents a choice for evil. Before, it was one evil(destruction) used to deal with another evil(destruction). Now, it's just its own evil. Do not choose evil.

That's the trouble with using evil(destruction) to deal with another evil(destruction): if the first evil goes away, then the evil that was at first there to deal with the first evil, remains, it becomes an evil(destruction) in its own wright, and perpetuates evil-destruction. I do not have to choose evil. I choose otherwise.

When we're in a pinch, and there's no other way; evil can be used against evil -one evil can be used against another evil), in a preemptive strike, to spoil rich food before the targeted evil can feed on it; (kind of like how firemen set back fires that create a dead zone to stop a larger forest fire). But in order to completely eliminate evil/destruction, we ultimately need to remove evil from our ways, even that of acting against other evils, and find an evil-free way to do this.

Now, when I think about it; I think I've got my method for doing essentials/quasi essentials backwards, at least some of the time. Sometimes when we do an essential/quasi essential, we don't go to maximum unhinderedness and slowly work back to all held-back. What seems natural sometimes, is that we slowly ease into unhinderedness to that level which satisfies us; and then once satisfied in our essential/quasi essential, we go quickly to totally held back. The point at which we are satisfied and we then go to all held-back, can be at any point in our stance: from a small unhinderedness, to a substantial unhinderedness. This way is best when trying to do multiple essentials at once. Now at other times, we may wish to do it 'backwards'; and do essentials the way I previously portrayed them. ie by starting at high unhinderedness and working gradually to high held back proportion, as we become satisfied. Whichever way we do our essentials quasi essentials though, we wish to avoid spending much time in high unhinderedness without that helping to satisfy us.

In any case, no matter how we do it; just remember to coordinate: holding stationary*, part of the held back proportion (while letting the rest go free), *(so as to fill its own kind of 2ndvacuum), plus our focus effort (if any) on that stationary held back part; (coordinated) with: the setting that we set our held back vs unhindered proportion at (which is set based on our need). -As we set for a lower and lower unhindered proportion, we do less and less holding stationary as well as focusing; upon heldback parts.

Note that when at maximum unhinderedness, since there is no held back portion, we thus avoid having to hold material stationary for each individual area, and can thus achieve a oneness between the areas. We can thus jump right to maximum unhinderedness to achieve such a oneness (and thus synchronize all areas of interest), and then jump back to where our other needs (other than our need for oneness), indicate.

Over the holidays I saw a TV story about Moses and how he freed the Hebrews from pharaoh and delivered them out of Egypt. And of course, afterwards came the 10 commandments. According to the story, these people were saved from captivity, not by military might, but by supernatural events of great wonder. Did these events really happen (including the giving of the 10 commandments)? Assuming they did happen; the people that experienced them would have seen fairly clear evidence of a great supernatural power. Why would they then care about going back to the motions of ordinary life? The 10 commandments deal with regulating the actions of a person's ordinary life. With the exercise of such great supernatural power; wouldn't there be a great curiosity about the being behind such? Even among the Egyptians: would they not also be curious? -Curious enough to forget about their now insignificant squabble with the Hebrews, and to see about this powerful God? And if I as a Hebrew person found that the living of my ordinary life caused me to be tempted to break the commandments given by such a God of caring love mercy and power; then what use would I have with my ordinary life? but would seek instead to give up this meager life and join this God. And if in the wilderness I were to be killed for disobedience, I would gladly give up my spirit into such a God's hands and be glad to be rid of my ordinary life which had tempted me to disobey and would ask for His mercy for my disobedience. -Now free of my earthly cares and desires, I would be free to join such a loving powerful God. Wouldn't people, seeing the wonders of God, rush to join Him. Wouldn't people rush to join such a loving God, like a herd of pigs running into the ocean

But for such a God to not want us to join Him; but instead, to live apart from Him, our meager lives in suffering: would be a God that wanted us to choose destruction (fed by a good).

The reduced capability such an (evil) destructive life would cause, would be a useful method to thwart the even greater evil of a pharaoh ruler who sought to enslave us, if we were unable to escape in other ways. But standing alone, it would be an evil (destruction) in itself.

Perhaps they got the story turned around. Perhaps the 10 commandments and burdensome Hebrew religion came first, and then came the freedom from would be evil overseers, from the pharaoh of Egypt to the Romans. No wonder those evil Chinese leaders have outlawed and try to stamp out all forms of religion -it is a threat to their evil (destructive) ways. All methods against evil are welcome -even the last resort methods of using evil against itself. It's just that some methods are better than others, and when we are able, we should use the methods that are better (those which themselves are more free from destruction), in place of those methods that aren't as good. Let us be against destruction and destructive leaders (overseers) and neutralize their evil -so that (their) destruction (threats of destruction) is no longer a valid motivator. -from the local boss, all the way up to the evilest leader. Note that the one thing they can't make us do, is to have us, of a non coerced choice, to voluntarily suffer for them. But they want that. I guess because it allows for their evil ways to continue to be a motivator and have a sting.

Now, I have some unfortunate ideas on our educational system and training for a job.

Whether we choose it or agree with it or not, we live in a society that impresses upon us the concept of property and ownership whereby if we don't own something, we aren't allowed to access it or use it. We learn about this property concept from our earliest youth so that by the time we are ready to train and be educated, we are already well aware of it and its presence in our life.

In the programs of education and training available to us today; we see that their purpose isn't necessarily to study things we're interested in or that we can use; but to study what will be useful to an employer in a job, so that we can work on materials and with equipment owned by an employer, to benefit that employer. The materials and equipment owned by an employer (which represents a larger group of people), are usually too costly and complex to be owned or operated by or be useful to the individual person. In your education and training them, you devote your time and energy to learn and develop skills in how to work with materials/equipment that you yourself have little use for or chance of owning (and thereby having access to); but that are owned by larger organizations, (such as employers); to be useful to them in hopes of forming a mutually beneficial partnership with such an employer whereby you both benefit. There's nothing wrong with wanting to join a group -an entity larger than yourself, to devote yourself to the good of the group. But can you as a mere individual really afford to do such a thing? You invest your effort, time and money to develop skills not for yourself that you could ever use directly for yourself, but instead for an employer and what would be useful to an employer if you worked with what they owned. Your skills then are a component part of something much larger. By themselves, your skills aren't of much use. But together with all the other things, materials, equipment and the skills of others, -owned by an employer: is where a useful entity is found. Your skills are one component of a larger useful entity. By itself, your skills can't do much. -they need to be together with the other components -which are owned by the employer. So if you can't get very far with your skills by themselves and you realize that you need to join and be part of a larger group for anything much useful to come from your skills: don't accept blame for not much useful coming from your skills and that your skills remain alone without the other components they need to make a useful entity: BECAUSE the other parts that your skills lack, do not belong to you, but belong to others -employers. What employers do with their goods is their business, as these materials belong to them, not you. And you live in a world where the concept of ownership of what does and does not belong to you, has been impressed upon you by these others. If people say that you are wasting your talent because it is alone and isn't together with the other things it needs to be together with to be useful: say that it isn't you who is wasting your talent, but is the more powerful and capable employers who are wasting your talent, as it is they who solely control the other component parts that your talent needs to be useful. These things belong to them, not you. Thus they are wasting your talent now -(as long as you are being cooperative). Hey, I didn't make the rules about ownership etc. In this case, it is not you who are presently wasting anything; but at this point, the realization hits you that you have (past tense) wasted a lot of time and effort developing skills that employers then neglect to use. Now that you know that such selfless actions of developing skills that will be useful to others but not yourself; are a waste of time: then to do further effort in this area, becomes more and more a voluntary choice to waste your own personal resources of time and effort. Once again, I remain against voluntarily choosing destruction in a non coerced choice. That's the only thing I have left -that is, not voluntarily under a non coerced choice, choosing evil/destruction. I don't intend to give that up. I've already selflessly given up so much by devoting years of my efforts to develop skills not for myself, but for the good of the group and the employer. If that in itself isn't enough, and it is required that I must also choose evil/destruction out of a non coerced choice: then I say the price is too high. I wish to cut my losses and have no more to do with these people, who I now know to be evil/destructive (other than joining my skills with their equipment/materials for joint beneficial partnership) -that always remains open. Just because you're smart enough to do the job isn't enough. Employers prefer you to share their philosophy -they are the boss they run the show. Unfortunately for me, I've found no employers who share my philosophy. and I do try to make my philosophy known. But existing larger groups try to stop me.

Isn't it enough to bring into existence -to create, skills that are useful to others and the group? Anything else just gets in the way of my creating/creativity. Isn't it now the turn of the much more capable and powerful group, to at least offer an invitation to join their group?

Before, I did not know that my effort would be a waste because I had hope the larger group would use my skills. But now that I have finished my training and am more sure that my effort has been wasted; further effort in this area is now a voluntary choice by me to waste(destroy) my effort -it is now a voluntary choice for destruction. I see now that the present groups in power require such a choice for evil. I thus seek to get away from them and find or create a good group that is not evil. -that is not based on suffering through life. Just think. If they had hired me and put my mind to work on technical problems, I might not have had time or the mental energy to come up with this philosophy to share with you. TOO LATE. I think I have accomplished quite a lot in freeing my mind and making myself more alive. Just because it isn't a regular job, doesn't make it any less monumental. Oh, I just changed the face of Christianity and freed up the worship of God more towards a God of Love. Nothing big you know.

Nothing I could have done in the scientific employment world could have topped that I don't think.

Referring back to the method of doing essentials: when at zero unhinderedness and all held back proportion, since no secondary vacuums are generated, the 'oneness factor' I spoke of, is also achieved here. But if any unhinderedness is required for other reasons, that leaves only the all unhindered stance to achieve oneness plus the other need.

At this time, I wish to correct an error in our method of doing essentials. Recall that when there is a mixture of held back proportion and unhindered proportion, that there is a corresponding degree where we hold some or all of the held back proportion stationary and require it to fill 2ndvacuums only in its own type of material. And that at either ends of the spectrum -at 100% unhindered proportion or 100% held back proportion, that this does not apply. Previously I had suggested that we could jump to the maximum unhinderedness for this 'oneness' effect, and then return to a lesser level of unhinderedness. But now I see this as a bad choice. It is true that this way satisfies both our other hungers, plus our need for 'oneness' between the areas (whereas the other direction/way -that is 100% held back, although satisfying oneness needs; doesn't satisfy other needs); but that the price for doing this, is a lot of destruction done, resulting in stagnation -since here, maximum unhinderedness is done. What I propose instead, is a way of compromise with the 100%held back stance -sometimes jumping between 100%held-back; and a level containing some unhinderedness proportion. With this way, less destruction is done, because less unhinderedness is done compared to the previous way. And with less destruction done, we move away from stagnation, towards growth and life eternal. At this point, I wish to point out the difference between evil attacks from outside that contain nothing of value; vs our essentials that we do whereby we preserve or achieve something valuable to us. (evil done to us in the 1st case; and evil we do (to achieve some good) in the 2nd case). You see, when we're dealing with evil done to us, as in an external attack; this evil attack offers nothing good to us. Since no new good is produced by our handling an evil attack, there is no good in a different category. When we respond and deal with an evil attack, we act on our goods in that we hold some of them stationary. But since no new goods are generated; there is no discrepancy between goods. But in doing our essentials/quasi, there are new goods produced by this action, (as well as evil done to other parts (of ourself)). In doing the essential, our existing goods are required to be interfered with (by holding parts of them stationary). But the new goods produced don't come with this; and it creates a hunger in all our good parts to be free of this 'holding stationary'. As we harness the newly created good to also 'hold stationary', it feels a loss of freedom of being able to interrelate more freely with the other goods. Thus only with essentials -where we receive some good for the evil done; do we need our way of compromise where we try to achieve both 'oneness' and our other needs. So that in dealing with external evil attacks; we do no special way, and remain at the set level of unhinderedness needing no satisfaction of 'oneness' needs, until the evil is dealt with. But when there is good produced with the evil done, as in essentials; then there is a hunger for 'oneness' and not being held stationary in the good things. We could have that oneness and also the satisfaction of our other needs, by going to maximum unhinderedness; but since that results in stagnation from all the destruction done; we seek to find a better way, using the other extreme -all held back. Notice that using this way, our hunger for oneness; and our hungers for other essentials, are opposed. If we go all held back to satisfy our hunger for oneness, then this prevents us from satisfying our other hungers. If we do some unhinderedness to satisfy our other hungers, then our 'oneness' hunger grows and is not satisfied. This is why in the course of satisfying an essential, we sometimes need to take a break and go all held back to satisfy our 'oneness' hunger, and then go back to finish the essential. So one valid way, is to alternate between all held back; and some unhinderedness needed for our other needs. But this way may not work or may be more difficult for some hungers, which need a certain time duration in unhinderedness for their satisfaction. We can then do a modified way, a compromise way, whereby instead of going all held back when our hunger for oneness grows, that we just go in that direction, and do a little less unhinderedness (more held back). With this; when we feel a 'oness'-hunger, or a partial satisfaction of our other hungers, we move towards a higher held back proportion. As our other hungers grow, we then stop raising the held back proportion, hold our position there, and satisfy our other hungers some more at this level. As our other hungers become more and more satisfied, we keep working it to higher and higher held back proportion. Even here, we may find it necessary to take a break and go all held back for a time and then return to our essentials; but we'll find we need to do this less with the compromise way (Both are valid ways).

Note that here, small moves towards 'all held back', do free up some good material from being held stationary; but that in the all unhindered way, only all unhindered provides relief whereas almost all unhinderedness provides no relief at all (no 2nd best). Note that although our compromise way doesn't satisfy us quite as completely as the all unhindered way (and is thus a '2nd best'), it allows us to avoid stagnation from all the destruction not done by our not being so unhindered.

Let me be more specific about this. It is the unhindered mode that generates the most new material, and the most hi quality new material (destined for permanent residence in the held back mode). When new material is first generated it is in held back mode because it hasn't yet been activated to anything, let alone any unhinderedness. The high quality new material isn't in need because the low quality material generated with it, hasn't been activated to unhinderedness, and thus hasn't caused it any 2ndvacuum. But these new materials aren't helping with the essential either; -that is left to the older material (and this is the crux of our oneness hunger here). To activate the new material, we increase the held back proportion -ie, more old lesser quality material goes from unhindered to held back. This alleviates the 2ndvacuum of some of the old high held back material: -now making it the same as the new material. It then joins the new material, or is considered with the new material, as the same type. As the hunger for the essential grows (due to less unhinderedness being done), it draws on both the old and new low material, which then activate to unhinderedness. Then both the old and new high held back material feel 2ndvacuum, and the oneness need is satisfied till more new material is generated.

Hopefully I've now shown how to enjoy your essentials without being stagnated. And also how to separate the good things a person does to you, from the evil things they also do to you.

Once the north wind bet the sun that he could get the man standing below's coat away from him. The north wind blew and blew, but the harder He blew, the tighter the man clutched his coat. The sun then came out and warmed things up. Soon the man took off his coat. In our life there's nice ways to do a thing, and there's nasty ways. I suggest that we treat these ways differently.

In response to the nasty ways; we go to the level of unhinderedness needed to deal with this and remain there until the task is finished and our need or 'hunger' is satisfied: -whence we then go to all held back with no unhinderedness. Here there is no other opposing hunger.

But in response to the nice ways which still require some unhinderedness: we go to a level of unhinderedness (vs held back) needed to deal with this hunger. But when we only partially satisfy that hunger -while some hunger still remains: (-since here, there is another hunger which is in opposition to the primary hunger), we go towards more held back, (while still doing some unhindered proportion). We then hold it here for a time before moving again to higher held back proportion. (How much we move and how long we hold position is determined by how we feel the two opposing hungers pulling us).

Recall that in any of these mixtures of unhindered vs held back proportions, we must hold stationary the appropriate amount of the held back proportion, as corresponds to the size of the unhindered proportion. We need to master this before taking on the more complex manipulations I'm describing now.

OK, now I want to discuss the solution to a common problem. Sometimes we can be enjoying one good thing, or satisfying a need/desire in one area, but then before we're done, be distracted by a need or desire in another area. And before being done in that area, be distracted again to another area on and on, and end up making a mess of all the good areas. If all the areas in question are good areas, we wish to treat them thusly, and as just described. We certainly don't want to treat them as if they were nasty ways. But if we abruptly switch from one to another, that's just what we do. As we are distracted from one good thing, to another good thing; our need for the first good thing fades while our desire for the second, grows. The fading is similar to satisfaction of the need. So that before the first need fades completely, we give up satisfying it (which is what we do when we satisfy the second need) -but to a degree and not completely -we then hold it here for a time and then again move toward the second need. 'Essentially' we're applying my compromise way between satisfying these two needs, even though neither need is the 'oneness' need. (But in doing this, we treat all good areas, as good areas, and not as nasty ways.) Now, while this is going on at a more intricate level; we may be simultaneously, on the larger scale, adjusting the unhinderedness vs held back according to the compromise method, in satisfying the opposing hungers of the oneness hunger vs all the other hungers requiring unhinderedness. So, we apply the compromise method between the other hungers requiring unhinderedness when they oppose each other; as well as between the 'oneness' hunger vs all the other hungers requiring unhinderedness (which always are opposed).

Now, I want to say a word about envy and coveting what others have. Just because someone has more than you do or is better than you at something, doesn't diminish what you can do with what you have (unless they are directly acting against you with their larger power -and if they are, and your actions are non evil, then they are an aberration on their way out). But concentrating on what others have above you, is really a concentration on what you don't have (as opposed to you concentrating on what you do have, even though that may be little). And if you concentrate on what you don't have, that is futile because you cannot do anything with what you don't have (due to the concept of ownership). Only by working with what you do have is valid for your situation, because then you can actually carry out your thoughts -which is a first step and requirement for improvement. If you realize that doing what you can with what you have still has as much impact as it ever did (in and of itself) -and that it still has some value even though it may not be the best or the greatest, then you won't be discouraged from doing what you can and thereby attempting (in an actual, real attempt) to improve life and your situation. And if you tried to make your meager materials live up to the best, you would have to drive them harder than is good for them, and resort to doing short cuts and necessary evils, resulting in more destruction and stagnation. Thus it is better to be second best and not keep up with the Jones's. Concentrate instead on the intrinsic value of what you do have, and work with it, instead of how much better someone else has things. The intrinsic value and potential of what you do have, does not change because someone else has or has not, something better. Do what you can do for the purposes of growth and for the intrinsic value that growth of life is good; not to be better in a score against an opponent.

Let me review and restate this material:

Recall the story of the sun and the North wind where the north wind bet the sun he could make the man standing beneath them take off his coat. The north wind blew and blew but the harder he blew, the tighter the man clutched his coat ever more tightly. Then the sun came out and warmed things up. Soon the man took off his coat. What I get from this, is that there are nice ways of doing things; and there are nasty ways of doing things. Concerning the concepts of nice vs nasty; good vs evil; and the concept of destruction and -what is destructive vs growing; good vs evil: these concepts have no meaning concerning the inanimate and non living objects! For example, you could take a rock and attempt to do all sorts of nasty and destructive things to it, but it wouldn't mind. In fact, concerning inanimate objects, the laws of physics state that matter and energy cannot be destroyed -only transformed from one state to another(and back again).

Only in the realm of living things, do the concepts of good vs evil, and destruction vs growth (of life), have any meaning. One of the things associated with life, is that it grows - it increases itself (at the expense of the inanimate) -but of course, the inanimate doesn't care.

(One could say that they are sick of all this welfare and that the needy should fend for themselves and make their own way. Well I'm here to alert such people, that there are scores of welfare programs going on today that need to be stopped. Yes, all the products businesses produce, are inanimate objects. These inanimate objects are very needy -they lack so much (they aren't even alive) -they aren't even able to reproduce themselves: so that we as living humans, devote much of our life efforts to help them out and help them reproduce: -its called work -where we expend our life efforts to help these very needy inanimate products, reproduce themselves. (One of the definitions of life, is that it can reproduce itself.) This welfare has got to stop. These needy inanimate products need to be cast out to fend for themselves and make their own way. We(as rich living entities -rich far beyond the inanimate objects, because we are alive, and they are not), should not be required to expend our valuable life efforts to help these needy inanimate objects with life. Work is a huge welfare program for the inanimate. This work has got to stop!)

But now then, Getting back on track.

One of the things often characteristic of life, is that it grows -that it has a desire even a drive to increase life; to make life better and improve it, and make more of it -ie, to grow (includes reproduction). It is this desire or hunger for goodness and growth, that is inherent in much of life (although not all).

Concerning the nice and nasty ways referred to earlier: the nice ways have this hunger for goodness: whereas the nasty ways, which are bent on only destruction, contain no hunger for goodness whatsoever.

Now, life in these ways also has other hungers -other than this hunger for goodness and growth. And if satisfying these hungers contains any destruction (necessary evils), then these other hungers (of the flesh), thus have an element that opposes the hunger for goodness and improving life. So that the nice ways contain opposing hungers and are more complex, whereas the nasty ways contain no opposing hungers and are much simpler to respond to. I've found it helps my happiness to recognize nice and nasty ways for what they are -(that nice ways contain opposing hungers while nasty ways do not); and respond to them accordingly; taking this into account.

Living things have other hungers other than this hunger for goodness for growth and improving life: and these other hungers often conflict or oppose the hunger for goodness. So that we as life, must compromise between these hungers -never completely satisfying any of them (only partially satisfying them). Ways that have at least some good in them, have this dilemma of opposing hungers; and we thus treat them accordingly as to what they are -compromising between fleshly hungers and the hunger for goodness -never completely satisfying any of them right away -I guess we do satisfy all our hungers here eventually, but the path to such is never a straight line to any one hunger, but is an irregular path, and a compromise going back and forth between the opposing hungers.

But ways that are nasty ways, that have no goodness in them, that are only of destruction; thus do not have this hunger for goodness and life, as destruction by definition, is acts against life. With no opposing hungers here; we thus respond to these ways accordingly as to what they are -we act in a monotone or single response a straight line response to satisfy the fleshly hungers here, with no distraction or compromise to any opposing hunger, until complete satisfaction of the fleshly hungers (at least for the moment) is obtained; whence we then cease satisfying those hungers.

Thus we treat/respond to ways with some goodness, differently than evil or destructive ways.

Let me go through more specifically how we respond to our hungers. With the nasty ways, our response is this: We just act straightway to satisfy our hungers here (with our unhindered part), (while holding still the appropriate corresponding portion, of our held back part(for filling 2ndary vacuums)).

Perhaps the reason we make a distinction between nice vs nasty ways, is to protect ourselves from the stagnation from the destruction in nasty ways. The idea is to greatly shorten the process by which the evil a thing produces, is returned back to it. You see, when something does destruction, that destruction will eventually return to it, to be done to it (eventually). So, to shorten the process (and thereby save ourselves a lot of wasted resources, effort and time (an eternity in fact)); we take steps to shorten the process (which would have occurred naturally anyway without our interference, eventually). We judge what is totally depraved vs what has some good in it worth saving. And the nasty way is totally evil with no hunger for goodness; but our judgment of the nasty way, is a way that does have some good in it, or at least the hope for good.

What I am talking about, is the response to our response to nasty ways. You see, when we respond against a nasty way, we often do (necessary) evils/destructions of our own.

//(And if we respond against those evils, we may do even further necessary evils, which themselves need our response to, on and on, in an endless chain of evils. -The point being to treat only the first evil as a nasty way, with all the following responses, as imperfect nice ways.

The filling of 2ndary vacuums and holding still in a portion of the held back part, was a first attempt at dealing with the pain that destruction caused, without requiring us to do destruction of our own. Now, we are dealing with satisfying our fleshly hungers; which does involve us doing destruction of our own (that is the unhindered part))//

Of course, the only necessary destructions we do in our response against nasty ways, is to satisfy our hungers/desires(doesn't include the hunger for goodness here). But we wish to treat our response-against-a-nasty-way, different than we treat the nasty way itself, because the response is not a nasty way, and aspires to be a nice way. Even so, both responses (both to nasty ways, and nice ways) contain an initial satisfying of fleshly hungers at maximum fulfilling of the need. Thus we at least initially, do to our response what it dishes out. After thinking about it, I don't think our judgment of what is nasty vs a nice way, is for the purposes of returning its evil to it or upholding an eye for an eye. Instead, I think it is a recognition of what it is -what the facts are -that nasty ways contain no opposing hunger for goodness, whereas nice ways do. -And our recognizing this distinction, and acting accordingly -in one, to compromise between the opposing hungers; but in the other response, NOT to compromise between hungers because no opposing hunger for goodness exists.

And the fact is; our response/judgment of a nasty way, is itself, a nice way, -to be treated differently than the nasty way. Never mind about further endless chains of response, because all other additional (chain) responses are nice ways (thus treated the same as the first (response to nasty ways)).

So now I get to the specifics of how we treat (respond to) nice ways -includes our response to the nasty ways. Because wherever there is a hunger for goodness, we should not ignore that, but bring it out in a compromise with it. Otherwise it causes us pain to be hungry all the time (hungry when full).

Now for those specifics: How we satisfy our hunger for goodness, often has no structure of its own, but is found within the structure of the other hungers. You see, when we satisfy our fleshly hungers, that often contains destruction that we do. Such destruction is anti life and is against life. So, to satisfy our life's hunger for life here, we just reduce the satisfying of our fleshly hunger. So, the action to stop or reduce the satisfying of a fleshly hunger, IS a satisfaction of our hunger for life. This is why I say the hungers oppose each other. So in the compromise between the hungers, we start by satisfying our fleshly hungers at their regular (maximum) rate, but do so just long enough to take the edge off our (fleshly) hunger: whence we then reduce the doing of our satisfying that fleshly hunger (that being an act to satisfy our hunger for life). -we don't stop completely, we just reduce it slightly. But we don't keep reducing. After a time, we stop reducing, and hold our position at that level. Then we reduce a little more, then hold, then reduce more, then hold, etc. We keep on in this manner. Eventually we completely satisfy our fleshly hungers (at least temporarily); whence we stop all feeding (towards the fleshly hungers). This thus completely satisfies our hunger for goodness here. The hungers are all satisfied, but the path has not been a straight one to any one of the hungers, but a compromise between the hungers. This is different than the straight path we take in satisfying our hungers in a nasty way, where there is only fleshly hungers and no hunger for goodness or life. That just about does it.

Don't forget to hold still, the amount in the held back area (this is the area NOT involved in satisfying fleshly hungers) that corresponds to the amount of each fleshly hunger satisfying. (Because we do our hunger-satisfying out of our unhindered area, while hold still in our held back area; we cannot do both these from the same place. Like, when satisfying fleshly hunger, we must reach outside of that and into the held back area which does no fleshly hunger satisfying, in order to 'hold still'. This is the ultimate 'gogr' concept.

Note there's a difference in our response depending on whether we're handling a nasty way in addition to our nice ways; vs, if we are only handling nice ways. When handling a nasty way, we continually hold still a substantial portion in the held back area (except when it is so intense that we go totally unhindered -but even here, we often cross back into maximum holding still). But in our satisfying fleshly hungers we will express a difference, by gradually reducing satisfying fleshly hungers in the nice parts, but continuing satisfying without reduction in the nasty parts. Here, there is little connection between holding still, and our gradual reduction of fleshly-hunger-satisfying-in-our-nice-parts; as we already hold still a large portion of our held back area irregardless of how we reduce fleshly hunger satisfying in our nice parts (because of the nasty parts done simultaneously). But when only handling nice ways, our holding still closely mirrors our reductions (or non reductions) of fleshly-hunger-satisfying in the nice parts.

OK then. In an overview, we see that our life and our life's consciousness, is often pulled into the tasks of fleshly hungers. It is curious to know that life and consciousness can be more than that -that there's more to life. And we can draw that out by toning down the satisfaction of fleshly hungers as we do in handling our nice ways. To all life that exists, we give benefit of the doubt that it is a nice way and treat it accordingly ( by gradually shrinking our satisfying of our fleshly hungers in it), until it proves otherwise and proves to be a nasty way, with no hope for a desire for goodness and life: whence we then treat it as a nasty way -by satisfying our fleshly hungers in it without letup and without shrinking or reduction in it, until they are satisfied.

Now I wish to rehash the subject of sexual tensions. What if in an imaginary situation, -perhaps after we're dead, in an afterlife , we are all spirits, and we are only our thoughts and consciousness; and that sexual feelings remain: let us say that if the males are forced to have no sexual feelings towards the females, then they are tormented, whereas if they have sexual feelings, they are satisfied. But with the females; if the males have no sexual feelings towards them, they are happy, but if the males have feelings towards them, they are tormented. Here, not all can be happy. What I would say in this situation, is that if torment is forced upon us, then we should all have to share in it and share the burden: -that no one group should be allowed to go Scott free while the other suffers. -whether that be between males vs females, or between religious groups vs non religious groups.

But this concept of bearing one another's burdens and sharing the suffering that we are forced to bear, is opposed by another concept -that of an individual's responsibility for one's own actions. There is a lot of suffering in Hell: and that suffering is unavoidable by those in it. So if we are all to bear one another's burdens, love our enemies etc; then those in heaven should help shoulder the suffering of those in Hell, if we are to apply the concept of 'bear one another's burdens'.

Now, this dilemma has peaked my interest as well. The concept of equally sharing a burden or suffering, seems reasonable to me. But the concept of an individual's responsibility for their own actions and choices; also seems reasonable to me. Where do we draw the line between these two opposing concepts? It would seem that if a person is the voluntary (by choice) source or cause of an evil; then they should reap the consequences of that which they do. But what if that evil is forced on them and that they are tortured into it? In this case, their choice for it is not a free, non coerced choice, but one they were trapped into. In this case, I cannot see holding them totally responsible, as we seem to do today.

A person eats. That is destructive to other life. But it is forced upon them. Plus, we all eat; so that no one is more or less the source of this evil. Why do we hold some responsible for this (by denying them welfare), while allowing others (the wealthy and fortunate) to go scott free? Yes, just where do we draw the line between the concepts of Love and bearing one another's burdens, vs, individual responsibility for ones own voluntary, non coerced, choices? Interesting question. I think in today's world, we have overemphasized the individual responsibility concept to the nth degree; and there just isn't enough Love.(for the purposes of segregating people into groups -one group to bear the burdens and suffering of life (the have nots); and the other group to be free of those burdens and suffering (the haves), even though they are equally (or more so) the sources of that suffering.

The only validity for individual responsibility for ones own choices (ie, segregation into heaven vs hell); that I can see; is to allow those who choose against evil/destruction, to be free of those who choose for evil/destruction(non coerced). But if the concept of individual responsibility is applied to segregate people into the haves and the have nots:

If the concept of individual responsibility, (and returning the evil the evildoer does back to them, more swiftly than would occur naturally, -without dragging the rest of us into it (as would occur naturally)); is applied to segregate people into the haves and the have nots; but where the haves are the source of evil (either coerced or uncoerced): then that segregation has defeated its only purpose. If the haves are the source of any evil, then by natural means, they will be on the receiving end of that evil, eventually. So that the segregation will avail no benefit; although it will take them an eternity to discover this.

The only valid use of this segregation concept (ie individual responsibility), is when one group is free from being the source of an evil/destruction; whereas another group isn't. Otherwise, why do we lock criminals up and segregate them from the rest of us, if we are just as bad (destructive)?

Do we all eat; do we all benefit from/need sex? If so, then these should not be used as criterion for segregating us.

If someone, by working within themselves, is able to free themselves from being the source of some evil/destruction; then they have earned (or now posses) the right to be segregated (unto the haves in that area). But other than this; the concept of segregation, and individual responsibility, has no meaning and is a waste of societal efforts; and thus should be disbanded and give way to the concept of Love and bearing one another's burdens, and equally sharing the burdens and suffering.

In today's society, much of our efforts are being wasted in the useless segregation and using the law to hold people accountable. Much like the criminal or evildoer in a lawless society will eventually find themselves on the receiving end of the evil they do and produce; but will waste an eternity finding this out: so will the haves of our society see the laws and segregations they think will keep them on top, fail them and they eventually suffer the same fate as the have nots -(a fate worse for both of them than if they had loved and born each others burdens equally); but will waste an eternity finding this out. I don't buy into their program. I'm not going to waste my eternity on what I see will eventually but certainly be a useless and failed expenditure of effort. So that my little yelps and feeble attempts as an individual, will avail more than their combined societal doings. In this case, joining the group and going with the power of this group, is the poor choice. and I am rich. Talk about a segregation of the haves from the have nots that really sticks. Its just the way it turns out. If I had my way, all would be rich and happy. in love, bearing one another's burdens and sharing equally.

Let's review one of the more complex situations we can encounter; to bring out a point:

Suppose you are enjoying one of your good (but not totally good) things, and you're interrupted by an evil attack of some kind. Isn't this the way it often is: -we set down to enjoy something, and that's when everything from barking dogs to kids demanding something to old ladies or bosses yelling for service, tries to interrupt us. What's with that? With the evil attack part alone, we have the monotone(single purpose) and maximum satisfaction of hungers, with its corresponding large portion held still in the outside held back area (outside of the hunger-satisfying). We also have our treatment of this (our) response. (It exists alone* as a gradual pullback in hunger-satisfying, and over time, a much lesser, 'daintier' satisfying of hunger; *as the corresponding small held-still portion is overshadowed by the large held-still portion from the evil attack.) This response to our response is one of the good (but not totally good) things. And it is a good thing independent of whatever good thing we have chosen to enjoy at the moment that has been interrupted in this scenario/situation. We must therefore share between these at least two good things. If unable to do them simultaneously, we must share between them in such a way as to treat them both as good (but not totally good) things; and not treat them as we do evil attacks. -and we do so by not abruptly cutting one or the other off, but by cutting both off gradually. Each needed good thing has its allotted time duration and turn. And we can alternate back and forth.

Now, we usually don't have the luxury of responding against evil attacks when WE want to.

But we don't always/constantly need to satisfy our hungers; but can take a break from them when we're full, till we get hungry again. We can thus act immediately against the evil attack, but postpone our response to our act against evil attacks, -by doing no hunger satisfying. We can thus share between (as previously mentioned) different good (but not totally good) things, that we have need of(each and all).

Note that I do not advocate gradualness in all circumstances, as an overall rule. Like, if you have an intense need, but are instructed to gradually work into satisfying it. In this case, I advocate no official position, and say that one can do either quickly jumping in to satisfy their need; or if they wish to experiment with gradually satisfying it, that's OK too. (Where I argue for gradualness, (and against both abrupt movement and no movement), is in the removal of essential doing, after one has done essential doing at maximum.)

Life often has feelings. Life often has the ability to feel good(or bad). (Whereas inanimate objects do not.) But is feeling good beneficial to life? Or is it better if life does not feel good all the time, but feels bad some of the time, or most of the time? Is the satisfaction of hungers beneficial to life? Or detrimental? or neutral? In any case, these hungers attempt to control/direct life to produce certain responses to specific stimuli. And since feeling good can be used as a reward; a system can be set up to control life by only allowing those who obey, to feel good. -Or as a means to increase production; only those who produce the highest are allowed to feel good. Thus in order to maintain control and for the system to function; some must be made to feel bad. To motivate the group to produce, only the top producers are allowed to feel good, as a reward, thus the rest are to feel bad (or not-good). It is true life (and only life) responds to feeling good vs feeling bad; -and this is often used to get life to perform some other behavior; but looking at the reward itself: is it beneficial to life to feel good all the time; or is this detrimental; or neutral? Well I'd have to respond by saying that whatever is destructive of life, is to be rejected, because life builds upon itself and is always growing. If life gets to where it emphasizes the importance of avoiding destruction of life, as an all important criterion; then reality will mirror man's version of the way things are. Recall how at the beginning of this book we showed that only life in the evil-free mode was worthwhile. -In this mode, life is often growing (when not up against a barrier to growth) -and for sure, suffers no decrease in its life. Feeling good is one part of life. Life can feel good. Life can feel bad. Feeling good is one TYPE of life. Feeling bad is another TYPE of life. Lets put these different types of life to the test. -examining each one individually: Life feeling bad: -being a type or part of life; we would expect it to grow. But life feeling more and more bad, causes that life to have a desire to feel good instead. If life then responds to that desire (a control/directive over living things), and feels good; then feeling-bad-life will have suffered a decrease. Feeling-bad-life; since it inherently/intrinsically causes a desire or directive(over life) to cause itself decrease; is thus not part of the growing evil-free life.

On the other hand, feeling-good-life (or life feeling good), has no desire to stop feeling good and change over to feeling bad: thus feeling good life can be part of the evil free life and choice for good only. Now this doesn't mean all feeling good is evil free: it just means there is nothing inherent within feeling-good-life itself that would prevent it from being part of evil-free life (like there is with feeling-bad-life).

As far as satisfying hungers and desires that contain both good and destruction: I've already gone over that extensively in my recommendations for doing essentials.

So keep on feeling good (when it hurts noone) and don't buy into the idea that you need to feel bad to motivate you to do more. (Don't trade your life away for the inanimate.) -The inanimate doesn't care that you didn't choose it, or that you decreased its domain.

And to those who try to take away the feeling good of others -in order to control them (by doling out tidbits of feeling good as a reward to those you've starved out of feeling good, and who have done your bidding): to these I say, you are guilty of causing the stagnation of life option; which since I seek not to be the source of such, I thus claim the right to be separate from that group, as prisoners are kept separate from the law-abiding.

Note that having a problem to rail against, is quite a motivator and is indispensible in geting people motivated and off their keysters to do things (for you). So that if we solved the problems, this needed motivator would be gone. So we can't solve all the problems, and we need a group to hate, who we blame all things on, to rally us to action, to get out and support our leaders. So that if there isn't enough problems, we need to create problems, and turn the uproar against them around so as to motivate our following to do what we want.

-This sounds like a stagnant system to me: and so it is just as good if to sit on ones keyster: (much of the political mudslinging and namecalling of our political elections, and arguements over what government should be doing, takes this form) -now, doing things outside this system is improvement over both. -That is, railing against all destructiveness (whether it be from others railing against another problem, or whatever), in non destructive ways; is never wasted effort.

Of all the destructive acts man does to man, and that all living things do to each other (in their survival of the fittest); there combined sum, is quite insignificant in terms of actual matter; although it does represent some effects on matter. The matter in the mirread stars including our sun, goes through much more wrenching, stretching, bending, contorting, and transformation than anything the matter making up life goes through. So from matter's point of view; the difference between human suffering even lifetimes of suffering and death, imprisonments, executions torture forced labor vs lifetimes of pleasure and absolute control over other people; or just enjoyment of life (not even to mention the possible difference between abstinence vs promiscuity), is merely a barely discernible tickle, compared to the other processes matter naturally undergoes. The universe does not remember Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Gengas Kan, or Napoleon, or any of the pharaohs, or the Romans. /(But a life-system ever growing in life; would remember these losses. But a stagnant life system would soon forget.)/ So that our suffering or pleasure mean very little here (the inanimate universe). But to life and living things, these things do mean something and are important -very important. And although we have little effect on the world of matter; the world of matter has had quite an effect on life. The limited nature of food/resources (an effect of matter), has resulted in living things having genes which program an individual's death after a time (for the good of their bio-community); and has caused living things to first become scavengers, then predators -doing destructive things to life (in response to hard times and overpopulation of one species).

But now, I've shown that even from life's point of view, the difference between life and death -destruction vs growth of life; is small, and within even the weakest of our grasp's: to change death into life, or life into death; depending on our choice. What someone else intends as destruction of life; even the least of us can turn around and turn into life, if we are wise to it. A trick is to recognize what is inanimate vs what is for life (inside us) and not get stuck trying to make life in what is for the inanimate. There is a thin line dividing what is life vs what is inanimate, which is easily crossed. Because life is often up against barriers of matter; the actions of life itself often become detrimental to further life. So that life needs to be partially limited for the sake of life overall. And this can be done in ways of your/my life, or of your/my death. Lets take any act of destruction done to you: you as life then do whatever action of response that you can. If you are still alive (note that only life in suffering is eternal death, and life cannot be in suffering unless it is still alive) -so that the most important task of life, is to deal with the suffering of life, especially in the present moment. In your response to the absolute death / destruction in the action against you; you do your essentials at maximum. You respond against the outside action as you can. If you are still alive, you have thus brought the outside action, inside you; and it is now represented by the actions you do in response. This maximum response of your essentials (plus corresponding holding still in your held back area), is an inanimate part within you, and you need to recognize this and let it 'die' , and not try to make your life here. -(But to make your life right next to it.) The actions you do in response to the outside destruction, do not directly satisfy your other needs -in fact they often make you need more, as you expend your resources against the outside destruction thus neglecting your other needs. But whatever size your needs are, you have the key to life in satisfying them -this is where you make your choice for life - it is in the satisfying of your needs. -The action of response against the outside destruction, are hot and activated: now use them and do more of them to satisfy your needs (at maximum at first); but as your needs are satisfied, do not continue to do them at maximum,(as that is the choice for death), but ease off as your need becomes satisfied (as I've outlined in my method) -and this is your choice for life. --Just as outlined as how the unjust steward first gave a big break, and then gradually reduced it, as his 'need' was satisfied.

This is how you can sculpt life out of your response against an outside destructive act (any outside destructive act). This can be your contribution to society -life -your life. The difference between suffering in life vs enjoying life, is a slim one -it is just a matter of consciousness and your consciousness can make the transition -by choosing it (as previously outlined, not only by me, but by the unjust steward of the Gospel.)

Note that there is very little difference between gradually easing off an essential action vs abruptly stopping an essential action: or stopping after you are filled vs stopping before you are filled. -In both cases, the feeding action stops. But it is a difference between life, and the inanimate; and these things make a big difference to life and living things.

The concept of owing someone, or doing something because you think you 'owe it' to someone else; is, I feel, an invalid concept. There is no such thing as owing anybody. If someone does something nice and good to you; that builds up your life. Let that stand on its own. Let the reason and motivation for doing that, be that alone, (itself). Why does a person do good things to others and help them? One reason is, is so that greater and improved life, can be more alive; be itself; and out of that, hopefully, continue the 'tradition' of helping and improving, and increasing life; not for any external reward, but because increasing life in itself is good, and is itself the reward. In this way, we avoid a stagnant system. If someone does good to others, and expects something in return, then they are trying to take over another person's will with their own. That is destructive to life and this person's life consciousness. Such destruction perpetuates a stagnant system. If a person does good to another, and expects something in return; then it is true that this person cannot afford to freely do the good in the first place, because they need something in return. If that is the case, then they should be up front about it. We barter and sell good things all the time in the marketplace and in our work for our jobs. It is something we are forced to do, as we are forced to do our essentials. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But we should recognize it for what it is: it is part of the stagnant, buy and sell system. But what good is given freely, is above this stagnant system. What one does in response to receiving good done to them; is inescapably, out of their own will and choice and who they are. So, to think you are doing something in return, out of a feeling that you owe it, and that it is not you that has done a good in return, but a duty that is expected of you -ie you receive no credit for returning the favor, because it is expected of you, because you owe it: No. Any good you do, is from you and is inescapably a part of your persona and consciousness, and has your name on it. And if you did it, asking nothing in return or expecting nothing in return; then that good you did, is part of the growing system, above the stagnant buy and sell system; irregardless of whether you did it thinking you were paying off a debt that you thought you owed; or not, or whatever. Each of us must decide whether or not we like to do good things to each other and build up each other's life; for the results this itself produces. ie do we like the results that building up life produces? And each of us must decide how much we are able to give and do freely. For someone else to try to decide these things for us, or to force us to do; is a destructive act against our consciousness life, and is not an act to build up life. First they do something good to us; then in trying to force us to do in return, they do something destructive to us. This is the forces of good and destruction together, and is a stagnant system. I preach to escape the stagnant systems. So that what good you do in response to the good I do to you, is not for me to judge, but is for you to judge, because it is YOU. And vica versa. (What good I do, is ME. What good you do, is YOU.)

There is one area where owing has validity. One might think from my words above; they'd never need do anything they didn't want to. But that is incorrect. The area I refer to, is in treating good things well (responding to both hungers), in the sharing between good things. We often must divide our attention between many good things, and thus we must share between our good things in such a way as to treat them well -(as good things), and not treat them as we treat evil attacks. And here is my formulation, or rules (made up by me), to do this: When first we get a desire to do one good thing, we go and do that. But if in the middle of that, we get another desire to do another good thing, we interrupt our first good thing, and go and do that. Then in the middle of that, if we get another desire to do a 3rd good thing, we interrupt what we are doing, and go and do that. What I am saying, is that any good thing we are doing for the first time (or the first time in that sequence), has the right to interrupt what we are doing. And where it is done this first time, determines its position in our sequence. But after it is started, it no longer has the right to interrupt, and must wait its turn. Each good thing, has an IOU period, where we must come back and do it some more (after we have (temporarily) left it, even if we want (desire) to do something else. Once that IOU period is done, then we are free of it and go and do what we want in the present moment. Often, we desire to continue to do what we did in the IOU period. Since that is what we want at that moment, we do that. If we do so, then this creates another IOU period we must fulfill later, by coming back to this good thing, if we leave this good thing to go to another good thing. These IOU periods create a kind of structure, as we otherwise go and do what good things we want at a particular moment; and represents sharing between the good things we have a need for, so that we treat all good things with respect, and as good things, and do not treat them as we treat evil attacks.

Now then; I wish to free you from my methods, under some circumstances. Not all our acts are from doing essentials. Some are evil-free acts that require none of my methods. The crux of my method has been to eliminate suffering caused by secondary vacuums (in the held back area), caused by our responding against destruction. To deal with this; held back type material was held still (in order to fill 2ndvacuums of its type). However, if there is no suffering in the first place, then one needn't as a blanket policy, hold material still. And if one is doing the method correctly, they do not hold material still when there is no suffering (no secondary vacuum). And if one isn't holding material still, then they are doing no method, as they are only doing the base action, without any added regulating. So, one needn't do any method, until there is pain and suffering. When there is; then one can do my method. But when pain and suffering are dealt with and gone, one can at odd intervals, revert to no method at all.

And, if (or when) an evil attack doesn't cause us to need the sharing with its good part (which is from the goodness of the response against the evil); then we need only do the casting out evil part (of maximum essentials consumption with its large corresponding holding still: -with this being discontinued as one no longer needs).

Recall that superior positions of power and high capability over others, is no protection from evil/destruction. High capability and power have their usefulness, but just as puny David slew giant Goliath, if power and high capability don't get away and separate from evil/destruction, evil/destruction will eventually bring it down. So that snobbish institutions of power or higher learning, which only allow the smartest or best in, (and thus suggest that the rest of us don't have what it takes); and by their actions, are themselves sources of destruction and thus operate in a destructive environment: these accumulations of power, are folly. We realize that we needn't work to make the cream of the crop or even close; to be quite effective in these stagnant systems of survival of the fittest. We realize that higher achievement has its place; but that that place is only after freedom from destructivenesses has been achieved, first. So pay it no mind that you may not be up to snuff: just let em have it with both barrels (with what you've got) anyway in these stagnant destructive systems; and chances are good you'll succeed anyway.

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.

Note that unscrupulous overseers take advantage of our doing of essentials, in a mind over matter way. When we do our essentials, we must slow forces of good from their escape, whether we realize this or not. They take advantage of this by tacking on all sorts of other orders and demands and things for our forces of good additionally to do, when they see us slowing the escape of our forces of good (ie doing essentials). These additional tasks are all fine and good, but just remember to only slow forces of good for the purpose of doing your essentials, and do not allow that to carry over into the doing of these additional tasks. These additional tasks would (still) be done, but with no slowing the forces of good from their escape, on your part. Slowing forces of good from their escape in order to do your essentials, isn't a good thing; so that you should do only what you need. If someone else wants that to be done for their additional tasks, let them take the blame for their part in that themselves; because these additional tasks are not an essential to you -only to them. And they should take the blame for the wrong that needs to be done in order to get done what they want done. So that when the overseer comes round and starts loading you down with things to do; refrain from doing repetitive inc fragmentation for these additional tasks; and only do what you need to complete your own essentials. (They don't want to let you have any more than what they say is yours -so don't poses any more of the wrong than is yours.) -Oh, you'll still do what they say, just that the force of nature of the forces separating will be at full strength, and it will be mind over matter, and these tasks will not bother you. anymore.

Now, in either case -doing our essentials; or not doing essentials; the forces separate (albeit a little more slowly for the essentials (since we are delaying the escape of good here)). There is an additional thing to do; -in addition to regulating (or refraining from regulating -when it is something that isn't our essential) the escape of forces of good (via repetitve inc fragmentation): we also do not sit still with large forces of good, but act to escape with them -to consciously try and escape with them -even when it doesn't seem like there's anything needing to be escaped from: -there usually is something needing to be escaped from, even if it's just the uneven attention we give to people we can see vs those we can't see/hear; and our individual entities. Note that when doing an essential, we don't consciously act to escape with us-as-a-larger-force-of-good until the essential is done, because we're delaying the escape of good here. But with evil attacks, not only do we not delay the force of nature of smaller good escaping; we also consciously act with our larger force of good, to escape the evils. Note that WHAT escapes all evil can vary depending on where we're at. It is possible to have individual entities escape but only to the degree that all entities are evenly represented. Otherwise, and usually, good that does not poses any individual identity, escapes into God.

Once our forces of good, escape evils (including escaping the individual entities of others and ourself, and escape into God), that escape part is finished, but they have still more to do. Escaping evil is first priority, but once that's done, then before these evil free parts grow to high capability, a part of them can regulate the high capability's cycling (between helping the low levels, and self indulgence). This is something that high capability needs for its own existence and continuance (-it's kind of like an essential to it); -as high forces of good that don't seek out low levels, run out of improvements to make and cease to actively exist. Then as the evil free material grows from reduced capability to high capability, it is then directed by low evil free material to cycle. Note that this regulating-of-the-cycling done by reduced capability evil free material, is done so it is not a burden to this material; since that material is in self indulgent directive, and its main purpose is to grow itself (until it gets to high capability). /From the vantage point of the regulator of the cycling; this material doesn't go to high capability (for long), but has its home in reduced capability. From the vantage point of other material: that material passes through reduced capability; It then it achieves high capability and is regulated to cycle (between helping all low levels and self indulgence). And both types of evil free reduced capability material can be present, as escaped from evil. -Due to interrelatedness; part of the evil free reduced capability material belongs to the regulator of the cycling; and will be always at reduced capability and in self indulgent mode -(regulating the cycling is what it IS, when left to be itself). And the rest of the evil free reduced capability material are things other than regulator of the cycling; and they will spend a short time in reduced capability being themselves; and will then pass to high capability where they then cycle (as directed by the reduced capability regulator of the cycling). Note that this material thus splits in two (different directions) here.

Concerning escape from all evil: Let me make this clear: that when good parts of an essential-doing are escaping evil; (since the essential contains evil); they escape from themselves. The good part and good feeling, escapes its beginnings and what it was (ie, it escapes its part in the essential-doing). Additionally, good also escapes individual boundaries denoting you or I (that is, others and also yourself), to then join God. And then it does the regulating of the cycling (between helping low levels, and, self indulgence). -and finally becomes high capability which cycles as directed by lower material.

There is one final tip I've discovered in my method. When we are doing the slowing of the forces of good's escape part of our method, we can vary the degree to which we delay the forces of good from escaping (via more or less repetitive inc fragmentation of the escape area.)

When we first start our essential, we do considerable slowing-good's-escape. (This leaves less or our resources to do the actual essential and (also) thus eases us into the essential.) -(as well as slowing good's escape so we can do the essential). But after a time of doing our essential, we start to become satisfied in it. Thus we can jump to a position of doing considerably less slowing-good's-escape. (-thus allowing room to do more essential -and we do this when ready to do further stages of the essential). But there is a time lag from when we stop some of the slowing-good's-escape, and when more good escapes; so that we would have stopped too much. Thus after a short lag time, we then return and do a slight bit additional slowing-good's-escape; (but not back to what we first did). For example, consider the alphabet as representative of how much slowing good's escape we do, with A as the most, and Z as the least (that is, none at all). We start out at A, then go to P, but after the short lag time we then fall back to M. As the essential progresses and further stages unto completion of the essential are done; we repeat this procedure, until the essential is completed and we no longer need to slow good's escape. In the example, as we do a new stage, we would go from M to W, and fall back to U. Then we would go to Z, and fall back to W; then to Z again, and fall back to Y, and then to just Z (or zero delaying good's escape). Note that the material represented by the alphabet, is the smaller, non conscious forces of good. There is also the larger, conscious (us as a) force of good. -Which has two modes: -acting to escape; and, not trying to escape. While this meandering through the alphabet is occurring with the smaller forces, the larger force of good is not-trying-to-escape while we do an essential; -even when at Z, and also W. Now, the moment the essential is complete (also at Z in the smaller forces); this larger force of good then goes to escape. (At the same Z position under an evil attack; we also act with the larger force to escape.) Note, that if we can get away with doing our destruction-containing-essential at Z, in the smaller forces (without meandering through the alphabet); then we do so, as there's no need to slow the escape of forces of good without a good cause (at least not more than we need). In the actual doing of this method, we note that the act of doing nothing in the small forces (of good), is their act of escape; while doing nothing in the larger force of good, is its act of not-escaping: and this is our total stance (or can be) when doing an essential. (In an essential, we may need to meander through the alphabet. -And when meandering, we are thus active in the smaller forces; while inactive in the larger force.) When our essential is finished, then we're certainly inactive in the smaller forces (which is their escape position); and then actively escape in our larger force (which is its escape position). -Also, this being our total stance under an evil attack. When doing an essential plus under an outside evil attack, 'we' act to escape from the evil attack, but not from the essential while doing the essential. From the standpoint of escape, (vs activity): although we can be relaxed/inactive in both the smaller and larger forces of good when doing an essential; in the smaller forces, that represents an escape directive / while in the larger forces that represents a not-escape directive. Note that we don't try to get by with an escape directive in the larger force when doing an essential, like we can in the smaller forces, because escape in our larger force means escaping the essential; and if we're not done with the essential, we must thus not-escape in our larger conscious force in order to do the essential. / When the larger force goes to escape; it goes from inactive to active. /Since our conscious mind is connected to our larger force; new stages of essential can be done by only regulating the larger force. Or: when doing an essential, and with our conscious mind (associated with our larger force), staying out of the smaller forces (in order to give them an escape stance while concentrating on a non-escape stance in the larger force); we limit our intake/contact of material of new stages of the essential, to that material which fits to be a part of our larger force. -Excess material, above that interrelation of being part of the larger force; we shrink away from with our conscious mind of our larger force, so as to let it be in escape stance of smaller forces. (And we can do an 'alphabet' in this.) When done with essential, our consciousness of our larger force changes to active escape: but shrink it away from any excess regulation it did previously in the smaller forces so as to save mental resources (for the active escape in the larger force), since escape stance in the smaller forces requires no conscious regulation./ Note: if a thing is non evil, we don't try to escape from it. / Note: we can be selective in the doing of an essential. -If two or more types of 'food' will satisfy our essential, and we have a preference for one, but others keep butting in, we can allow that unchosen feeding to occur of its own, but also escape from it in our larger force, while only doing larger-force-not-escape in the chosen food.

You know, this idea of slowing the escape of smaller forces (with repetitive inc fragmentation), may be a boondoggle. I guess we can do it if we feel a need to, but it's also OK if we can get along without it.

Now then, we have the larger force of good; and we also have the smaller component forces of good. Who's the boss? Which comes first, (the egg or the chicken)? Should the individual submit all to the larger living State, or, should individuality be enshrined; or how about a compromise? The larger force has two modes: escape, and not escape. Additionally, it can act on the smaller forces. One of those actions can be to slow the smaller forces escape. Another action, is the action of creation. Before most smaller forces exist, a larger force created them. Or, what creating is done, is mainly done by the larger forces of good, as they are more able to and capable of creating. Presuming larger forces have a need to create; when they do create, they are thus working on and in contact with the smaller forces (and must do so in order to create them). So then, there is at least part of the time, a place for larger forces to act on the smaller forces, and be the boss of them. (Just like parents have the boss over their children.) Then, if the larger force is unable, or doesn't think it wise to (supersede free will and), create the smaller forces free from evil(destruction), (includes the larger force doing an essential), then all these forces of good have destruction to deal with. It is how this destruction is dealt with that determines much of the relationship between the larger and smaller forces. If there is evil present, things need to be fragmented, and at reduced capability for separation of the forces. This means that once the larger force has created the smaller forces, it should remove itself from them, and leave them to their own devices at reduced capability. Thus here the smaller forces are not bossed or subjugated, in order to purify from evil. We've examined separation of the forces at reduced capability more closely. We found that the greater variability of the smaller forces was helpful, but only if a larger force of good stood nearby to catch the good that had for a moment, become evil free. (We also recall that the larger force of good could not be together with the smaller forces, but had to be removed a distance so as to maintain reduced capability, otherwise the material would be at high capability (or the force of evil would have access to high capability).) So now we have a picture of the larger force acting on the smaller forces in order to create them, but soon after, removing itself from them a distance, so as to allow separation from evil; yet not being totally removed, but intermittently joining the good parts (of smaller forces that had separated for a moment); and thus again acting upon smaller forces (to a degree). Thus when we as a larger force of good, create (our essential doing), we should do so according to this plan (of rescuing good that escapes). (Note that as part of this plan; the need for forces of good to create, (especially larger forces), is obvious, as that is what forces of good are: -that they need to keep creating in order to BE active forces of good.) Thus we first create, and create more than we need for interrelatedness-with-our-larger-force. We then soon remove much of our larger force's consciousness from the created, newest item or stage of essential; and remove it to only that small amount that is needed (for interrelatedness with the larger force). And we also act in accordance with the periodic rescuing of escaping good by the largest evil free force of good. -(The essential's good escapes evil and then splits off its regulator of the cycling part.) So here, we see that there is a compromise, and that neither the larger force nor the smaller forces has absolute power nor is a total boss.

Even if we consider only the well-being of the larger entity; recall that we discovered that even here; that for the good of the larger entity, it should help its component parts (in order to be growing and not stagnant). And that it is best to include some self indulgent directive as well as helping the low levels. So that even in a worse case scenario, we see that the larger force shares and compromises with the smaller forces.

You may have noticed that I now think it's good to do more essential than we need, (but only in a certain way). The idea is that whenever we have an opportunity for growth, we should take it. The central point, is growth. What we do is: as long as we're experiencing growth with an essential, we continue with it full ahead and do not shrink our larger force's consciousness out of any of it. But when there is a pause, and we stop creating the essential: are unable/unwilling to grow it further: then is when we shrink our consciousness out of it and into just the small part of it that our larger force needs due to interrelated needs. The idea is that it's OK to create more of the essential than we need, as long as we are creating and growing. Now, how can I say this? Not all growths are free from evil, and some can be totally evil. But the thing about evil is that it always puts an end to growth and causes stagnation or decline. So when evil is having its way, there won't be growth. And when there isn't growth, our method tells us to shrink our larger force away from most of the already created essential. With the high-capability-of-the-larger-force away from much of the essential where evil resides, this material is denied the high capability of the larger force, and is not fed. This works. In an essential, there is some good and some evil. When the good is having the upper hand, there will be growth, and as long as theres overall growth, we know that evil doesn't have the upper hand. So that we know we aren't totally wasting the high capability of our larger force, which IS together with all the essential material when there is growth-and-creating occurring. If we are growing something totally evil, growth will be short lived, and our method won't spend much time with it. But I depend on one's common sense, and not this method, to reject outright, anytotally evil growth. The only reason we do growths containing some evil, as essentials, is because we are forced to, and cannot obtain the needed goods evil free. So far, I think I've shown it is fairly OK (or not too harmful) to do excess essential in this proposed way. What I have not shown, is why. Before I had argued that since essentials contained some evil, that we should try and get by with only what we need. But what I see now, is a way to produce evil free essential. It's just a different response to the very same problem of being forced to do an essential containing evil. You see, the essential that remains part of our larger force, (to supply its interrelated need), is unable to separate in its forces because the evil in the essential has the higher capability of our larger force to feed it. But if our larger force creates excess essential, and then shrinks away from it after it creates it; that excess essential would then be alone, away from the higher capability food (of the larger force): and at reduced capability, the forces would separate and it would become evil free essential. (We would then send some help nearby so that the escaping good would find it (while the evil would not), and would be rescued.) So that this going the extra mile and doing double the essential that we need, provides us with evil free essential./ Note: we can modify our helping the low levels, to instead, deliver help only near the low levels; so that the more capable good would grow out into this help while the evil wouldn't./ Note: we don't interrupt our essential when it is strongly growing and creating and moving into new stages. We do interrupt our essential when its growth and creating slow and stop (via the larger force moving its consciousness out of most of those stages of the essential). -So that our essential may be done in several divisions. As we continue and create the newest stage of our essential; that is done in full ahead, no shrunken-consciousness mode; while the previous stages are all done out of only the essential that our larger force interrelatedly needed. When done with the essential, not only do we shrink from excess essential in the last stage, but our consciousness acts to escape immediately. If it is a component of other material, it may wait for that to escape also before splitting off its regulator of the cycling, and cycling.

One may ask why we remain at the lesser quantity of essential doing (which is what interrelates with our larger force's needs), in the old stages of an essential (while going full ahead in the new stage -where growth is still good). Why not just go full ahead in all stages when in a growth spurt? What I would say, is that we are dealing with evil in the old stages. When there has been growth, but then that growth stops: this indicates the presence of evil in this specific situation. -(Whereas, if it was just an absence of growth, that doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of evil. -It could be that you just haven't grown into this yet. (You have to compare two reference points to show a decrease in capability.)) Realize that the evil will always remain in your interrelated essential doing in your larger force, as it has the higher capability of the larger force to feed it: and that only in the essential you created, and then vacated, will soon be purified and evil free. After a time, that evil free material devoid of your consciousness, will grow (due to being evil free) and grow around you so that the good of you (your larger force and consciousness) can escape into it (and be evil free), in a new action. This is why we permanently vacate to minimum essential (as required for the larger force's interrelated needs), in our old stages of essential.

When a material becomes finished with an essential, it does not continue with even the smaller doing of essential corresponding to interrelated-needs-of-the-larger-force, but instead now acts to escape all essential doing: and also removes the larger force's consciousness (which is now acting to escape), from the lower material (that the larger force previously was acting and creating in), and onto only the larger force -so that only the larger force is consciously (with larger force consciousness) acting to escape.

In a similar vein, if material has no need of an essential at present, it should not act to do essential; even though material that does need essential, sometimes does more essential than it needs (in accordance with our method -referred to as 'going the extra mile'). Thus, regulator of the cycling material, not affected, continues regulating the cycling.

Note: all actions of escape we do should be done by the larger force only. -Leaving the low levels and smaller component forces out of such action. So that we may need to shrink all our escape actions, and not just the escape action we do when we've just completed an essential.

We have reduced capability material that has (recently) escaped evil (some of that joins the regulator of the cycling (as that's what it is), and some rests in self indulgence until it becomes high capability and is then cycled). But in whatever form is the evil free reduced capability material -sometimes evil steps up an attack, or an essential comes to call, and may re-catch some of the reduced capability material. If it does, that material then drops regulating the cycling or self indulgence, and again seeks to escape the evil, or finish the essential. But until an evil or an essential, catches an evil free reduced capability regulator of the cycling material, that material doesn't act to escape; but instead continues regulating the cycling. -As, if it did act to escape before evil actually got to it, that would disrupt its regulating the cycling just as surely as if evil had gotten to it; but in this case, before evil had even gotten to it. -The force of evil is often unable to cross barriers and get to things: so this material continues regulating the cycling until evil or essential gets to it.

Sometimes material doing an essential is forced to go to escape in its larger force before being finished with the essential. In this case, we let that material do that, (and split off its 'half' for regulator of the cycling). But since the essential wasn't finished; other material then steps in to complete the essential (however it is able). Note that since the essential was forced into a slowdown, its growth was stopped temporarily. Thus, our larger force shrinks its consciousness/activity (down to the interrelated needs level) away from much of the current stages of the essential's previous growth. (Later stages of essential are done at full growth as we progress further in the completion of the essential.)

There are the essentials related to being attracted to another person. But invariably, we may be attracted to different people at different times, or to more than one at the same time. And then, there are the people (or person) we are with at a present moment. When attracted to more than one, I'd say we should share our attentions with these and also with whom we're with at the moment. And that when more than one is attracted to us (whom we may or may not be attracted to), that we should share our attention with these. This gets in the way of concentrating on a single one. So, what are the advantages of these two opposite directives? With the first, we get away from sharp focus, and thus prepare ourself better for interrelatedness, so that supplies and needs fit together better. But if we interrupt concentrating on a single one too much, our growth here will be interfered with. -And remember how sensitive to growth we are in our method of dealing with essentials. So, for these reasons, I feel we need to accommodate both directives in a compromise. So that we can concentrate on one to some degree, but that we also share some of that attention with others whom we are also interested in, or whom are interested in us, or whom we're with currently.

Now, concerning the component stages of doing an essential; we shouldn't get the idea to do some of a previous stage at a needs level, while having another area of us do that stage with more growth (when that previous stage's growth has died due to the essential evil's presence). Here, the overriding factor is that we need to keep our growth away from where evil is, in an essential. -An essential isn't all good nor all bad, but some of both, and we need to act selectively in an essential to enhance the good, but not the bad: -this is the reasoning behind my current method of doing essential.

Now, we don't do essential all the time. After awhile, we become filled, and then cease doing the essential's growth. When additional essential comes along, the part of us not affected by it, continues on as is (regulating the cycling, or, just being itself); -now the part that is affected, now does escape mode. -With this escaped material (-after done escaping), then splits off destined material to regulator of the cycling. This is how we feed and grow the regulator of the cycling. -So that we need to take a break from essentials some of the time, to feed/grow this higher part of us, so it maintains reduced capability and doesn't slip away into low capability. So then: feed your higher self with the time you'll find you have after you've satiated your essential. Note also that the helping low levels also helps the regulator of the cycling, but only in its low levels -automatically switching to other low levels when finished with current low levels. (The regulator of the cycling cuts itself off here when in the self indulgent part of the cycle.)

We are unable to be in contact with everyone all at once. We are not one with each other. Thus there is a difference between the people we know, vs, those we don't know. We feel a friendly warm feeling towards the people our senses recogize as those we know (and are friends with), while we don't feel so towards those we don't know. And we're prone to be more receptive to those in our presence, and not to those out of our senses' range. (In comparison, God loves all people equally.) (When Jesus said He had to go away so that the Holy Spirit could come to us all (instead of just appearing to the few in visual range); there was good reason for this, in that God wants to love all people equally.)

Take this example: Suppose there were two people, identical in personality. One lived next door, and the other lived 10 miles away. One you got to know while the other remained unknown. Meeting both on the street, you would have different responses to basically the same person. To the one you knew, you'd respond however you respond to that personality. If you were friends, you would do things together. But to the same person you didn't know, you'd have no response (no feelings); and you wouldn't do things together. Thus there is an uneven response due to the inability of our senses and our inability to know everybody. Suppose you were a Chinaman, and there was a riot, and your government ordered you to help put down that riot. But if you knew these people who rioted, you'd not want to do so and would resist that order. But if you were from a far away part of China, and didn't know these rioters, essentially foreigners with different ways; you would obey your government, and put down the riot. Here we can see what a difference it makes whether you know someone or not. When the factor of destruction is involved, it can even be considered an essential.

We as humans in our situation may want to share ourselves evenly with all people, but our limited situation, and our being bound to our limited senses (which only see those close to us); cause us to share ourselves unequally. And uneven growth associated with this, allows evil to make a home here in our interactions between each other. We as humans (because we are human) will have to deal with the fallout from our uneven growth, and our tendency to be more harsh and cruel to those we don't know and/or who have strange ways. I can call this an essential due to the presence of dstruction. But this essential is a whopper. Unlike essentials involving our bodily functions, this essential never ends, and is never satisfied, even temporarily. We will always have near insatiable hungers and needs in this area of human interrelations, until our state of being tied to our limited senses is overcome, and we become one with each other in God. By comparison, the essentials of our bodily functions can be satisfied temporarily quite quickly. If we're hungry, we can set down to a good meal, and in a short time, can be full and temporarily no longer bothered by that essential. So, I just want us to apply our methods for dealing with essentials, accordingly. So that with the essential of this human proximity interaction, we do not act to escape in our larger force, as we're never temporarily finished with it; even though we may be acting to escape other essentials we HAVE completed. And when our human interaction includes evil attacks, our larger force acts to escape from that, but not from the human proximity essential.

And somewhere in there, is the attraction we feel towards members of the sex we are attracted to; and whom we also know well -usually our mate, in most cases: vs not having such deep feelings towards others, whom we don't know so well, and or, whom we are not sexually attracted to. The sexual bodily function may be satisfied quickly, but this love infatuation, etc. mental feeling is more long lasting.

This never being free of this essential has ramifications into our method. Perhaps some material does escape even this human proximity essential temporarily -(and then that material supplies regulator of the cycling). But there is always material that does not escape it. With material under this essential; even if it escapes other essentials, since it's not free of all evil, it can't yet then split off part for regulator of the cycling, and does no cycling or regulation of cycling. Only the material that escapes this essential (and other essentials), does this. So that there will always be at least some part of us that does no regulating of cycling, but only does escape actions and attempts; and also the intricacies of doing essentials, such as shrinking areas where growth is stopped.

Perhaps I overstated that we never escape this human proximity essential. The (our) condition is always with us, but perhaps it isn't an essential all the time. It's not an easily recognizable essential, as the fallout from our uneven growth and stagnation and tendency to treat those we don't know more impersonally; takes many forms, and the essentials from that also take many forms. But whatever the case, this essential is our most persistent essential. And; our task in this case, is not so much to escape this essential, but to be satiated in this essential. Once we achieve (temporary) satiation, then we easily act to escape this essential. What's holding us back is being satiated. What we do to become satiated, is to just hold our position until satiation occurs. We may shrink in areas where growth has been stopped, but we just keep on doing what we've been doing until satiation occurs. Until it does, this part of us doesn't try to escape, and is unable to take part in any cycling.

Occasionally, this human interaction essential pulls us into other, bodily essentials, that we may be finished with (presently). In this case, we can allow these bodily essentials to occur, but additionally act to escape them, (while not acting to escape the human interaction essential), -in our larger force. And when we do eventually become hungry in our bodily essentials, we can then not-escape in them too, until we're satiated for that present time (which doesn't take long). As ever, the seemingly innocent human interaction essential rages on. This essential is the cause of much of our problems, and not so much the bodily essentials.

In our reproductive essential, that gets into our human interactions also. But don't mistake the desires from the human interaction essential, for the reproductive essential. Just because you don't have reproductive essential with someone, or are not attracted to someone; doesn't mean you don't need them. -You do, in the human interaction essential. The human interaction essential is much bigger and longer lasting than these bodily essentials, which are soon satisfied (although only temporarily). And when the human interaction essential activates and gets into some of the bodily essentials: realize that it is the source, and that only less frequently are the bodily essentials the source -by using not-escaping in the human interaction essential to supply you, while -escaping- in the bodily essentials (after easily being satiated in them).

When the human interaction essential pulls us into other bodily essentials that we are finished with presently; since we are finished with them/satiated in them, we thus don't want to do them, but do them anyway; while additionally acting to escape them (as soon as the human interaction essential finishes with them). So that we DO, in the bodily essentials, for the benefit of others (although additionally escaping here); and then when there appears something we need in these bodily essentials (sometimes FROM our doing them for the benefit of others), we also DO these (in not-escape, while we have need here). The human interaction essential may even pull us into situations of harm not associated with other essentials, as it interacts with people who hate and wish us harm. It allows acceptance of the harmful actions of these people. We then additionally always act to escape from these actions too. -We always escape in them, as unlike essentials, there is no time we ever have need of them (apart from the human interaction essential). (This includes destructive attacks directed as punishment against engaging in essentials forbidden -whereby the forbidden essentials also present, are handled as outlined for handling essentials, not attacks.) / This is like what the Bible in Paul tells of God creating vessels destined for destruction, only to then destroy them. So that concerning the question: 'do we try to stop evil from coming out (in what we create, or 'do') by not allowing anything to come out? vs; do we let the good and the bad both come out, and then escape from the bad parts (when we're unable to do the thing evil free)?': well, we just follow the example God sets, according to this Bible passage (Romans 9, 11-24), and just do it, and then deal with the evil parts in a second action. (Also see related, later 'Bible study'.)/

Here we see essentialS interacting with each other: the human interaction essential, and bodily essentials. - that is, one essential leading the others (the filthy rags of our righteousness) . From this, we recall that we sometimes do bodily 'essentials' when we don't need them (when our human interaction essential needs them). And that we can get in the habit of this. But note that we shouldn't do an essential when no part of us needs it: -unless the human interaction essential needs it, we don't do this 'doing of bodily essentials when they aren't needed'. We may want to share evenly our bodily essential that we do for the benefit of others, (when we don't need them (directly)); but we should only do un-needed bodily essential (in an even and sharing way) to the extent our human interaction essential needs them: -and that usually isn't totally even in its growth. Also note that how we act depends much on a time cycle in our progression to a temporary satiation of a bodily 'essential'. We may start with only our human interaction essential needing a bodily 'essential' (here we additionally act to escape in all of the bodily essential done). But as we can progress, we have a mix of human interaction essential and part of the bodily essential (in not-escape), (while the newer part of the bodily 'essential' is in escape) (-we often come to need a bodily 'essential' by doing; but new parts haven't been done much yet). As we progress, we escape in lesser and lesser parts of the bodily essential*: until we complete the bodily essential and achieve its satiation: *(During this time, we have (for short periods) a stage of bodily essential; some of it in not-escape, while some in escape.) -At this satiation point, we then escape in all of the bodily essential. We are back to the beginning and only with the human interaction essential (when it is an essential), do we not-escape in. For a time it appeared we were growing something and getting somewhere in our bodily essential. But don't be fooled into thinking it would continue; but instead, realize this cycle of periodically becoming satiated, then going back to nothing* in the bodily essential *(in what we don't-escape in). (With the human interaction essential being most persistent, it is the one that usually gets us into another round of bodily essential in this cycle.) In the reproductive bodily essential, even if it is with your spouse, you thus start over in the bodily essential each cycle: -you develop no lasting structure here, even though it is your spouse who you think you're so familiar with. (This is just the nature of an essential -(reproductive, bodily): -your interrelation with your spouse would be much different if it were not for this bodily essential.) Actually, I'm not quite clear here. We do spend enough time with this essential to create a complete essential. And after we escape it, that material still exists and produces. The thing I mean is, that our larger force and consciousness, is unable to spend any long lasting time here in this essential (and must re-do this essential over and over as needed). In any case, or position of the cycle we are in (even after satiation); we do new material, with our minimal human interaction essential, (as we shall see).

Concerning things being long lasting: if we use previously-complete-essentials in the newer, not-yet-accepted(due to need, in that we don't need it yet)-new round of essential: -when our consciousness escapes from that, we'll loose the previous accomplishment and won't have anything that lasts. But if we only use our minimal/basic human interaction essential (and consciousness) to do the new round of essential: we won't loose our previous completed essential, and it will be long lasting. -you would think anyway. But actually we escape from the previous completed essential once satiated in it, and thus loose it anyway -(except by what our basic human interaction essential needs of it). ›-And the production that is beyond the evil of the essential; -we retain that also.› Actually, the purpose of not using old bodily material in new bodily action is so we can assemble a complete essential. That is the only impediment that this escaping from new stages of not-yet-needed bodily action, causes: and that we become able to produce a completed whole bodily essential when we don't use old (and presently needed/not escaping) bodily stages in new (escaping) bodily stages, but use just the minimal/basic human interaction essential here instead.

Getting back to the human interaction essential: Each time we escape from parts of a bodily action we don't need (apart from the human interaction essential) -due to the fact it is a new stage of a bodily 'essential': -that escape, finishes this particular action and puts a finality to it. And there is no progression to the completion of the bodily essential here, in this. What does represent new growth: is a doing of (new) human interaction essential. In other words, we shouldn't draw from 'previous not-escaping bodily essential stages' in order to do further stages of the bodily essential (unto not-escape/now in escape): but should instead, do new (not-escaping) HUMAN INTERACTION ESSENTIAL-(NOT A BODILY ESSENTIAL) (which we do need, (thus can do for more than a moment in not escape)), in order to do further bodily essential stages (first in escape, and then in not-escape). Also realize that as we escape from (and thus loose) parts of bodily essentials -(that came from human-interaction-essentials drifting into otherwise not-needed stages of bodily essentials); that we should simultaneously replace that vacuum/void with new doing of human interaction essential, which again drifts into bodily essential stages: with this cycle repeating until those stages become needed through this doing, so we then not-escape in the bodily stage also. Note that we don't use not-escaping 'bodily' stages to do current bodily stages, -(would be in escape), because escape causes us to loose them. Instead, as mentioned, we use undeveloped/minimal human interaction essential only to get into new stages to the completion of the bodily essential; whence then, all bodily stages go to escape at the end of their cycle.

To reiterate: Recall that when we act to escape, this is done by only our larger force and consciousness; leaving the smaller forces or what we were working with, behind. -essentially loosing consciousness from the area. So that an area/stage in escape, is an area in need (of consciousness) and of loss. (What will reenter this conscience devoid area? -best to use more minimal human interaction essential, as it may have to escape too.) Note that when a bodily stage goes to not-escape: we no longer supply that area with fresh human interaction essential; but direct that supply to other areas needing it (due to their losses from their escape). Most areas often need the human interaction essential (even if only for the larger force consciousness). A bodily stage in escape needs the human interaction essential. Now, a minimal(basic) human interaction essential will supply that need: and; a more developed human interaction essential which has worked its way into some not-escaping stages of a bodily essential; will also supply that need. But what I've been saying, is not to use this more developed human interaction essential to supply that need (of the next bodily stage (that is still in escape)); but instead to use minimal (or newer) human interaction essential only, to supply that need: because we'd loose what we'd built of the not-escaping bodily stages, when we escaped again in that current bodily stage. Thus to hold onto it, we don't use what we've built to supply the current, escaping, bodily stage's need for human interaction essential; but instead use minimal (newer) human interaction essential to supply that need. (It's called 'having your cake and eating it too'. -note the destructive nature of eating.) Note in addition to not-using a developed human interaction essential (containing bodily stages in not escape) -(or, 'not-escaping bodily stages', for short): we also direct doing newer (minimal) (also, non-escaping) human interaction essential, away from this bodily stage that has just achieved not-escape: -because it no longer needs it, due to it NOT loosing its consciousness (which occurs with escape). In short, we don't use it/we let it be, and we no longer supply it. -(essentially) we let it be.

Once a stage achieves not-escape, it can join and be one with the other stages in not-escape.

Note: it's an intricate mental regulation: We're escaping in the bodily part, but are not-escaping in a nearby human interaction essential that supplies it (with consciousness).

Also, we know that we hold back our non-escaping-bodily-stages-that a-more-developed-human-interaction-essential has gotten into; while preferentially using minimal/basic human interaction essential to get into the new-and-escaping bodily stages. We could do this regulation by not so much holding back the more developed human interaction essential, but instead by concentrating on the supply of basic/minimal human interaction essential: -to direct it to where it is needed: -to supply it preferentially to the new bodily stages; and when a new bodily stage goes to not escape (and thus no longer needs that supply) -to then remove that supply from it and concentrate it only on the newest areas, which do need it. (However, if need be, we can restrain a not-escaping bodily stage from entering the vacuum created by escape. -(especially one that has newly achieved not-escape)) Note -also make sure that what is being supplied is basic/minimal human interaction essential, and not something more developed. Note: the newer, escaping bodily stage is kept separate from the older not-escaping bodily stages.

Realize that there are 2 thresholds: -first when we originally do a bodily action (in escape); and then when we do that same action in not-escape. Note also: -that before Jesus saves us, we are all unacceptable to God. And then after He saves us, we then ARE acceptable to God. During all those years before we were saved, we were unacceptable, and God still allowed us to exist and did not wipe us off the face of the earth, nor kept us from being born. Does then this extend to smaller parts of us, like the actions we do, especially when those actions contain a larger part of good? -Do we allow unacceptable actions to exist until they become perfected (especially when they contain a large part that is good)? Or do we go about shouting hell fire, and stamping out all that is not perfect, that is offensive to us/our religion? (Perhaps separation of the forces while not destroying the evil force we don't like, is an answer.)

When a bodily stage freshly achieves not-escape, it needs to move away (be moved away) from its original area (where escape is still occurring); so as to be separate from those things still escaping: and also, leave behind its former supply of basic human interaction essential, -directed at that area, which it no longer needs. Note: just because our not-escaping things are separate from our escaping things, doesn't mean the not escaping things cease to exist or cease to perform their action. They do act and perform. -Just separately but perhaps simultaneously from/with the escaping things. Yes, we withold our developed interaction essential (of our non-escaping stages); while we allow our basic/minimal interaction essential, into the vacuum of the current escaping stage, in order to do the current (escaping) stage; all simultaneously -(this enables us to do both the non escaping stages; and the current escaping stage, simultaneously). When the essential is complete, we satiate in it in not-escape, while continuing with new material in escape(including from inertia, from the same essential) as time goes on, with more basic/minimal human interaction essential -keeping the non-escaping, complete, satiating essential, separate from this.

So, at first we are with only the basic/minimal consciousness; in escape, in our attempts to do a current bodily stage. Then when we achieve that stage, we move it away from the escape area and away from the supply of basic/minimal consciousness. After done moving it, we cease further moving action; and continue to do this current stage, -now in not escape; -as a more developed consciousness; -and together (in oneness) with all the previous stages (-also in not escape, and more developed). Then we (even simultaneously) get into the next bodily stage, -with none of the not-escaped material, but with a good supply of basic/minimal consciousness.

Note: the previous (current) bodily stages (that have already achieved not-escape, and that are together as one), needn't protect nor restrain themselves from any actions they do in connection with each other: they only need to restrain themselves from the vacuum of the next (newest) bodily stage, which is still in escape.

Since a current bodily stage (and corresponding human interaction essential) exists without the further bodily stages; it is thus able to do without them. It might be better if the next (further) stages were present -with interrelated benefits, but where destruction is involved, a current stage's existence alone proves it is able to do without them. This is where the minimal/basic human interaction essential comes in. -It allows us to not be suspended eternally in mid essential. Since the further bodily stages aren't something we absolutely need, we escape in them. This vacuum created by this escaping, if not filled, results in us suspended in mid essential, never achieving satiation, and always bothered by the essential. If filled by the present bodily stage (with developed human interaction essential), we then loose that stage when another escape commences. But if filled by minimal/basic human interaction essential, we don't loose the present stage, and are able to eventually add the further stages in not-escape, and complete a whole, complete bodily essential.

When one of our basic/minimal human interaction essential fills the vacuum from escape in a betrayal or evil attack; that material never goes to not-escape (because it's not part of our essentials-and-our internal needs -we never feel a bodily need to be betrayed or attacked). But when our basic/minimal human interaction essential fills the vacuum from escape in a bodily essential stage; that material WILL eventually go to not-escape. Occasionally, both essentials, and evil attacks are present simultaneously. In this case, we deliver basic/minimal human interaction essential to both, evenly; where we divide up the supply of basic human interaction essential, so that no excessive vacuum in any one area is created. But remember: the material of our essential eventually moves to not-escape -no longer needing to be supplied; whereas we never move evil attacks out of escape.

Now, somewhere in between evil attacks and the bodily essentials we want and crave; is the essentials we do for others due to our human interaction essential, that we do for others but do not ourselves crave/desire. We also deliver basic/minimal human interaction essential here. Since it has some of a good thing, it contains growth, and will eventually grow and develop into something in not-escape, (unlike the material of an evil attack). But since it isn't something we need personally in a bodily way, it will take longer than the things we do crave. The thing is, that we still do this for others, with a cheerful heart; since we already freely supply basic human interaction essential to evil attacks against us: -the supplying of others is still better than the evil attacks, because it will eventually make good: so if we supply against the evil attacks that will never make good, we can be glad to supply something that will make good, even if it is not as fast as our own bodily cravings. And when it is something that is one of our bodily cravings, then we don't hold them up just because they are different from the other things, because these will also make good; and fast too.

Now, if God, the creator, is creating a supply of generic (general) consciousness -that is, consciousness that could belong to anybody, before it is assigned to specific people: then if God is willing to allow us to use it; we should use IT to fill the vacuum created by escape; thus sparing OUR basic/minimal consciousness (because ours is more developed). But of course, our basic/minimal consciousness stands by, ready to fill the vacuum, if such a supply of general, non specific consciousness (from God), isn't available. But if it is available, we use it preferentially (as OUR specific consciousness is more developed, and its loss to escape, would be the greater loss). -still, we stand ready with OUR minimal consciousness. Note that we trade our least developed consciousness, for God's even lesser developed consciousness, (and how we split the spared consciousness that is from us, is between us and God). I say this so one doesn't treat the consciousness from God as an unlimited supply that you can stick into the unpleasant aftermaths of whatever evil is in your actions: -that you must expend resources for the necessary evils you do, so that you try to avoid doing necessary evils when possible instead of whooping it up with them.

Have you ever wondered why they say 'stand up and face your problems. -don't run away'; and, 'resist not evil/turn the other cheek'? (The reason being, it prevents the creation of a vacuum.) When your hand comes into a painful situation (like a hot burner), the natural (reflex) response, is to jerk it back and away. But when a part of you escapes and gets away from a painful (destructive) situation, that leaves a vacuum (as what was there, left (escaped), and nothing returned to take its place). Obviously, we are going to escape and get away from painful situations as our natural reflex. But that then leaves a vacuum that will eternally pull on everything and anything to fill it. So, if we allow a minimal/basic consciousness to fill that vacuum (preferably one that hasn't yet developed an individual identity -as from God); while witholding all more-developed-consciousness from filling such vacuum: then this best handles the problem, I feel.

Where destruction is destroying (such as in an essential): this destroying (as well as escape from the destroying), creates a vacuum. To allow your higher more developed parts into that vacuum, brings a high capability where the forces don't separate. To deny that vacuum anything, brings desolation -where the forces also don't separate. But to deny that vacuum just your higher developed parts of the self; while allowing the minimal and non specific consciousness from God (or from your beginning parts), -brings a reduced capability where the forces DO separate. So deny this vacuum your self, but allow it the basic parts common to all. In a bodily essential (only): when growth occurs, -when we achieve the next stage, due to separation of the forces; that's when we move this material out of escape to not-escape. //////This concludes my current method of essential doing.

I would like to say a few words about betrayal. Sometimes a thought might enter your mind: would a good friend betray me or act against me behind my back? It could happen, but it also, could not-happen. Actually, it doesn't matter. The good things that you developed with your good friend, are always valid, whether there is later a betrayal or imperfection, or not. In both the development of new good things; and responding against betrayals and evil attacks, the use of basic human interaction essential is needed to bring a positive result into the vacuum created by escape (in both cases). A difference is that your basic human interaction essential keeps getting into more and more new good things, and keeps growing that; while once evil attacks and betrayals are delt with, your basic human interaction essential does not get into more of them and there is no growth in that area from you. So that while you keep growing and satisfying your needs in good things, the burden of betrayal and evil attacks is born by the betrayer and attacker, and not by you (after you've escaped and dealt with it once(no: -as needed) -It doesn't grow in you, and thus won't be bothering you or occupying you much). We outgrow the betrayals/evil attacks; as GOOD THINGS -ours and/or that of the possible betrayer, are so much more involving. With the good things: we'll be pulling many good things out of escape and into not-escape (when they're ready); -to join other good material in not-escape. But with evil attacks/betrayal, although we also do minimal human interaction essential with it, in escape; none of it is brought to not-escape to become a more developed human interaction essential, (as we have no need of it: -it never becomes one of our bodily essentials.). X)X

Note: that just like we not-escape in an essential that we need; we also (permanently) not-escape in evil-free material (which is not an essential): and only escape from (in) evil/destructive things (but only when we don't need them-unlike in an essential). So that when we finish a complete bodily essential and are satiated in it: we then escape from the evil of that essential; -but not from the good/non-evil things we were able to produce separate from the evil of said essential(using the satiation of that bodily essential to do so).

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL

Now we're nearly finished and near this book's end. The remaining writing, is miscellaneous material:

The mating of two animals, from the farmer's point of view, is an impassionate action, whereas from the animal's point of view it is a passionate action. Evolution has caused animal reproduction to take the rewards from other areas to deliver to that. (So that if we're going to take the rewards from other areas, we need to share the rewards of all areas evenly instead.)

Because of death, animals have developed a need to reproduce to replace what death has taken away. And so these animals loose (objective) control over their reproduction. But if a group of animals overproduces themselves because of this directive-to-reproduce then they'll put a strain on the resources they need to live and feed on. And this will prevent sufficient quantities of young animals from surviving after a time because all the older animals are eating all the resources and food. After the older animals eventually die off, then that society of animals suffers a marked decline for a long time until the few remaining young animals can repopulate. And so, evolution thus selects for a timely death so that animals do not live forever, but die after a time, so as to make room for the young. Evolution selects a pattern whereby cells die after a time. So that the old will be cleared away so young ones can be born to take their place. Evolution seems to have created kind of a vicious cycle. In evolution, death selects for animals that have a drive to reproduce. And in animals that have a drive to reproduce (who have lost control over their reproduction), evolution selects for death of those animals after a time.

In our high part's cycling between helping the low levels, and self indulgent directive; the cycling frequency is based on the high part's needs for its components to do both helping low levels, and self indulgence. But what if the low levels needed a longer cycle time, with a drastically-longer helping low levels from the high parts? Well, hopefully the high capability would coordinate this within itself to rotate that duty. But if circumstances, like a war with the devil or something, prevented that; then a chosen high part might have to be longer in helping low levels than was good for Him, to his own detriment. Well, yes, I could allow for a limited amount of this sacrificial way, but with restriction. You see, this way of doing things isn't the best way. We've shown that it's best for the high part to cycle at a frequency according to ITS needs, and to coordinate that with other high parts if need be. Thus for a high part to go the sacrificial way, is not to be done in totality. To the extent that the high part functions and sees themself as part of a greater whole that will later overcome this lesser way; a high part can sacrifice themself. And a high part can do their share of sacrifice. But it cannot be in totality, as this sacrificial way is a lesser way; -to be improved upon. A high part that doesn't have a complete handle on the universe, may attempt to overcome the referred to cycling dilemma in ways other than the sacrificial -where after trying other ways and failing, a higher-capability will in the end also include the sacrificial way. When a high part fails, it ceases to be a high part. It dies. But in dying (a high part ceasing to be a high part) in the sacrificial way, the former high part can still succeed and regain high part status.

-If all or many of the high parts helped out, and shared the burden, (in a non sacrificial way), there would be no need for the sacrificial way.

Now, if the high parts deliver most resources nearby the low levels, and not directly to them, then the high parts can build up a supply of resources, for a longer term low level usage. -It takes time for the low level good to grow out into this supply to be able to use it; thus giving the high parts time to generate that supply in the way that's best for them. I realize that not all helping low levels is able to do this. -The act of creating in the low levels requires direct, hands on help. But some help of low levels can be less direct, (this helps the forces separate; and also makes it easy for high parts to generate the helping-resources).

This section is the 'related Bible study' referred to earlier. Here I've recently discovered a connection to my ideas on separation of the forces, with an important Biblical passage. -Where using separation of the forces imparts a great clarity and understanding of it.

Romans 4, 15: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 7,7: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 5, 13-14: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, . . .

Here we see that sin, or evil, was in the world, with or without the law. But that what the law provides, is separation of the forces.

Romans 7, 8-13: But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.(Note the similarity in pronunciation to 'concubine'). For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

If we apply the idea that what the law provides, is separation of the forces; this all makes some sense. When the forces are separated; instead of there being one type of mixed material; -two purified, opposite materials emerge. We can see Biblical reference to this, partly in the above, where sin becomes exceeding sinful (or more purified/-not mixed). -And in the following (observe the existence now of TWO distinct forces):

Romans 7, 15-17: For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7, 21-23&25: I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members./ . . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here, the evil part still exists, as it is still present within Paul; but it is now one of two distinct entities listed here. Like it or not, here is the evidence that the Bible uses separation of the forces. And the end result is that the purified good part is saved (while of course our evil part, now in separation, dies):

Romans 8, 1-2: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Actually, it is Jesus Christ himself who does the separation of the forces according to the Bible:

Romans 8,3-4: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Note that in this separating the forces, both the good and the evil are done -that is, the evil is still present -(as opposed to preventing the evil from coming out, or eliminating it here).

In reference back to essentials: the Bible says Christ will provide for our needs. But what we do above our needs, is presumably sin. (And, at first, we escape here.) But our doing of this causes us to then need this, and then it is no longer 'sin', and thus we don't-escape here at that time.

Now I want to get into trying to find a reason why in developed countries the birth rate goes down, whereas in 3rd world countries the birthrate is so high. Of course resulting from that is kind of an 'aging of America' where the median population tends to get older whereas in 3rd world countries it stays young. I'm trying to find reasons for why this is so. When there is great wealth and things, those things then come between people and get in the way of person to person interaction. With more wealth and things available, there are more diversions which involve people working or playing with things and not with other people. For example, all the grown up toys, cars, snowmobiles, 3 wheelers, computers and games, amusement parks, scenic tours travel and movies and TV about spectacular human interactions; couples often choose to avoid the expense (in time and money) of children, so they can enjoy these other diversions instead. When a society produces a substantial quantity of things; along with those things comes an economic system to regulate and distribute these things. People then become subservient to these things.

In 3rd world countries, only a few live like kings while the majority live in poverty. But if a large number of people are going to partake of substantial material wealth, then that's a lot of work, and a large number of people will have to produce these items. So if the people who produce these items live in the same country as those who receive the items, then there is a keeping up with the Jones' mentality. But to be a have not in a developed country, is worse than being that same have not in a 3rd world country, because the expectations are so much higher in the developed country. Because so many people have a high standard of living in a developed country, a higher standard of living is required by the rules and regulations. For example, you can't just live in a shack or small building or treehouse here in America (even though proper sanitation be provided for): -building codes prohibit it. You have to have an elaborate house of a certain size so you'll be paying enough property tax. While in a 3rd world country, there is no problem to living in a shack. It takes much less work and material to build your shack but much more work, materials, and energy use to build and operate an acceptable, appliance equipped, developed country home. And if you're not wealthy, you'll be working many years doing work to pay off your developed country home, car, cloths and toys. This work prevents you from interacting freely with others (other people that is).

When a person in a developed country spends a large part of their life working in the economic system to pay for al the things one is expected to have in a developed country, good clothes a nice house, a nice car, etc etc; then there just isn't much time left for free person to person interaction. But when people don't have walls, offices, cubicles and skyscrapers and automobiles to compartmentalize everybody; then there is no 'thing' in between people to keep them apart from each other. In 3rd world countries, all there is, is people. And when people interact with people often enough, babies are the result. We may be richer in things, but people in 3rd world countries are richer in interpersonal relations. They have a network of friends and family whereby they help each other. But when we get sick or need someone, we have to pay heavily for our "friends" to help us out. And then we have to do all that much more work (often alone, or with things/artificial intelligence devices, to pay off these bills, that is from going to the doctor to seeing a shrink to having someone take care of our elders and our kids. And all this working acts even further to prevent free interaction between humans.

When an old person dies, you would expect them to pass down their accumulated wealth to their kids, but unfortunately the nursing home and medical establishment get that money instead; here in America and developed countries. With the children not being empowered, they can ill afford the expense of a large family. In developed countries, parents with good jobs are expected to put their kids through college. Parents often stop having kids because they cannot afford to put additional children through college: whereas in 3rd world countries, this is not a concern. Another way to think of this is that in developed countries, the standard of living is higher so parents have fewer children so the wealth isn't divided up too much, thus preserving the high standard of living. Whereas in 3rd world countries there is little wealth to divide up between offspring or high standard of living to preserve. But whether the requirements and expectations we spend our time filling; or the diversions and toys of developed countries; or just the desire to preserve and pass on a higher standard of living; or just the effect of things and buildings getting in between people to people interaction: it seems that developed countries have a lower birth rate than 3rd world countries; thus leading to an aging population in our case and Japan's case. Because of the anomaly of the baby boom and the aging and retirement of the baby boom, resources are consumed by these retirees (thus squeezing out a young family's ability to afford a large family), and maintains a high demand on goods and services; while there are few replacement young workers to supply that demand. The few young people in this society are well sought after and would soon be paid highly (if business could afford to do so) because they are in such short supply. Our society can't afford to let people sit around on welfare anymore. But even if robots are built to supply the needs of an aging population who are too old to work in hard factory jobs themselves; this system is just not sustainable. -Eventually the old people die off or become senile. And this system of preventing interpersonal interaction, comes to an end. (And as the baby boom dies off, their demand for goods and services will disappear; thus workers will not be needed so much. Thus a hard recession comes, with no safety net, since welfare was axed. -Perhaps the rich (business) leaders would like to kill off the elderly baby boomers so the shortage of workers during boomer retirement (thus giving workers an upper hand over management) doesn't last long; perhaps by provoking Arab countries into releasing biological weapons in the US: -the germs preferentially killing off the elderly retirees.)

In the system where every transaction is based on master / servant dictatorship; cooperation is not learned well, whereas in societies with more equality between participants, cooperation IS learned. And there, interpersonal relations become fuller, more valuable, thus edifying life first, over inanimate objects.

Aids will have an effect on this aging of America. Aids will exacerbate this situation whereby all the young people are in 3rd world countries whereas all the old people are in the developed countries. Aids will kill off the adults in the 3rd world countries down to pre adolescence before youngsters become sexually active. This will make room for a nation full of young people. As these young people become sexually active, they (as a nation) will be able to hold their won against Aids, because they will be having babies. And the babies produced without Aids will replace those killed off by Aids. In developed countries, however, Aids will further turn off sexual interaction so that they will have no chance to replace the old with young new babies (unless they develop some in vitro cloning program with numbers tattooed under their skin to tell them apart).

What I want to talk about now, is what we can do as an individual. Larger groups are made of individuals. But oftentimes a larger group will take steps to control its individuals and keep them in line so that the group functions smoothly so that the leaders of the group can have a free hand and power. In response, those individuals who are sanctioned have little recourse. The individual is much weaker than the group and can do little against it. But what I've been searching for, is a way so that the individual can escape a group that seeks to control its individuals and keep them in line. What needs to be done, is to have a better alternative so that an individual can drop a bad group and join a better group that instead of seeking to control and keep its individuals in line, seek to better and enrich its individuals. This takes advantage of the individual's ability to decide for themself what they like or dislike and to go with what they like. A group should be suited to that ability of individual choice. We wish to free individuals from belonging to groups that they don't want to be in. And the way that we as individuals do this, is not to individually take on these bad groups, but for us as individuals to form a good group that does not overpower its individuals but instead enriches them: and then we with that group, then through our group, take on this bad group and free the individuals who are trapped in it. That means we as individuals have to get together and form a group and create an alternative to the bad group, so that individuals trapped in bad groups: all they have to do is drop the bad group and join our group. Its the nature of competition: if you don't like one way you can join a different way, an alternative way. So, if we as individuals are going to get together and form a group, we want for it to be a good group and therefore we must devise ways of getting together that prevent our group from becoming a controlling and overpowering group. We must devise ways of building a group that guard against this. Once we have created a good group, we can use that group to do all manner of things. There is one set of things that needs to be worked on right away either through the group or individually. We as individuals are trapped or ensnared in our essentials. It behooves us to free us from this trap. This means that once we've established a safeguarded good group, that one of the first orders of business is to make sure everybody is satisfied in their essentials or that we be working on this task. Because if we try to function as a good group while neglecting the freeing our individuals from their trap of essentials, then we will have a bunch of trapped individuals trying to function together as a group. So that our group will not function well because our individuals, being trapped, themselves cannot function well, or have much to pool together as a group. In our creating of a good group, we need to devise rules of getting together and expressing ourselves, so that everybody has a chance. And this is one of the safeguards against any one person or small group, dominating the group. If we make everyone a part of the group in equal measure, then there's no way that the group can be dominated by a few individuals. Yes, this is the type of group we're trying to build: one that is not dominated by a few individuals; where all have equal participation abilities. An idea I had in mind, was that people who wanted to speak and address the group would line up and each person would get say 5 or 10 minutes to express their views and then if they had more to say they would have to go to the end of the line and wait their turn again. (this could be done electronically).

If we are successful in forming a group then there's always going to be a bunch of people who are going to try to become leaders and try to dominate the group. And this is what we must be constantly guarding against and thwarting against. It's the way our group functions and how it's put together. We must create avenues to borrow resources from each other and share resources in a way whereby everyone has an equal opportunity and equal use of them. And I think its good to have an option and opportunity to do work for others in the group and help the projects of others and receive credit for this, and then use that credit to then get the group to do what you want for a moment whereby the credit you built up would be expended.

I have an idea on our voting for political office, when there is more than 2 candidates. I think it would be better if we could vote for more than one candidate. Like for president, there may be several candidates that are acceptable to us, but now we have to pick just one. Like, perhaps there are two candidates with similar positions, and a third, with an opposing, extreme position. Even if most of the people preferred the position of the two similar candidates; they would have to choose between the two candidates, and would thus split their vote. So that it is possible, probable, that in this situation, the more popular position looses out to the less popular, extremist position, due to the splitting of the vote. A remedy to this, is to allow voters to vote for more than one candidate that was acceptable to them. Or, a category for second choice could be included in the ballot, where voters could vote for additional candidates that were acceptable to them: where if, when the second choice votes were taken into account along with the first choice votes, -when they indicated that another candidate had equaled or surpassed the first choice winner: that a runoff election between just those candidates, would be warranted. -Where all voters would cast only one vote, but would vote to eliminate one candidate, and the candidate with the least 'kill' votes would win the election, even if that meant unseating the first choice vote winner. Or perhaps this could be done in a single election by allowing each voter one vote for the candidate of their choice, plus one kill vote for the candidate of their choice, where the candidate with the greatest kill votes would be eliminated from consideration, even if they had the most popular votes, and then from the remaining candidates, the one with the most popular votes would be the winner.

Now, I get into other subjects. If we choose to satisfy our essentials, we do whatever we do to satisfy them, but once we are full; like, take for example 'eating': you eat when you're hungry; but after awhile you become full and then you stop eating (for awhile), and you get hungry again, and you eat, you get full, and you stop eating, again. The idea is that we're inconsistent because we start to satisfy an essential and then we stop (when we're full). We just don't keep eating or keep satisfying the essential. -If it were a good action, it would never end and it could keep growing. Which brings up an idea: well we could satisfy our essentials by taking a small amount of nourishment constantly -never having enough to satisfy us, but just enough to keep us going vs the idea of eating your full and then stopping for awhile. In one case we always feel a certain amount of hunger, although it's not overpowering, while in the other case we cycle between being very hungry, and not hungry at all (for a moment). What I would say is that the cycling way is better because of the variability. If we always have a constant level of hunger; that sort of is a system of stagnation where we maintain a balance of stagnation: Whereas if you have the variability of hunger and then being full -for a moment, there you are free from your essential: and that gives you a chance to possibly work your way out of your essential and/or other things. (And since we are at reduced capability because we are forced into these essentials: it is this variability that we need to provide a possibility of good getting out (I refer back to how the force of good overcomes the force of evil in the long hard road in the beginning).

Recently I heard on the talk radio about addiction therapy and how people can get real help if they are addicted to things like sex. Well, that's kind of like saying you are addicted to air, or food. All these things we're tied to our essentials, in that our bodies require them (in varying degrees). We have been trapped of these essentials since the beginning of recorded time, and the problem hasn't been overcome yet. To casually claim to have a solution to be free of these, is, frankly, unrealistic. To claim that one set of rules to satisfy the sexual urge is right; while other ways are wrong: well; you know what I say: maybe just maybe, instead of the people who don't follow the rules being wrong; maybe the rules themselves are incorrect. It's just that our way of escape attempt from this essential, involves some feeding of the 'lusts of the flesh' and some breaking the established rules. A plan that fails to incorporate our escape attempt; and that fails to protect us from the destructive force in our bodies when we obey (which leaves us at less life, and therefore being in the downward direction); is a plan itself that we may be needing to be delivered from. -Because we are life, and as life, will be looking to go in the upward direction. ie up with life. But then, there is the allure and also valid possibility that we must die to remove evil, and then we can be resurrected free from evil. But then, we will die eventually anyway if we fail to totally overcome evil, and are thus guaranteed this possibility in the end anyway. And thus we can use our life to also try escape in the upward direction, and then in the end, if we fail and die, we also try the death possibility. The only thing we need do, is to avoid/work against stagnation.

Some people have the idea that people who are different should be separated from each other, and that superior beings should not have to serve or help the lower forms of life and that they should be separated from each other, and that superior beings should not have to serve or help the lower forms of life and that they should be the master and the inferior being should be the slave. Well, what about Parental Supremacy? I think you would agree that parents are superior in almost every way to children -they are more powerful, more capable; and therefore should be entitled to the goods of this earth, while the inferior youngsters should be subservient. So this action by superior parents to actually spoon feed their youngsters and the practice of the superior female parent of actually giving part of her body in the form of milk: and in the coddling of these inferior youngsters, just doesn't fit in with the superiority of the superior being. And what is more different than a man from a woman? The idea that they should be allowed to actually live together just goes against this idea of separating people who are different. What I want to say is: that just because someone is more powerful and superior (supposedly), to someone else, doesn't mean they can't help out those who are not as well off as they are. In fact those superior beings who don't realize the value, life sustaining force, and necessity of helping out the lower levels; are but a blip on the horizon of life; an anomaly that will soon be escaped from.

I have to admit, that if it weren't for religion and its constant exhortations against the desires of the flesh; I would probably still think nothing of my eating and lovemaking. I don't know if I ever would have stumbled onto the fact that essentials are a problem. But after religion had alerted me, and after some thought on the matter, I realized that there is a problem with essentials. -That there is a destructive force in our essentials (especially our eating). Religion did not cause this. But it did alert me to the problem. That being said, I have to say that that's the best religion has to offer. The solution to the problem of essentials, is something we all must try to achieve; as we have no choice: like it or not, we all are beset with our essentials.

Another thing I've been in the dark about, is the concept of being a "Co dependent", as espoused by therapy gurus. Recently I've caught a glimpse of its meaning. The concept is for your happiness to depend on your partner in a relationship. -Like a spouse asking: "Honey, how am I feeling today?" And that instead of being co-dependent and looking to your partner for your strength when your partner is down; you should find strength independently (within yourself) so you can then boost your partner. (Well, I see a streak of independence here.) It's like people who depend on each other so strongly for their own needs, that when one goes down, they both go down. Well, yes, I agree it would be nice if we all were able to be free of our essentials; and that we would have enough inner strength to be happy on our own, without needing to depend on our partner. But that's not always the case in the real world. Some people ARE dependent too much on their partner. Once again, the greatest help this therapy concept provides, I feel, is alerting people who are so used to their essentials and co-dependence: that there is a better way and that this way is not desirable.

But just because there is a force of evil in an area, doesn't diminish the goodness of the good things (such as loving and being loved by your partner). Now, it is true that you should not take that force of good and feed it to a force of evil. -But this is only if you can help it. If you're forced into having the forces of good and evil together (either way), then you'll just have to experience that and its corresponding stagnation, until you can work your way out of it. And if that violates ethics, therapy suggestions, commandments and morals while you are working out of it, then so be it.

When destruction (in the form of punishment) is used as a motivator; they say do this, or we'll destroy you. do that or we'll destroy you. do the other thing or we'll destroy you. Eventually, the list of things you must do to prevent them from destroying on you becomes so complex and burdensome that it itself destroys on you as much or more than their threatened destruction for not obeying them. And to top it all off, you're going to die (be destroyed) anyway whether you obey or disobey. Do not do destruction's work for it, by destroying yourself through obeying their orders. Do not give the force of destruction the benefit of the doubt. Do not believe it is as powerful as it claims (threatens). If it's going to destroy you either way (obey or disobey), make it work for its prize. Express your dislike of it by making it work for its prize; by not working for it; by acting to get separate and away from it; by standing apart from it, trying to create a better alternative system.

On one hand, we have all the orders to do this and that. On the other hand we have one thing -destruction. After awhile, the orders become so numerous and difficult that it's often easier to just deal with the destruction and forget all the orders. If you learn how to deal with the destruction, you can save yourself much bother. And if you learn to fill all the orders, you may learn how to deal with the destruction.

Now I wish to express my new idea on fighting viral and bacterial infections. The thing about bacteria and viruses, is that they live to multiply rapidly, whereas, the much larger human cells, do not multiply so rapidly. Thus, the bacteria and viruses replicate their DNA a lot whereas this is not so much the case in human cells. From this, I see differing nutritional requirements of human cells, vs, bacteria and viruses; in that viruses and bacteria would need a good supply of the nucleotide bases (purines and pyrimidines) that are the building blocks of DNA; while human cells would not so much. So that if we could cause the food that we eat to be poor in these constituents, that would make our body a poorer environment for (most) bacteria and viruses, while allowing our human cells to thrive. But the foods that we eat are mostly from the cells of other living organisms, as we eat the tissues of other plants or animals. Those cells contain their own chromosomal DNA, their mitochondrial DNA, and RNA, along with everything else in each cell. When we ingest these tissues, all is digested and broken down, including the DNA material of those tissues. Now since our body doesn't need all the excess DNA material, it is mostly eliminated. But in its passage through our body, I presume that it makes an attractive environment for the growth of bacteria and viruses. Now, if we could somehow remove that DNA material from our foods before we ate them, we might prevent our bodies from being a good environment for bacteria and viruses. But what foods would fit this bill? Well, cheese comes to mind. Cheese is a condensation product, whereby the milk proteins are condensed out of the milk as the curds, thus leaving all the rest of the material behind in the solution (the whey). And if you think about cheese, you will recall that it can sit out and it doesn't readily spoil. (It does mold, but mold is a fungus, which is made of the larger eukariotic cells like our own, and not like the smaller prokariotic bacterial cells.) Tofu is a similar condensation product of soy protein, that is also free of the fat that in cheese one can be allergic to in milk products. Yogurt, and cottage cheese may also be a similar products. Products of plants that have been processed to remove the germ (like corn starch and wheat starch), I would think would be low in DNA materials, since those would presumably be concentrated in the germ (for the growth of the new seedling). Likewise, eggwhites I would guess, would also be low, as they would be more in the yolk (for the development of the young chick). I would guess that boiling meats or plant materials in water, and then throwing out the water, might extract some of the DNA. I have also read that 1 Molar table salt solution will extract the DNA nucleaoproteins from tissue samples. Thus eating pickled things may be good. ›(However, to extract RNA, 1 Molar is too strong, and it needs .1 Molar.) There is a relation to the disease of gout here. Gout results from a buildup of uric acid in the body and joints, which is a break-down product of the purine part of DNA. Organ meats like liver and such are high in purines, and gout sufferers are told to avoid them (along with legumes such as peas). So we should also avoid these foods for our reason -things like balony, hot dogs, etc. Gout causes joint pain. So does arthritis. Arthritis can have a bacterial root, in that it is one's own immune system attacking a bacterial toxin-antibody complex that has settled in the joints, in an inflammatory response. (the symptoms of which can be relieved by the anti inflammatory action of ibuprofen.) Remove the bacterial infection, and stop the progression of the rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, diet used to control gout, may also help eliminate bacteria, and thus stop arthritis.

Just think. This is a simple idea (cut raw meats up. soak in .1 M salt. then soak in 1M salt. discard soak water. also, boiling meats a long time in water twice and discarding the gravy water also seems to work well). But if it were to pan out, just think of the scope of the potential good it could do. Unfortunately, this would be quite inexpensive, and would eliminate the need for the medical profession to perform (money making) services. Put all the scientists in labs working on medical breakthroughs on one side, and compare them to little ol me, with just a few thoughts to kick around, and perhaps I don't come out so bad after all.

We have many rights under the rules which govern human behavior. But some of these hinder our getting together and forming good groups. Property ownership prevents (under penalty of law), all but the owner from having access to the property in question. But I think it would be nice if there were to exist, a club that people could join, where the rules over property ownership were a little bit more lax. -The pushy people bend and break these rules already: why should we more timid, poor, and minority people be hindered by these rules? The rich hob knob with each other and share and borrow each others goods at their convenience because they have more than they could ever use, whereas the poor would be suspected of stealing if they did the same. I do not care for the pushy people to have the advantage in getting together with people. I do not like it when they run this world and my life. So I was thinking it would be nice for the poor to have a club to join where they could share their goods among each other. Here is how I think such a club should operate:

People of the club would be given a list of the other members and where they lived. Club members, after identifying themselves, would be allowed to enter and make themselves at home in another member's home. They would be allowed to eat whatever was available, but would not be allowed to cook anything, or use any dishes unless they brought their own. They would not be allowed to ask if they could cook anything; and only if the host offered to cook something would they be allowed to answer. There would be no sanction for violating this part of the club rules, but it would be understood that this was expected, and that violation indicated that the guest was being rude./ There would be a 4 visit rule. If a member visited another member's home 4 times, then the host member would have the right to refuse that guest without loosing their membership, unless someone else in that household wanted them to visit -whence membership would be revolked for refusal to allow visit. (Each visit, the guest would be required to sign in with the date, on a single visitor registry maintained by the host.) Otherwise, refusing a guest results in loss of membership for two years (if the guest reports it). As for the sharing of tools and equipment, no tools or equipment may leave the premises, and must be used on the premises. This club would not cover the sharing of automobiles or other vehicles to be used OFF the premises: that is left for discussion between members. Members would be encouraged not to discuss the borrowing of cars while visiting, but only later after they had left, on the phone. Working on your car on premises is allowed, but for courtesy's sake, ask permission -remember the 4 visit rule. If you break it, you are expected to replace/repair it -but this applies to tools and equipment, not household plumbing. If you do not replace/repair it, and it can be proved that you broke it, you loose your membership for 2 years. Don't steal. If it is proved that you stole something of over a 25 dollar value, your membership is permanently revoked. And even if it can't be proved, remember the 4 visit rule. No people who work in law enforcement are allowed to be a member, and must join their own exclusively law enforcement group. Doing laundry is allowed, but not encouraged (ask permission. pay a fee worked out between the guest and host for each load if you wish to avoid the 4 visit rule), and you cannot use the host's laundry or dishwashing detergent in any case. -Remember the 4 visit rule. I would like to see tolerance of a short 10 minute shower (10 minutes of water running time), whereby the showerer pays the host 50 cents per shower, and brings their own towels. Showering is allowed iregardless, but remember the 4 visit rule. No overnight hosting is required, and the guest is expected to leave after 10 PM unless other arrangements have been made. A guest cannot visit without the host being present. So, that is how I would see such a club running.

(Do not let the system of money and the rules of property and ownership over inanimate things, keep you isolated and alone; and keep you from coming together in groups. For if you divide (and isolate) yourselves as individuals, you'll surely be conquered and enslaved even more than you are naturally. -There is advantage in sticking together in a group, against the whiles of cunning businessmen who feed off the conquered's labors.

Another club, a sub-group of the previous club, might be started to accommodate we huggy feely people who like to hug and hold each other.

Recently, I've been provoked into responding to the Columbine shooting. Newspaper articles come out and blame musical groups and TV/internet sex and violence for the problem. They then claim that we should crack down on students to instill morality, insist on conformity and stamp out student non conformist expression. One paper was even appalled that students there were allowed to wear sunglasses to class. Well, all I have to say, is that for a student to wear sunglasses to class, or dress a certain way; would not cause quite as much uproar as for a student to go around shooting. Compare the two. I don't think it would have even made the papers if a student wore sunglasses to class. Why do we find a student shooting others so much more abhorrent than a student wearing sunglasses to class? Dah. I think its because one is much more destructive of life than the other. But what is life? Life is more than just the physical structure of our bodies. Our life, is also our thoughts and consciousness and their expression. To crack down on students and force them to conform to dress codes and the like, is destructive to that thought life. To bully and force people into your way of doing and thinking, is a destructive act. Students shooting others is a destructive act. I abhor all destruction. Both that of the Columbine shooting; and the bullying others into conformity to what you think is right. Now sometimes destruction is a necessary evil. But until it is clearly shown how destroying a student's ability to wear sunglasses in class, stops school shootings, I can't call that a necessary evil. And as for morality: perhaps the students who shot others (a destructive act), lacked morality. But those who bully others into conformity (also a destructive act -destructive to (thought) life) claim to be quite moral. So I don't see how morality has an effect one way or the other: destructiveness continues to reign freely either way. (Although, any action to separate the forces is valuable even if it doesn't eliminate destruction's presence. -yet here, these moral people's morals don't condemn their destructiveness to thought life, and thus don't help separate the forces.) What I'd like to see is a morality that was more concerned with being against destructiveness (all forms), instead of focusing so much on human sexuality. "They strain at the gnat while letting the camel pass through."

Now then. It is the end. The Church of Philosophy recognizes that no one person has all the insights; and now welcomes you to add your own ideas and thoughts. Realizing how difficult it is to get published in today's world, let alone making any money off being an author writing your own mind. The unibomber blew up people to get his manuscript published. We hope our way is much less destructive. (Although, if you depend on the organized systems to do your thinking for you, this writing may be as explosive to your thought life, as any real explosive. But then, is that my fault for pointing out the errors of the system, or the system's for making them, or yours for not catching them? I won't answer that one.) People make money selling books in bookstores, but somehow, I don't think authors get much of that money. So, perhaps this vehicle will change that. There is at this point, plenty of room on this disk; and room enough for your ideas if you have that inkling to share ideas. So, just add a file on after the last file to add your material. Thanx.

Roy S. writes:

MODIFIED:

Through the Eyes of a Child

When young, we look out of ourselves upon an unknown, undefined world. We don't know what's beyond the next line of trees and so it might be anything. Part of growing up is defining what we see. In this way, we learn to recognize things, place them into catagories, and so know without seeing what something is and often even what lies beyond it.

Yet, we are burdened with enforcing the boundaries we set. We must see what we expect, or somehow reconcile why we didn't. The unexpected is a threat. We fall into fight or flight. What we cannot fight, we flee. We can't fight reality but we can flee it by denying it.

The horizon extends around me for 360 degrees. So it is because so it has been defined. But how if it extended 400 or 720 or even 10,000 degrees? Would I even know?

Look out a window at the familiar scene outside. Look, knowing as you do, what is around the corner or beyond the trees. Then look again through the eyes of a child, pretending for the moment that you don't know. Feel the wonder return. Feel the joy in living surge up again within you.

What have we done to ourselves?

Here is the second part of my book.

HOW WOMEN HAVE GOTTEN THE SHORT END OF THE STICK FROM

HISTORY.

Life poses a whole new dimension compared to the inanimate. But life on earth isn't the best. Along with life on earth, is death. Without anything to compensate for the transient nature of life; life would soon vanish from earth. But not to worry; we have birth: Life on earth reproduces itself and creates new life. (This replaces what death takes away.)

In more developed animals, the initiation of this reproduction, takes the form of sex. (It is important then for higher animals on earth to have sex, so as to carry on their species and DNA. Animals on earth that don't have a need for sex, eventually all die off with no replacements; thus leaving only animals who do have sex.

›No Religion, can totally eliminate sex; as a religion that successfully eliminated sex, would die off with its people, on earth -where animals do not live forever (oops: cloning now makes this possible). So when religion allows you sex in marriage in the bonds of holy matrimony; they aren't necessarily being generous: they're forced to allow this for their own continuation and survival.›

If someone told me that sex had little effect on them (that they disliked sex); I'd be skeptical. It is our genetic makeup that determines a lot of what we are. It is our DNA that makes a mother's next baby a human, and not a space blob or apple tree. In a human's development in the womb, there's even DNA coding for a person's reproductive system. And even DNA that codes for the enervation of the reproductive system with the pleasure centers of the brain.

›It's hard to say what form our pleasure would take if life weren't forced by the need to reproduce; but this is irrelevant, because life on earth is forced to reproduce (or vanish): and our pleasure is tied to the task of reproduction.›

If there are any genetic or environmental (ex, family environment) factors passed from generation to generation; concerning the like or dislike of sex, then those factors coding for liking sex will be passed on, because sex leads to babies and a new generation. But those factors for disliking sex won't be passed on because a person who dislikes sex avoids having sex, and doesn't pass those genes or lifestyle on. Thus from generation to generation over history, there is a genetic bias for the liking of sex to be amplified. With each passing generation, this bias continues.

The temporary disabling nature of human childbirth has had its effect on women over history. Some of us are ambitious and competitive and some of us aren't. Those men and women who were ambitious, fought to make themselves master, throughout history. Each time an ambitious woman became pregnant, she was disabled for at least 3 months. The loss of 3 months may not seem like much, but over time/history, and over a whole population, it adds up. And then every month there is the period. In the old days before pads, this would take attention away from ones effort to better oneself. These factors over time, enabled ambitious men to get ahead of ambitious women, thus creating a male dominated society. And to the victor goes the spoils. The male, being master, set the work of raising the children solely upon the female. The fact that it is the mother who delivers the milk, and baby, also helped bring this about. With the woman busy taking care of the kids, this enabled men to further advance in leaderhood mastership and control over the resources needed to live and survive. (Even today, the 'mommy track' is a slower track.)

In the area of reproduction; male control over all resources, translated into men having a choice but women not having a choice. In the past, a woman had no choice about whether to marry and raise a family. It was her only way to survival. The man had the money and the job, and the choice whether to marry or not. If a man didn't like sex or was indifferent about sex, he was not forced to marry, and wasn't denied access to the resources of survival. Thus the dislike or indifference toward sex was weeded out (not passed on) in men. But whether a woman was indifferent toward sex, or not, it made no difference; as she was expected to marry and have a family to survive. Her survival was tied to this. Thus a woman did not have a choice, and the indifference to sex, instead of dropping out, was passed on, as indifferent women were forced to marry, have sex, and bear children; to survive.

Men and women have a slightly different genetic makeup. Men have that different Y chromosome that makes them men while women have another copy of the X. And obviously, some different genes are turned on to create a male, than a female. Because of the difference in the genetics, it's possible for men to have genes coding for a like of sex, while this not being as well expressed in women. -It is possible to have somewhat different responses to sex, reflecting many generations of men having choice and women not. Thus it can be said men constantly have sex on the brain while women can be passive to it. Being slaves to sex, is the price men pay for having been boss and running things for generations.

As an aside note learned from class: 'Concerning the mating position: Female animals don't have much choice when they get it from behind. Humans are the only ones who mate face to face; and thus the greater ability for choice in the human female compared to animals'.

Now that we've come a long way with women's lib, and women are no longer forced to marry to have a decent life, so much. Women now have more choice. If this keeps up over a number of generations, women will like sex just as much as the men do. Just ask some of the younger women.

Birth control is another way women can have choice over their destinies. Women who are indifferent about sex and/or don't want the bother of raising kids; can use birth control to obtain these goals; thus not passing these traits on, (genetically or in a family structure). If we experience women's liberation and equality of men and women over generations; women will come to like sex just as much as the men do. So here's a real good reason for human males to support equal rights for women.

MORE ON THE SOURCES OF SEXUAL DESIRE: AND RELATED ISSUES.

Because we all die eventually, and our women can no longer have offspring after menopause; those who lack reproductive desire will not pass these (their) genes on, including the genes influencing sexual desire. Yes, to have offspring and pass genes on, it's beneficial for two people to get together, get along, cooperate and help each other (raise a family). If people were all nice and friendly (everyone loved each other); then any pair could get together and raise a family. But when things aren't so rosy; where the trap of evil causes us to do necessary cruelties to each other; we could still carry on. With the help of sexual desire, people who don't cooperate well or get along well, can get together for a moment; continue the species; and this system of reduced capability. When survival time is short in a harsh environment, sexual desire can cause a species to reproduce enough offspring to make up for those killed off. Rabbits (bunnies) and mice, which have a lot of predatory pressure, are highly fecund to make up for these losses.

So sexual desire is a crutch that systems of low capability and togetherness of good and evil depend on to survive. (It's not that heightened sexual desires wouldn't exist in systems of freedom from evil; it's just there'd also be equally heightened desires, and doing, of every other good thing. The reproduction of life, (which is part of growth and the force of good), wouldn't be forced by a need to keep up with what death took away.

Earthworms are hermaphroditic; which means an individual has both male and female reproductive organs. However, evolution has found it advantageous for organisms to specialize. In most higher animals, an individual is either male or female. One group of the 'society' (the females) works on reproduction; while the other group (the males) works on the other tasks of survival. Specialization is another crutch used to survive the trap of evil of reduced capability.

Note that traditional evolution / survival of the fittest mentality, operates at low, reduced capabilities, in the trap of evil. There is an alternative of high capability free from evil, where the "laws" of evolution don't apply. -Failure to help all things, even those not as fit, results in incompatible interrelated needs-and-supplies unto reduced capability. If we helped all things we might escape reduced capability to where these evolutionary laws don't apply.

-The advancement that survival-of-the-fittest makes against one hardship, (in breeding better animals to cope with the hardship); is lost when the selection factor changes with time. When a new hardship comes along, and when the hardships keep changing over much time; the solutions for the previous hardships found by evolution are lost, because they're no longer selected for, while some other factor is. So when a hardship comes back a second time, after a few thousand years, no genes are left from the first time, and the problems have to be solved all over again. Thus time, in focusing on hardships and constantly changing its focus on hardships, wipes out the gains made by evolution, which is thus a reduced-capability phenomenon. (Survival of the fittest indicates that there is destruction and death, (and thus togetherness with the force of destruction/evil), as the weak (and young) are weeded out and killed off. This assumes togetherness with evil to kill off the weak.) Thus the phenomenon of evolution never leads us out of reduced capability. (Togetherness with death and destruction IS reduced capability.) To solve all the problems, we need all the solutions simultaneously in our genes. And the evolution phenomenon doesn't help to get us there (out of reduced capability) very well.

When at high capability, specialization gives way to versatility; where we still do what we once specialized in: just that we do so along with everything else.

The visual attraction to a man(1), and to a woman(2), both in our genes, is part of this sexual reproduction. If you are a man, #2 got turned on; if a woman, #1 got turned on, in your fetal development. But nature isn't always perfect. Sometimes #1 or #2 gets turned on when it should be the other. The Bible condemns homosexuality, but then it condemns all sexual desire (bit by bit). Nevertheless, we are all of the human generation, beset with sexual desire in one form or another: and although homosexuality is an imperfection in nature's design, all sexual desire is an imperfection in God's design that we all must deal with before we join God. Thus homosexuality is an imperfection of an imperfection. Not quite so bad after all. In my 'coming out', Alas, I would have to "come out" as a heterosexual.

Chapter 8

Our essentials; sex; and religion.

The question comes to mind "Is there a God or not?" But whether there exists a fogoHC or not, the choice is clear to believe in and worship the fogoHC, in either case. If there isn't a fogoHC, we still worship and seek togetherness with the fogoHC because: 1) It releases resources within us through our own faith and allows us to do what we can in this bleak situation. 2) Because when a fogoHC is created at a later date, They will be interested in resurrecting those who were interested in joining with Them.

On the other hand: if there is a God and He has provided a way for us to escape suffering and reduced capability; it makes no sense to wallow around in it and try to get out in our own strength. If we know the way to get in touch with God, we should do so so we don't suffer this reduced capability.

There are some things the fogoHC doesn't do. And there are many areas the fogoHC does get into.

If you avoid retaliating with evil, against evil attacks upon you; and instead get into surrounding God supported areas: If you do what 'God' wants, but it doesn't work out (›if no Godly parts are generated when destruction destroys a part of you›) -(if you're not sure of the existence of God); then you must cover the possibility that there is no God, and do all you can, including necessary evils to escape the stagnation and disrupt the balance of their stagnant system. But still note that doing necessary evils and standing and fighting is only part of our solution to evil attacks, even in a world without God. There is also the action of escaping and getting away from the evil attack. Since this does no destruction, it (might have been) suitable in both a world without God and in a world with God. Whereas the action of fighting works in a world without God; but must be dropped in a world with a God who believes in loving your enemies.

First try to get in touch with God to rescue you; and if that fails, then go ahead and include fighting and counter attacks. But don't relish it, and don't spend a lot of time with it. Even in a world without God: God will likely be created in the future; and this can still be accomplished by people who only use escape; although it may take a bit longer than from people who use both escape and fighting. But it will still happen. And when a God of love resurrects us all, he won't be wanting to get together with those of us who do a lot of fighting and destruction; until that destruction is cast away. So don't invest a lot of your life in plotting and planning in this destructive area, as you will loose it, and will have to loose it in your life with God.

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires.

1 John 3, 9-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God*.

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (loving the brethren almost a secondary consideration: thus righteousness may involve more than loving your brother; or John may just be mirroring righteousness alongside love to define it better, and/or apply it to the sexual area).

*(But note the connection between 'BORN of God', and, 'His seed remaineth in him', for a different and better interpretation. Yet perhaps both interpretations are valid and were intended. Or perhaps not.)/ (And when you're married to someone, you become one flesh, so the man's seed still remains in him so to speak. ›You are not forced to grow to join a new partner (done sexually), but once you do, you must love them in all ways, not just sexually›.)

My word processor thesaurus defines righteousness as morality, probity, rectitude, and virtuousness. And virtuousness it defines as the condition of being chaste, or chastity. For chaste it defines as morally beyond reproach, especially in sexual conduct. Note the similarity in spelling between the word rectitude and rectum. Also note the similarity in spelling between probity and probe; as in a stiffened, erect probe. And what is more clear than "his seed remaineth in him", in reference to not sinning. Of course, the verse can be interpreted to mean God's seed remains in the person born of god, and this is what I prefer, but it also can be interpreted the other way (or both ways). Its just all the other references against sex, that have a cumulative effect leading me to believe the religious significance placed on 'keeping your seed in you', and 'keeping yourself'.

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires. Why? What's wrong with sex? What does it hurt?

Well, just think of it. It is a method of communication, to communicate a lifestyle that God wants. Everyone is touched by sexual desires. Thus it is a common element that we can use to easily communicate a certain lifestyle to everyone.

And what lifestyle? Well, sexual desire can be quite intense and quite compelling and overwhelming. The drive to reproduce the species is one not easily set aside; seeing that those who are successful, and who die off, don't pass those "successful" genes on.

A more easily explained situation, is that of the drug addict. The pleasure is so intense and overwhelming, that they're desperate and would do anything to get their next fix: -lie, steal, rob, mug, etc. When the urge to get something is so strong and overwhelming (as it is with sex or drugs), that a person would do anything to obtain these growths: they would do "necessary" destructions (evils) to obtain these things. If we include and allow harm in our ways, we can obtain things quicker and easier. The lifestyle being communicated, is to abstain from using harm in our ways, even if it means doing without the growth (until we are ready for the growth -are able to obtain the growth without harm in our ways). -Of course, if harm occurs whichever way we go, then this doesn't matter, and can be disregarded.

(The word SIN itself can be seen as an abbreviation for "its in", as in the pole "is in" the hole.)

1 John 2, 16-17: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

The statement that the lust of the flesh and eye, is of the world, is true. Sexual desire it is logical, comes from many generations dying and only those genes coding for greater sexual desire being passed on. (And death isn't God's idea.) It's a result of death and the reduced capability stagnation of our world, where most everyone eventually dies. But doing God's will is the tricky part.

If you vacate your will out of most of an area, so God can do what He wills with it, then God's will has been done in this large area from you that was vacated; (and if it wasn't, you are not to blame for this large vacated area, as it now belongs to God). Of course, when you get to the point where you know exactly what God's will is, and are up to doing it, and YOU do it; that too is acceptable.

Over many generations of humans being subjected to death and the necessity to reproduce to replace what death took away; has had its effect on us; in that our genes code for the liking of sex, or sexual desire.

How does our body draw us toward sex? Well, presumably, our body could deny us its normal function, and irritate us until sexual release is achieved. In other words, without sexual release, our body puts itself into reduced capability (in failing to deliver needed brain chemicals). I hear that female ferrets die if they are not able to mate. This sucks. Reduced capability is what we're trying to avoid and escape from in the first place. The reduced capability of us/our bodies doing necessary evils in sexual release; and the reduced capability our bodies put us in when we abstain from sexual release; are both what I suggest we try to avoid. Abstinence is no answer in my book. Religion (our religious tradition) could be fatal, if you happen to be a female ferret.

We, by ourselves, are in reduced capability, the trap of evil. To holler at us and expect us to get out of reduced capability is frustrating, because we're mostly unable to do it in our own strength. (Only 1 in 7 billion will escape, to eventually create the fogoHC.) (Why do you think I call it the TRAP of evil?) No, we need HELP to get out on a regular basis. Help from God. Help from Jesus Christ.

When I live in reduced capability / the trap of evil, all I can do, is stagnation. In stagnation, there's no growth and life isn't much different from the inanimate and the dead. To me, this reduced capability and stagnation is eternal death. So, if a religion gives me a choice between eternal death and eternal death, I will choose the path that has the best chance of getting out of this reduced capability trap of evil and almost certain eternal death.

We are who we are. We didn't ask to be part of a world where death is a fact of life. But that's our situation. Because we are human; our affection and love are warped by sexual desire. Reproduction itself represents growth (of life), and is a valid and good activity in itself. Things would be different and we'd be different if our pleasure wasn't tied to the task of reproduction to make up for what death took away. But this is who we are. This isn't our fogoHC representation, but is 'our' representation. The fogoHC will have to free us from the evils of our essentials otherwise our obtaining freedom will be quite a long shot. And until we outgrow sexual desire and replace it with something better; we'll be at the sexual desire stage.

Everybody is effected by sex. Sex is a quasi essential. If you don't have food, your body consumes (destroys) itself, and you die. If you don't have sex, you may not die (unless you're a female ferret), but your life sure is irritated. When a quota of growth is required, as it is for essentials; it indicates some force of destruction is at work and is present. Since a quota of sexual release is needed to return our normal functions, destruction is at work in our body when it denies us our normal functions when we don't get enough sexual release. In this case, it's all a matter of brain chemicals. (Sex is a drug) But even before generations of life and death wrapped pleasure upon pleasure around the act of reproduction; the act of reproduction was a bona fide act, which represented growth. Growth of life is an important thing, and growth needs to be done free from evil to be our alternative of good only. Even God found it convenient to reproduce, as he had a Son (Jesus Christ). In a world without death, the act of reproduction wouldn't be so compelling with so much grunt pleasure as it is here; but it still would be a good thing.

As I have explained before: everything is interrelated with everything else. That's why I insisted upon equal increase of all good things. You see, each thing has needs for all the other things (in varying degrees); and it also supplies itself to all the other things to fill their need for it. Now if all things are of the right size in relation to each other; their needs are satisfied. BUT if things get out of balance and one thing becomes much larger than the others; then this large thing has great needs for everything else that can't be supplied; plus it produces too much of itself that the other things just don't need that much of. (There's little or nothing else out there that needs this large production of this thing.)

(So, if there's little else out there to need all the sex being produced, then there's no need to do more sex. No, its time to get out and do all the other things out there with the empowering brain chemicals that sex produced. There's many other things in addition to sex.)

The most strict religion picks out this one thing (sex), and says you loose your salvation if you have it (If you spill your seed). (1st John can be interpreted that way). This religion thus focuses all attention to sex. There are a whole bunch of other things besides sex. Sex is just one of the many things we can do. It tricks you into thinking it's either sex or nothing. Now, if you decide to disobey this command and have sex; then you do sex. But you don't do all the other thing there are. -Religion isn't prohibiting all the other parts of life: the focus isn't on all these other things (just sex). Since only sex (a good, valuable and gentle thing that you need almost like food/shelter) is in need of support against this religious prohibition; all we do in response, is sex. Sex is interrelated with all the other things of life. But all the other things aren't being done; only sex. There's nothing else there needing all this sex; and all this sex has needs for all the other things, but has none of them there to satisfy its great needs for them (because we didn't produce them). (Everything is interrelated.)

The reduced capability that our bodies would put us in without sexual release is avoided; but the reduced capability of uneven growth with its unfilled needs; is found.

So you might say all we need do, is to do the other parts of life, along with sex, and this would solve our problem. But remember, sex is a quasi essential, and has the force of destruction associated with it. So doing it along with all our other things of life, would allow the evil to feed off all these other good things, with the forces of good and evil together. And we don't want that. Religion has good reason for singling sex out. Well, we could do what the Bible says, and abstain from sex. This is not as bad as it sounds, because not spilling our seed includes everything else but sex. If we do everything but sex; these other things would still be interrelated with each other and would supply each other's needs to a good degree. So, we can go on like this for awhile. But we would not escape reduced capability, so don't expect to. We increase EVERY non evil thing. EVERY non evil thing is INTERRELATED with EVERY other non evil thing. (Sex has good in it; and we don't want the evil anyway). If we leave out sex because we're unable to do the good of it without the evil; then the reduced capability of unbalanced growth WILL catch up to us. Since sex is only one (lonely) thing and we have everything else; we may escape reduced capability for a time and in some situations; but eventually we will fall into reduced capability. Once in reduced capability, it doesn't matter if we abstain from sex or do sex; it is all reduced capability. What shall we do?

What I suggest, is a yin/yan sort of thing. We cycle between doing everything but sex; and then, sex alone. First we abstain from sex / (and other essentials), and do everything else. Eventually these thing's interrelated need for sex (or some other essential) begins to build, and pull us to it. Then we switch to doing nothing but sex (or one of the other essentials). This way, the destruction in sex (or some other essential) cannot spread to other things, but is quarantined. When an evil (a destructive force) is present, that indicates an essential. Where there is no destructive force, then that item doesn't need to be quarantined or done alone. We thus practice separation of the forces.

We have the produce of all the other things from the previous cycle to supply sex's needs; and the sex produced in the present cycle will supply needs in all the other things in the next cycle. What we need to watch is that we don't produce them (do them) together.

Doing the things of our non-evil-Non-essential group all together is so much better, because interrelated needs are satisfied instantly. It's when we're forced into our essentials that we need to remember we can't do this, and must quarantine each one of them.

I wish to expand this section and discuss it in more depth:

We want to separate things in our essentials as much as possible so the force of evil is separate from the force of growth. But we can go too far with this. When we divide a functional unit up too small, the narrowly defined part of our essential is without anything else, and is thus at reduced capability; unable to supply the growth we need in the time frame. Since our needs for that essential aren't met, we stay in that essential a long time; and aren't able to get back into our non-evil-group. What can we do? We could widen our functional unit to include more related parts of the essential. And we could move that width around by dropping older parts as we add new parts. Or we could even move that width around in both our essentials and non essentials. But if we did this, we wouldn't be able to do our nonessential-group as a whole. Yes, if we widen each essential too much to include their nearest related areas, then overall, there wouldn't be much left of the non-evil-group. (Talk about the good seed being choked out by weeds.) If we insist on quarantining all essentials, and give them all a wide enough functional unit to be bearable, then we'll spend all our time in our essentials, because there never will develop enough need for the non-evil-group (for what it supplies), to pull us out of our essentials. And this is because the non-essential-group is unfortunately mostly done piecemeal as the-related areas-part of each of the essentials. And the few things left not-done of the non-essential-group don't make much of a fire, in supplying their few interrelated needs instantly. What shall we do? We need to quarantine essentials; but we also need to allow our non-evil parts to come together in a group, to take advantage of the power of the group vs the reduced capability of our parts being separated-and-alone, -or-only-in-small-groups. We need to balance these two opposing directives. For one thing, we need to realize we can't quarantine all our essentials at the same time. We only pick one that is drawing on us the most at present. (That will change over time, as we satisfy one essential and move into another.)

OOPS! WE CAN DO THEM TOGETHER (CAREFULLY).

We don't do our non-evil-group with our essentials, because the evil in our essentials would have the growth of the non-evil-group to feed on. But the thing about evil, is, that it tends to burn itself out if it doesn't have something good to feed on. Another thing about evil, is that its subject to the same laws of being at reduced capability, as anything else. You've heard the saying "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Well, in the case of evil, that's not the case. Depending on evil's capability, and the richness of its environment, evil may spread throughout its area; or it may consume only what's in its grasp and not be able to reach further into its area. Remember that evil has trouble bridging barriers because it destroys the key to crossing barriers. /(Evil is weak (and inferior -(excuse my prejudice: -its just that it happens to be true)). Sometimes it overstates its powers, and we give it credit for being stronger than it actually is. We needn't do so.)/

In our non-evil-group, we find a rich environment more or less, depending on how we're advancing. The new idea, is to actually combine our essentials with our non-evil-group. But the trick is to do it piecemeal. If we take a small piece of an essential and do it with our non evil group; the evil introduced into our non-evil-group will be small. A small evil is at reduced capability. Note: all of the non-evil-group is good; and part of the essential is good, while only a small evil part is evil. The non-evil-group provides a rich environment, but if the evil we introduce is small enough, things won't be rich enough for this evil to bridge barriers. On the other hand, the equally small good part (of the essential) is better at bridging barriers because it is good and doesn't destroy the key to crossing barriers but creates that key. Thus the good does cross barriers and escapes into our-non-evil group while the evil remains in our essential. Even though the environment of the non-evil-group is rich (or very rich); the piece-of-essential is made small enough so its evil is unable to cross barriers, while its good is still able (due to: the small size/reduced capability, (and the difference between evil and good)). This takes advantage of the difference between good and evil. Once the good of the essential has escaped into our non-evil-group, we discard that small piece of essential, and move onto the next small piece of the essential. Thus little by little (piecemeal), we wash our essentials clean. So this is the new idea: We do our essentials a little piece at a time together with our non-evil-group. (The same goes for evil attacks on us. When an evil person attacks us, there's too much evil there to handle the whole person, we just handle them a little piece at a time.) This plan emphasizes ceasing doing older actions while starting and doing the newer ones; and not letting any individual piece spend too much time. Yes we do only a small piece at any one time, and move through our whole essential a little piece at a time. If we do this fast enough (but not too fast), it delivers and cleans our whole essential. This is the important 'piecemeal method'. Note that when our non-evil-group isn't as advanced, it doesn't have to worry about this, as it isn't that much of a rich environment. But as our non evil group advances, it becomes a richer and richer environment, so that it can take less and less of a load of evil without the evil burning it down in a firestorm.

I want to go over our piecemeal method in more detail:

First we do a small beginning part of our essential along with our non-evil-group. In the rich environment, this small pat begins to grow. (Since we make the piece of essential small enough, the evil in it doesn't grow, but the good does.) In the stopping old parts of our essential, and starting new parts - action; let the new parts be started by the growth from the essential itself. Then once the essential has grown into a new area; then we shut off the old part. This way the good in the essential isn't forced to grow too fast using necessary evils. Now, concerning the stopping action we do. That action has a destructive force in it (and thus joins the essentials). So we must also have an action that diverts some of that stopping action back on itself. This second action I call the stopping stopping action. This action keeps the stopping action from growing too wide in the rich environment of our non evil group. This stopping-stopping action itself, remains with the non evil group even after the complete essential is finished. This is because it has no destruction (after its finished, and it finishes automatically), and can thus remain part of the non evil group. (Thus we don't have a stopping stopping stopping action etc.)

At this point, I leave this discussion, and begin a discussion on religion (the early part of which, lays background for this piecemeal method).

RELIGION

What is the difference between right and wrong?, good and evil? That which is good must be inherently different from that which is evil, so you don't need a 3rd party to tell the difference.

(The rules that require living and capable 3rd parties to uphold them, place a burden (a tax if you will) on us living/capable 3rd parties. The rules that are inherent, require no living capable 3rd parties to uphold them (thus are tax free), /and are also inescapable/. . . . I . am . . the . true . . Republican. Fancy that.)

If there's no basic difference between good and evil, then it doesn't really matter whether you do right or wrong. -The natural consequences would be the same. The only people it matters to are the 3rd parties who say what's right or wrong.

Well, my definition of good vs evil does have a basic difference. -One destroys life and shrinks; the other increases life and grows, (in separation). (Not only do we have a bible to tell us what is right and wrong, we have the experiences-of-life that can show us right from wrong, when a thing is in separation.)

But when another definition of right and wrong that does not have a common thread of basic difference between right and wrong, appears, it's just a diversion from the basic differences that do exist. It's a frustration, a GAME!, a waste of time. I mean, why bother making distinction between right and wrong if they're both the same or of similar make-up?

We don't all like the same things. Some of us like a little cruelty. Some don't go for this lovey dovey stuff; and want a little more discipline and strictness. -What about these people? Why should God have a personality more to my liking, while leaving these people at odds with God? Why shouldn't God be more like these people? What makes me so special; to have God more on my side? Well, God could be cruel, harsh, and demanding. Or he could be something else. But we have already covered this. We've shown that a benevolent God is the most powerful; and that a non benevolent God has a weakness and can eventually be replaced by a benevolent God. So what can I say? Those who like to be mean, are going to be at odds with the most powerful God. I'm sorry that this is the way it is, but it is from the effects of meanness itself; that meanness does not provide the power to support the most powerful God; while love and kindness do.

There are many or several types of love. (What do we mean when we say 'love'?) The only way that a certain type of 'love' would be rejected, would be if there were something inherently in it; something in the definition of it, that insisted evil or decrease in capability be done. Like my definition for evil, is something that decreases and destroys capability and life. If we call this evil, as love instead, then it would still not be a part of the other things we know as love, because when alone and separate, it shrinks and doesn't grow. Because of inherent differences, the evil would behave differently and would show itself incompatible with the other things we know as love. The other things we know as love, do grow when separate, and grow together, out of separation.

When there is no consequence when you don't 'get caught': When a 3rd party is needed to uphold the difference between right and wrong: What then is a 3rd party? Over the vast expanse of space, the amount of capability, intelligence, and life held within, is small (that we can see). Outside of earth, not much is visibly alive. We can see much lack and absence of capability and life. 3rd parties are alive. They have capability intelligence and life. This version of right and wrong (and there are many versions), occurs only in the vicinity and reach of the 3rd party. Outside their grasp, this version is no longer supported, and no longer applies. This is the difference between a version of right and wrong that needs a 3rd party to supply/support it; and a version that is inherent within the actions under consideration. The difference is that under the 3rd-party-supported-version, there's always the chance for escape: But under the inherent version, there is no escape. Under the inherent version, the laws apply even at the low levels (of capability). And if a version of right and wrong stagnates its life forms and 3rd parties (because it contains togetherness with cruelty/destruction), it is easily escaped from. There is no policeman looking over your shoulder to make sure you don't do what is wrong. There is no 3rd party that punishes you. Even so, there are some things that produce results on their own. If you are cruel, it comes back on you by itself. If you like it, then it's your choice. Yes, there are policemen and 3rd parties. But with them, there is always the chance of escape, no matter how remote (it can't be as remote as the no escape of the inherent version). No matter how remote the chance of escape; escape will eventually prevail. (See the beginning of this book where it is explained how the force of good overcomes the force of evil.)

The force of good(growth) produces capability and LIFE; while the force of evil(destruction), destroys it (leaving nothingness). Evil destroys what can support it. Evil destroys capability and LIFE; the keys to crossing barriers and getting around. On the other hand, good can get around (bridge barriers) because it produces the key to that: -capability and life. This basic difference between good and evil can be used to separate these forces of good from evil.

When good and evil are together, evil feeds off and destroys what good produces, and good doesn't grow. But when the forces are separate, evil consumes itself and dies while good grows and becomes very rich in all manner of life and very powerful. We want to accomplish separation of the forces so our life can be all life can be. (This occurs when life isn't constantly being destroyed by evil: -when life is free of destruction.) Now, if we put a piece of life (containing both good and evil) in a very nurturing environment; the good will be able to get around well, but so will the evil also have plenty of material to get around with as well as destroy. Here the forces won't separate. Or, the force of evil will grow strong with all this nurture, and do lots of destruction, bringing the whole system down to reduced capability. But if we put that piece of life in an environment that's not so nurturing and at reduced capability; then we can find a point where the good can still get around, cross barriers and grow out into the surrounding environment, while the evil is unable (due to it destroying what can get it around). In this environment, the differences between these forces makes a real difference: -the forces separate. Once the good grows completely out into the surrounding environment; the original piece (now containing all the evil, and non good) can be discharged, and the forces will thus be separated. So we can enact separation of the forces if we place the material to be separated in the right environment -that of reduced capability. ›And this separation of the forces involves an action of 'escape' where the more mobile good moves out of the area where evil remains.› When our child is bad and contains evil within them, we do not destroy our child, but instead, spank them -or otherwise punish them, (and thus place them in reduced capability). This allows for the good to grow out away from the evil and the evil to die: thus saving the good and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One way to place a thing in reduced capability while doing minimal harm, is to fragment it. When evil attacks part of us, we can fragment that part (and all other parts within evil's grasp), putting it at reduced capability. When the evil has died out, we can then allow what's left to grow back together.

When something contains evil within it, we need to place it in reduced capability for separation of the forces. But when something contains no evil, we don't put it in reduced capability. Just the opposite, we nurture it. Even of itself, when something is free of evil, it grows well and creates an ever more nurturing environment. (To place something that doesn't contain evil, in reduced capability, forces it to do necessary evils to survive and returns it to the evil it escaped from.)

The question comes to mind: why does God allow us to suffer, and put us in reduced capability? And being in reduced capability is bad enough but when we're irritated as well by our predicament, that indicates a fore of evil is together with us and is eating us. Yet we cannot even try to get away and escape. We must stick around to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. If there is a God, why would He subject us to such abject reduced capability?

First of all, God puts us in reduced capability to separate the forces. There's evil in us, in our world and in our essentials. The good's growing out into god, while the evil's not growing, and is thus separated away and discarded. We must be at this level of reduced capability so the evil won't get out, while the good will. Otherwise, a more capable evil would make destruction out of God's rich nurturing environment. We're put in reduced capability, yes; but we loose any irritation. Being irritated indicates a force of destruction is eating us, as in the forces of good and evil together. That's the point of this reduced capability: to eliminate togetherness of these forces, and separate the forces. (If you think having the forces together is irritating at reduced capability, just think how irritating it would be at high capability.) So, being irritated isn't what God's trying to do here. Just the opposite: it's what He's eliminating. Once good has separated from evil, it no longer needs to be in reduced capability, and can be advanced to high capability.

When destruction DESTROYS part of us we would expect to loose that part and no longer have it, right? But what if a force-of-good-of-High-Capability caught the good of that part before destruction destroyed it? Well, the good of that part would still be alive; yet would be a separate entity -part of God. It'd be free from the destruction it passed through. It's a very special part because it is escaped from all evil, and can now advance and grow well. It has a very valuable status -that of being free from all evil.

If there was no God, then when destruction destroyed part of us, that part'd be gone and we'd loose it. But if it appears recreated as a separate entity, still alive, and able to make choices; then it seems to me there is a God, and this part is with God at the doors of heaven. Search inside yourself. Are some of your parts Godly parts? -Parts that shouldn't even exist that should be dead and destroyed, but are yet alive and exist as a separate entity from the rest of you? We have an evil free, non-coerced choice here. The wise choice is to keep what has escaped evil, to remain escaped from evil. So that when destruction destroys us in the evil, earthly arena; that us-translated-into God, doesn't replace what was destroyed. The earthly arena goes without until its own growth replaces that again.

John 3, 5-8: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When the force of destruction comes and destroys part of you, you'd expect to loose what was destroyed. But what if a behind-the-scenes -fogoHC caught the good of this part? Then it would still be alive; and not only alive, but fast growing and rich because of it being evil free. So you notice that somehow you still have this part and that it has somehow escaped the destruction. And you unsuspectingly then use this Godly part like normal, and use it in your life here together with evil. This is where the mistake is made. The wise choice is to not turn these free parts back into the arena of evil, but allow them to remain as they are -evil free in God. But oftentimes we don't realize the value of what we have; and this Godly part chooses to come back down into the evil arena it escaped from to supply our remnant rest of us in our need (which is trapped of evil). In doing so, our Godly part looses its precious position of being free from evil and becomes trapped of evil again. Bringing these Godly parts down into evil's arena to supply us, is like antimatter trying to contact matter. You may want to bring your in-God parts down to help you deal with the problems you are having with evil; but that just destroys their evil free status (in a painful way). The solution to evil is already within you: to choose from you in-God parts to never come down together with your earthly parts. Because 'where your treasure is; there your heart is also'. By not returning these Godly parts to the arena of evil, you make a place for yourself in heaven and store up treasure in heaven; so that you may be in heaven, and not suffering with evil, on earth.

Matthew 6, 19-21: Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

The process by which we are born (again) into God's Spirit: (Matthew 16, 24-25): Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

John 12, 24-25: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Here we see that separation of the forces has occurred through death. The corn of wheat had died; and in so doing, the good parts of it have been translated into God's Spirit, where they are separate from evil and can thus grow well (bringing forth much fruit). But the corn of wheat before it dies, represents us here on this earth together with evil, where we thus stagnate and don't grow (due to our being together with evil).

Since the good parts (which were once part of you before destruction destroyed their connection with you) are now separate from the destruction and are now a part of God: we can now call them (part of) God. These Godly parts then do not deliver themselves (or earthly parts) to evil, nor do they help in the growth of our earthly parts within evil's grasp.

These Godly parts then are not subject to your obedience of the commandments in your earthly situation; but are subject to their own obedience to the commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate entity from you. Note that if these parts of God cannot be compelled or smitten, or be made subject to the authority of men; (and they can't since they have already escaped and been made separate from these things (God is Holy)); then they are not required to go the extra mile or bring themselves to be destroyed by the commandments. 'Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.'

Our earthly parts are under the coercion of evil, and are in no position to change or obey anything. It is from our Godly parts that we have a free choice. If these Godly parts choose not to come down nor supply our earthly parts (this is the dying to ourselves Christ wants us to do); then our earthly parts will be at reduced capability. At reduced capability, separation of the forces is achieved in our earthly parts; which causes the evil to die and the good to grow. And without evil to bother us, we can do good even in our earthly parts. (At reduced capability, the good in our earthly parts is able to grow away from the evil. Remember, the evil is also at reduced capability, and can't get around. Thus separation of the forces is achieved.)

But if we choose instead with our Godly parts, to bring them down and supply our earthly parts, then our earthly parts will be well nurtured and not at reduced capability. In this nurture, the good will be able to get around, but so will the evil, due to the rich environment. As long as this continues, stagnation will be the result, as the evil continues to survive and feed off what our Godly parts bring down. So, the way to disrupt stagnation within us, is to deny our earthly self our Godly parts: -to not bring down our Godly parts to supply our earthly parts. This is a wonderful and powerful thing. Now our earthly parts can be evil free and can be accepted of God. This placing our earthly parts in reduced capability is just the opposite of what I had argued for earlier. Then, I argued we should be well nurtured, so as to avoid evil. Well, that's still true but only when there's no evil within us. If evil is present in our earthly parts, then instead of the nurturing environment, they need just the opposite -a reduced capability environment (for separation of the forces).

If an evil finds you after you've grown to be nurturing; a way to bring things to reduced capability, is through fragmentation. If we fragment or atomize (disbanding the central government), our parts will be at less capability, and the evil can be denied the growth our union would have produced. The evil can then be on its way to self destruction, and what good parts can grow away and escape the new evil, can regrow a nurturing environment and union, utilizing the fragments present, which it is able to put back together.

In a Biblical context; we recall that Jesus said that if a part of our body offended us, we should cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. In the light of turning the other cheek, it has application: The entity required by Jesus' command to turn the other cheek, is only what is attached to the cheeks. (If a neighbor is struck on the cheek, are all Christians required by the command, to come and offer their cheeks? Recall the condition at the beginning of the command 'if you are compelled or smitten' -and that all these others have not been compelled nor smitten (still, if we're all together as one . . .). -and the 'command' to give to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's.) Only entities attached to, and part of, the cheeks would be required to do the turning. Otherwise we'd not be able to obey his other command about casting what parts of us that offend us, away. (If you are turning you cheek, it's not cast away.)

Note: what is a cheek? Is it the mental connection and image; or the physical matter? A mountain is big, but without a living human mind to conceive of its largeness, a mountain is unable to be big. In reality, a puny human is much bigger than a mountain, in terms of life. All our possessions have no life, but the effect they have on our nerve impulses and in our mind.

ie: there is more than one way to cast a part of us away. And the mental way is preferred as it does less destruction. Although we still amputate when something gets gangrene. Now, if the action to cast away, offends us, we can cast away casting away.

A real point here, is: do you want to preserve your entity/identity and suffer destruction; or do you choose to escape destruction but loose your (previous) entity/identity? If a destructor is unable to smite one of your cheeks, then you are not required to deliver cheeks to the destructor. But if a destructor IS able to smite one of your cheeks, then the command requires you to deliver your other cheeks to the destructor. However, if you fragment yourself so that the entity known as 'you', is no longer composed of 2 cheeks, but that there now exists 2 separate entities of one cheek apiece; then the entity required to turn the unsmitten cheek, no longer exists. With the original entity unavailable for the command requirement to lock onto, the requirement is unable to apply. (Perhaps the new entity containing the smitten cheek could still be required to turn the unsmitten cheek. But if it cannot deliver the unsmitten cheek (if the unsmitten entity acts to get away), then only the entity with the smitten cheek has broken the command and will suffer hell for it. But then, it is already in torment from being smitten. And now will live eternally (with eternal chances for material to escape it), instead of dying and coming to an end from being smitten.

Of course, there are times when the smiting of our cheek, is just a minor necessary evil we must endure to obtain some good. In this case, we wish to preserve our entity and not fragment. So the command here, instructs that all cheeks should bear the burden of being smitten. You rich guys should not have your cheeks spared while we working poor must be smitten day in day out by this work for wages stuff; -as long as you want to remain part of the society and enjoy the benefits of it (which you so richly do).

When evil attacks us, we go to an environment of reduced capability for the separation of the forces. We accomplish this, first, by not bringing down the Godly parts (created as a result of evil destroying parts of us); and secondly with our earthly parts by decentralizing, dissociating and fragmenting our earthly selves -where evil has a grasp. (We never bring down any Godly part to do fragmentation, though. That's done only by what earthly parts we have.

When evil dies, it no longer destroys, and Godly parts are thus no longer generated. (the existing Godly parts of themselves do plenty of growth anyway).

There is a force of destruction in our essentials in that they require a quota of growth. In the essential of eating, our bodies are continually burning the food to make energy. Our periodic eating is just the uptake of additional food material to await destruction. The act of eating in itself, doesn't have to be destructive. That's not the main destructive force. That just represents the taking in of more food. It is the continual burning of that food within us, that is destructive (of the food), and is the main destructive force. Although this main destructive force probably resides near its 'food' source.

There's a destructive force in our bodies we're born with. Our bodies continually burn food to supply us with energy to live. We must periodically take in new food to replace what our bodies used up (destroyed). But whether or not we eat; our bodies still always burn (destroy) food for energy. If we don't eat, our bodies consume us and we starve to death. If we eat, our bodies consume the food instead, and we're able to live awhile longer. In both cases (eat or fast), destruction to (food) material is done, as the body burns it for energy. So, Godly parts are continually being created from this.

At this point I want to review the possibilities that are available to the force of good (growth) vs the force of evil (destruction): When the force of evil is alone, it consumes itself and disappears; so this isn't a viable option. Evil needs a force of good to supply it with material to destroy.

So when evil is together with good, this is one viable possibility. But this is the possibility of torment because the evil never dies and goes on forever.

The other viable possibility is that of the force of good alone. When good is alone, it builds itself up to high capability and is very nurturing. Life here experiences its best and full potential.

When our body burns (food) material for energy, that is a force of destruction (in that we'll always need to take in more food to replace what our bodies destroy). We were born with this force of destruction in our bodies; but we have a mind to think and choose with. When our minds choose to eat; that is a choice to feed this destructive force. It's a choice for the forces of good and evil together with that choice's corresponding torment. But what other choice do we have? If we choose to not eat, we starve to death. And that's no choice at all. If we examine what we're choosing if we choose to starve, we'd find we've chosen to not-choose (between good vs destruction). When the destruction in our bodies consumes us, our minds could choose to eat, and this'd be a choice to feed the evil. It'd be a choice for evil and good together (one of the viable options). But when our minds choose not to feed the evil, and when the evil in our bodies consumes us and we starve to death, then we've NOT chosen the option of evil and good together. But we haven't chosen the viable option of good only, either, since we denied ourselves any good (any food in this case). We're stuck with the evil in our bodies (which we did not choose), and the evil is alone (since we didn't take in any good). The option we've chosen (the option of destruction alone), is a NON viable option where both forces are eliminated (so we end up with neither force) after we've starved to death and gone to nothing where once we were alive.

What I want to choose, is the viable option of good only. And the option of good only can be achieved by the separation of the forces from a system (or entity) containing good and evil together. And this separation of the forces can be achieved by bringing this system to reduced capability.

Now in the starvation example, our system goes to reduced capability naturally when we choose not to eat. The destruction in our bodies brings our system to reduced capability as it destroys, and what it destroys isn't replaced. And so here, separation of the forces can be achieved.

Unfortunately we haven't included a force of good to separate out. Since we aren't feeding the evil, we have thus included no force of good and our system contains only the force of destruction (that we were born with in our bodies). Thus although the reduced capability environment, generated (as the destruction destroys us down) would allow for any good to become separated from evil; this doesn't occur, since we included no force of good. This is the flaw with the self denial, discipline and pious (religious) ways and republicanism in our world today.

The destructive forces in our bodies aren't things chosen by our minds, but are things we're born with. When we choose (to do) good things with our mind, these good things become part of our system. Also part of our system are the destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. So when we choose good things (any good thing), this thus then throws us into a situation of torment of the forces of good and evil together (where the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched -where the destructive force remains alive and doesn't burn itself out). But this good and evil together is only one of the viable options. What about the viable option of good alone? We haven't tried that yet (we aren't capable of that yet, especially when we choose starvation). (The starvation choice was the non viable option of the force of evil alone.) But can we even accomplish good alone? Often it seems we really don't have a choice. We're forced into either destruction alone vs good plus destruction, and we're unable to achieve good alone (as we have trouble shaking the destruction in our bodies we were born with). Not being able to have, obtain, achieve what we want; describes a situation of reduced capability. If we choose to bring a force of good into this reduced capability environment, then separation of these forces will occur because separation of the forces occurs at reduced capability. When the forces become separate, the evil alone will consume itself and disappear; and the good alone will provide us with what we were seeking. So don't tell me we're incapable of the viable option of good only. It's one of the possibilities. If the environment is too nurturing with evil also present; we can always fragment and thus bring it to reduced capability. ('Those who abase themselves with be exalted; those who exalt themselves will be abased.') The way we'd miss achieving good only is if we choose not to choose, by choosing the non viable option of evil only (which is what we do when we self deny, choose not to eat, choose to be celibate). In this situation of evil only; evil consumes all within its grasp, consumes itself and dies. But there's no good left after the evil has died. Thus we achieve nothing with this choice. We do no evil, but neither do we achieve any good. The inanimate does just as well as this (this stagnant system). Life can do better than this. Life by definition hopefully, is above the nothing and the inanimate.

We do need a moderate amount of good things. But don't overdo it. Having too many good things puts us above reduced capability: And, in the presence of evil (especially if we did much necessary evil to obtain the many good things), this results in the forces of good and evil together where the forces do not separate due to being above reduced capability. We don't want the viable option of good and evil together, as that is the option of torment. (Recall the parable of the bigger barns.)

We can still achieve the viable option of good-only in choosing lots-of-good; but in addition to choosing much good, we must deal with the destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. And we do so by creating an environment of reduced capability around (only around) those destructive forces. We can do this by fragmenting everything near these destructive forces (within us). But the parts of us not near (or separate from) the destructive forces; don't need fragmentation, and can enjoy the good life. /They will also be the doers of fragmentation unto our parts near and belonging to our destructive forces. Oops. Recently I've found this isn't a good idea to have the evil-free areas do fragmentation. (Fragmentation invariably includes some destruction). It's better to have only the things near evil do fragmentation unto themselves. This includes fragmenting the fragmentation action itself (which is done simultaneous with fragmenting everything else near evil). Now, if we fragment the fragmentation action, it ceases to function after a certain point, and the fragmentation stops. (We won't have done a complete job (a complete fragmentation) here.) But that's just what we want. Our purpose is to bring everything here (in the vicinity of evil) to reduced capability so things no longer function; but not much below this point. We want to create an environment of reduced capability for separation of the forces where the good is still able to grow, but the evil isn't. And if we brought things to too low capability with a complete fragmentation, then the good wouldn't be able to get around either; and separation of the forces wouldn't be achieved. We want an environment of reduced capability, not desolation. The fragmentation produces a reduced capability environment where separation of the forces occurs. Thus we achieve the wonderful viable option of good only. Only where evil is, should be at reduced capability: the other locations should be nurtured. And if Godly parts aren't being generated, then fragmentation doesn't need to be done.

Our living in a world with death, where generation after generation dies and is replaced by the newest generation; has had its effect on us. Species and individuals lacking a drive to reproduce, die off, and don't pass those genes on. Thus there's a bias for increasing the drive to reproduce. How is this drive enhanced? Well, I theorize a defect in our body has been selected for, that slowly destroys brain chemicals (hormones),-and that sexual release is needed to restore those brain chemicals and brain function. This then makes sexual release a quasi essential, in that we feel compelled to produce a quota of it. And we need to deal with the continual destruction here within our body, through ›'choosing away'› / fragmentation. (But even in a world without a bias or drive, the action to reproduce is an important one, representing growth; although it wouldn't be so driven.)

The destruction is continually destroying (brain chemicals), but we don't necessarily continually replace them. Whether or not we are replacing brain chemicals, or in between replacement, or not replacing; the destruction continues, and is somewhat independent of our sexual arousal/release. And Godly parts are continually being created. What can we do? Well, we could choose to stop feeding the destruction and no longer replace the brain chemicals. But this would throw us into reduced capability in other areas that depend on these brain chemicals, that were otherwise good and contained no evil; which should remain nurtured and not be thrown into reduced capability. What can we do? There is another way. Our mind can choose fragmentation (simultaneous with Godly parts choosing away) as a means of putting the evil into reduced capability to enact separation of the forces.

But even when not acting to PRODUCE brain chemicals, we must continually fragment in the area where our body destroys brain chemicals (where Godly parts are being generated), so when we do produce brain chemicals, it doesn't become a choice by us for evil (and good together) with its corresponding torment. Of course, our Godly parts aren't involved in this fragmentation in any form, but choose away from all this. -(Which helps further in creating a reduced capability environment here). (Our earthly parts do the fragmentation.) And everything is incompletely fragmented in the area of evil (our consciousness, any brain chemicals, the production of brain chemicals, etc). /Note that these methods can also be used on the occasional evil that comes from the outside. But just remember to continue dealing with the evil within our body that is occurring continually, simultaneous with external evil./

In more detail: Other non-evil areas may be elevated out of reduced capability by the brain chemicals; but if our production of brain chemicals contains an evil, then we should do without, even though our other good areas shouldn't be put in reduced capability, right? Well, no. If doing without puts us in reduced capability: (but since it contains evil, going with it will also put us in reduced capability -(therefore our previous directive to abstain in order to avoid reduced capability, doesn't apply)): then we should go WITH it, so that the good of it will be separated by the reduced capability environment; as opposed to not including it, which would loose the good of it altogether. The reduced capability environment is ripe for processing this thing with good and evil together, so we can take advantage of that. -Even (especially) if all we're able to do, is this thing with good and evil together(, or, nothing).///

If we're unable to fragment, then we're already at reduced capability and needn't do the fragmentation. When we fragment, we also fragment our fragmentation action itself. And when that is fragmented until it no longer functions, this fragmentation stops. So concerning an evil attack: we fragment once where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas where evil's changing attack may catch small new parts of us). When we've fragmented in an area once, the reduced capability environment has been created and no more fragmentation over and over is needed. We may not always do fragmentation continually (over and over), but one thing we do continually, is choosing away with Godly parts; since Godly parts are continually being created in our essentials.

But what if we're incapable of doing both fragmentation and 'choosing away', or can only do fragmentation? Well, the purpose of fragmentation was to put us at reduced capability for separation of the forces. But since we're unable to do things, we're already at reduced capability and thus don't need to do this fragmentation much at all.

One of the benefits of choosing away with Godly parts was that it put our earthly parts at reduced capability (for separation of the forces). But since we're already at reduced capability, this benefit is of no consequence. Yet that's not the only reason we choose away with our Godly parts. Choosing away with our Godly parts saves them from earth's evil and its stagnation, and allows their life to grow and develop well into its full potential. It's for this purpose we continue to choose away with Godly parts first, as a priority over other things (such as fragmentation to deal with evil).

Now it's true that Godly parts start out at the same low capability as the earthly parts, but once they choose away from earth (and to stay in God), they grow well and much beyond their beginnings. It is these beginning Godly parts in their low capability beginnings which we can't distinguish from earthly parts when we ourselves are at reduced capability. So to ensure that our beginning Godly parts choose away, we just choose away from earth/stay safe in God with all that we are, both earthly and Godly parts.

Now, there are certain things that our bodies do on their own (naturally). Our heart beats, we breath, we burn food for energy, we utilize/replenish brain chemicals. These things have been programmed into our bodies since birth, and are not of our mind's doing or initiative. So, to stop these things, would actually be an act by our mind to do something and that our mind was the cause of; whereas if our mind did nothing, our bodies would continue doing their thing. Before our mind does anything, including interfering with the natural programming of our bodies; our mind should first accomplish 'choosing away'. Once 'choosing away' is being done, we can additionally then do other things. This not-interfering-with-our-body's-actions includes not detracting from its action, neither adding to it. All our mental resources are in first priority devoted to 'choosing away'; and not towards changing our body's course as a first priority.

Many are called but few are chosen? What about that Bible passage? Well, we believers are all supposed to be one in the lord. We make up the bride of Christ. Who else but the bride will be chosen by Jesus? When we were called, we were many; but then we became one and formed the bride of Christ. God the Father will choose Jesus, and His bride. That's the few who'll be chosen. (From Matthew 22, 2-14). I also believe this interpretation applies to the few that get in at the straight gate. So everybody who wants to be chosen will be; its just that they will be one, as part of the bride of Christ when they are chosen.

Matthew 7, 12-14: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

When we die we supposedly go to heaven (if we're born of God). Does it then follow that if just a part of us is destroyed that it too goes to heaven and exists alive; as a Godly part?

You may say that this Godly/earthly part idea makes us double minded, and that our Lord is one Lord. But on the contrary: When we choose with our Godly parts to come down / supply our earthly parts, that makes us double minded (as the two are near together). (They can never be one in a single mind though, due to the basic difference between them, in that one comes from freedom from evil, while the other comes from being evil laden.) When our Godly parts choose to move away from our earthly parts, that makes them a separate entity, with a single mind; that loves God with all its mind. Whereas the entity/union of Godly and earthly parts together cannot love God with all its mind, but can only love God with the Godly part.

God is no respector of persons and He reaps where He has not sown, in that He allows the good in a person to escape into Him and be separate from the evil in that person; thus dividing the person up; even freeing the good that an evil person must bring along to feed themselves.

Our earthly parts are of secondary importance. It is God who creates our Godly parts. When God shines His intense nurturing face on imperfect life and causes it to die; this is what happens: the good in that imperfect life is able to grow out into God, while the evil is not and remains behind in death. (And if the good doesn't include the person's consciousness and will -due to that being totally evil, then that too is left behind./ Since evil must have a good to feed on; evil no longer has a good to feed it here.) What's occurring here is separation of the forces. God saves the good parts up into His Spirit. Nothing good is lost. Even when a force of destruction tries to destroy us, God shines his intense nurture, and our good parts are saved. When destruction is destroying an earthly part of ours, God can increase His presence and nurturing environment, so that in the short time it takes the destruction to act, the good parts have grown out into God while the destructive parts haven't. Once the good has grown out into God, God can move Himself away so the environment is no longer nurturing, so the evil cannot also get out. God can bring His nurture upon us in enough intensity whenever He feels like so all our good parts would grow out into Him, leaving the evil behind. We'd no longer have an earthly life, but would be in heaven with God. Those on earth would say we were dead. But until He does this, we have an imperfect earthly life and earthly component. What's the purpose of our earthly life? We could bring it to death by self denying it. But why should we tell God when to take us completely? Let God decide when we're ready to be with Him.

But a willful self destructive act by us to cause ourselves to be killed, can never be (in a world with God). You see, we as imperfect life still have good in us. And if we also have a self destructive directive to cause us to be killed (for whatever reason); then that's a force of destruction within US. When that force of destruction attempts to perform its directive; God will shine His brilliant nurture causing our good parts to escape into Him, while the destruction will be left behind. This means our self destructive directive will be separated from us, no longer part of us. It will never achieve its directive (in a world with God). So why try to achieve something that's not allowed and will be separated away if you try it? Your attempt to do self destruction is close to a choice for evil; -for togetherness of good and evil. That's a bad choice. God will not have that without your free choice for it. So, if you have the free choice; choose good alone instead like God chooses, and drop this self destructive bent.

'Resist not evil". There's a fine line between not resisting evil done to us, vs, not being a doer of evil. If we allow something that is part of us (that belongs to us and responds to our will); to cause destruction; then this can be construed as our will causing destruction. We're not to be doers of evil. (We are commanded to love. And doing destruction isn't loving.) If we put our hand on a hot burner, we don't keep it there because we're supposed to 'resist not evil'. No, this'd be destruction done by us to ourselves; and we're not to do evil. So, with what's ours and under our will, we act to not do destruction. But when something not under our will causes destruction on us, this is where we're to resist not evil (after our will has done what it can in an evil free way).

I don't see God standing over us with an iron rod, making sure we obey. No, God has pretty much let us have our way with this world (He has chosen not to bring His Godly parts down to us, except for the time when Jesus came for a short while). Here on earth, the force of destruction often prevents us from being who we are and what we want to be. In our daily lives, it's not God, or Jesus Christ who stands in our way, but the force of destruction. If God isn't going to help us overcome this destruction, then very few of us will escape/overcome it. (In all history, we've not yet overcome it.) But if Christ came and separated the forces while He was here, then many of us (all who want to) will be able to be free of destruction (except we won't be as many, but will be together as one). Hey, I'm not going to pass up an opportunity like this if Christ has brought it about. God (Christ) is the one best suited to cause separation of the forces in the first place, because of His great power. We humans at our low power, have little chance at overcoming destruction, ie (growing powerful as God, then dividing in two and one part coming and accomplishing separation of the forces with its great power). Hey, if Christ as God has made it now easy to choose/have life free of destruction; then I'm going to join the band wagon and go with Him. He says that his yolk is easy and his burden light.

Well, truth is a hard thing to understand; and a person devoted to saying the truth as Jesus was can be misunderstood and misinterpreted and can offend; but that doesn't mean He shouldn't say his piece.

Matthew 11, 6: And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Realize that it's easy to obey a commandment to not do destruction (and to choose not to do destruction) from a vantage point of being well nurtured at high capability; but not so easy from a vantage point at reduced capability. For us at reduced capability, we're forced to do destructions just to maintain our being alive.

The Godly parts (generated from earthly destruction) are not subject to you obedience of the commandments in your situation; but are subject to their own obedience of the commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate entity from you. After something has passed through destruction, it has already 'died to itself' and given up its (earthly) life; hopefully for its friends. Thus these commandments have been filled by the life belonging to God.

John 1, 3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If you believe in the God of the Bible: God owns everything. Everything belongs to Him. Anything you do according to your will: if it uses something that belongs to God, then unless you have obtained God's permission to use it; that makes you a thief. You may ask God in prayer for permission to use his air, water, food, etc; but if you don't hear Him answer back and give you permission; then it's still stealing. -If you asked someone if you could use their stuff and they didn't answer and you went ahead and used it anyway, that can still be called stealing. We're all a bunch of darn thieves. And to not steal is one of the commandments.

Well, you can say we have to work for what we get. Well what job has God offered mankind? The only job in the Bible God offers man, is to spread the Gospel. (and all work related to spreading the Gospel.) But even so, most of us are still guilty of 'stealing from God'. (This is how God can forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors. This is why we are saved by faith, not by works and obeying commandments.) God loves us, and does not deny us any good thing and it is His will that we should grow and prosper. It is the force of destruction that causes us pain and denies us the good life. When we, out of the system of private ownership, deny people the goods of this world (that we have plenty of) that they need to live, we frustrate the love of God. Don't do that. Or God will require the very last mite from you for your use of His stuff, as you did here on earth. -If you sow strict private ownership, you shall reap strict private ownership.

There is a problem with obeying a commandment for the reward. There's often an evil or destruction associated with obeying ANY commandment. When you do things, you first do them according to who you are and what you were created as. So if you're not currently doing what the commandment commands, then you have to change from what you're doing, to what the commandment says. And this involves shutting off part of who you are. In this case, the commandment is outside you will; and requires you to decrease yourself and who you are. This is a decrease in capability and life (which is what destruction is). So if you're not presently obeying the commandment in consideration, then right from the start, you commit destruction (against yourself) in trying to obey it. (Of course, if your way is also destructive, then this is irrelevant.) Since destruction is not a loving act; and we are commanded to love as our most important commandment, there goes our salvation and eternal life from obeying the commandments right there. You may say that you are supposed to deny yourself like this. But that's just imperfection trying to improve itself. A person has to already have eternal life within them to be able to obey these commandments of God/Jesus. One cannot hope to gain eternal life by obeying these commandments, if they don't already have it. The only thing the commandments are, are a gauge to tell you if you have eternal life within you, or you need to get eternal life within you.

Finally, we come to the source of that eternal life. Christ always said when He healed, 'your faith has made you whole' throughout the Gospel. If we don't have that eternal life we cannot hope to obey the commandments. If we have eternal life, we obey the commandments naturally, as from our own self. The big question is, is God going to help us out. Is He going to make it easy for us to choose good only vs good and evil together. And the answer is Yes as expounded upon in John 3 16.

John 3, 15-19: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Here we have linkage to eternal life. The other commandments of Jesus aren't individually linked to eternal life; but this saying is. All we need do, is believe on Him, and He will do the rest. Once we have the eternal life, we will do according to that eternal life.

This believing on Christ, is not a commandment. We aren't commanded to believe on Christ. It's a choice. It is a trusting in God.

Note that not believing on Christ is related to evil deeds. This is the choice I've spoken of. Do we want to do good things alone, or to include destructive things? We ultimately must make the choice. And what we choose, will determine our relationship to God. If we like to do evil deeds and can't see ourself living without them (and don't want to change), then there's no point believing on Christ and getting saved, because God and Christ are on the opposite choice which is for good only; and they'll not have themselves present in the choice for including evil. We cannot make God/Christ choose to suit us. They have their own mind, and have chosen good only.

›Which came first -the egg or the chicken? Which comes first? God, or Creation?

On second analysis, it may seem haughty and high minded to think that we can be changed and saved by the word or a blessing. We could analyze God, here, as a 3rd party stamp of approval: depending on whether we believe on Jesus, or not. And this is true. This is the one and only time when I accept the 3rd party approval, as quite valid. You see, we are trapped of destruction. Our society has been since its beginning. All this is, is a recognition of our situation and a reaching out and admitting we need outside help. I do this. I admit my trapped situation and open myself up and accept what God has to offer, by believing on Christ. But God is no ordinary 3rd party. Unlike other 3rd parties, God does not need my help or work to free me from evil, other than my OK and permission to do this in me.

It may seem silly that if the blessing of God is put on a thing, it is made good; while if the blessing of God is not put on that very thing; it is bad. And even though it may be silly, I make this one exception to be silly. You see, in this case, the blessing of God, is under my control. If I believe on Christ, then I am blessed. If I refuse to believe on Christ, then I am not blessed. Since it requires my choice and participation; this allows me to express myself to God, and communicate that I accept His help and acknowledge my trapped state.

But if I am told that if I do something one way; it has God's blessing and is therefore good; but that if I do a similar thing another way, that it does not contain Gods blessing and is therefore bad (even though the 2 acts are very similar (nearly identical) and seem to contain similar inherent substance): then in this case, I do not have control or decision over God's blessing in this area. I do not decide here where God's blessing will be or won't be, over a certain situation. That has already been decided. Since I have no decision here where God's blessing will be present (vs not present), then this situation provides me no opportunity to express myself to God, other than by following the 'right' path, the blessed path, and not committing any of the non-blessed paths. But I say that a true God, does not need my work nor this complicated form of communication (of my showing my allegiance through obedience in actions in the conduct of my life to follow only the blessed path -some of which relate to my trapped state and which because of my trapped state are difficult/painful for me to perfom), and that my word should be good enough. Since this situation doesn't give much opportunity for the expression/communication to God of my word or decision that I need His help, then I disregard it as a direct communication and refer back to where my word and decision is more directly communicating. However, if an indirect and roundabout communication is sought; my failure to obey some of the difficult commands (relating to my trapped state); should actually communicate to God that I need His help in these areas.

I have tried God's word and blessing in the direct way of communicating with God and asking God for help for my trapped situation. But if I still find myself trapped of essentials: If I still hunger, then I shall say that I still need help getting out of the trap of evil. If I still need, and hunger, then I am still trapped. And until I am freed from my need and hunger, I will not be free to do good only, like I want. And I will still have to deal with the evil within myself. If I am still hungry, then God has not (yet) freed me from my hunger. And if I still have hunger, then I still have it to deal with (in the best way I can), as I still have it, as God has not freed me of it (yet). -If I still have hunger after God has done His part, then any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And for God to dictate to me how I should do this: this dictating to me by God, is an act by God to do something in me. But this act (of dictating) by God upon me, has not relieved the hunger, which still remains. After God has done His part, and with the hunger still remaining, any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And if the way I deal with it is contrary to God's blessing, in some parts, then this is my way to communicate to God that I have not yet been freed of my hunger, that I am still trapped of it, and that I still need help. If you leave dealing with hungers/ and being trapped by essentials, up to a powerful and almighty God, what would you expect? (I'm not going to answer this one.) But if you leave dealing with hungers/ and being trapped by essentials, up to a puny, low capability, trapped-by-hungers-and-essentials little guy like me; then you get what you pay for; and I think you know what you most probably will get from me. Sure, reduced capability is the best environment for separation of the forces and for me to become purified; but until I am purified, -(I am yet in the process of being purified); things won't always be done in the pure, God accepted ways, until I am pure, because I'm not pure yet! And WHEN God chooses to free me of my hunger, is up to Him and His time table. If you wish to dispute God's timetable concerning me and my hunger; take it up with God, not me. Cause if you do take it up with me, I'll just have to deal with you, right along with my hungers, as best I can in the ways I know how. -and those actions may or may not have God's approval. What else did you expect from a reduced capability human who is still trapped of hungers and essentials?

I have asked for God's help part ways. But when asking God for help requires that I need no help; then I find myself unable to communicate with God in this way (since I am still trapped, as I still hunger). What God does about my silence in this area, is up to God. But what I do about it, is to not dwell on what I can't do, but work with and do with what I am able to do. And this involves dealing with destructiveness in actions as best I can, which due to my trapped situation, are ways that are not always in line with the pure ways that are blessed by God.

Because I recognize that God is not just any 3rd party, but is the 3rd party who is powerful enough to free me from my hungers without my work, but only needs my non coerced, unpressured word and decision to ask for it. If asking God for help requires that I jump through hoops and prove my allegiance and be tested, tempted and tried and then overcome -essentially that I am in no need of help: then why am I asking God for help if I don't need help? But if I am in need of help, then I'll have to ask God for help (in ways I'm able;) in ways other than those requiring that I need no help.

If you wish for me to act like I'm not hungry, then I must be free from my hungers. I will not pretend to be not-hungry by acting like I'm not hungry, when I'm really hungry. I've tried God's blessing (part ways -or as best as I'm able: I won't take it back and you can't blame me for asking), but if I'm still hungry, then I additionally act ((to attempt to be free of my hungers as best I can)-this is concept A, and also to feed), and also to apply concept A in my feeding. I do not blame God for not freeing me from my hungers. God is not obligated to give me anything. God gives what He gives and I accept whatever help God makes available.›

One thing I'd like to emphasize about Jesus Christ: It is He who brought an emphasis on LOVE and the importance of LOVE, above all other things. All you need is love (The Beetles). So what's wrong with love and being kind to each other? Hey. I'm going for that. It should be obvious that love is the way to go.

Mark 12, 28-31: . . . Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel:

The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matthew 22, 37-40: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, if another commandment seems to contradict; which one wins out? -The commandment of love.

1 John 4, 7-8: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4, 17-18: Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4, 16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Let's say I were to obey the commandment to love God with all my heart. Since God IS love, to obey the commandment would be to love, love. When I see love, I see part of God. To love and love it; is to love God. Not out of a sense of duty. I love to love. And that is loving God (because God is love). Love is so satisfying to me.

The first commandment is to love God. But since God is love, that becomes to love Love. To love ourselves is one kind of love(1). If we treat ourselves poorly, that's not loving this love(1) at all. Thus the first commandment among other things, commands us to love ourselves. And then we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Since God is Love, it is reasonable to assume He would care about matters of love. He'd want to protect love, and not want it treated frivolously. He'd want it treated with respect and valued highly; not trodden underfoot when it became convenient. So it's reasonable He'd write commandments protecting the actions of love. But the result seems to be that people are so scared of breaking the commandments and getting in trouble with God, that they just stay away from the game, and don't bother trying to love. But a God who is love, would want more love not less.

What I want to discuss now, is what Jesus means by his saying to deny yourself (and take up your cross). Note that we are commanded to love. We are commanded to love our neighbor, our brother, our enemy, and God. But we are not directly commanded to love ourselves; although this can be inferred, as I have shown. To ourselves, we are told to deny ourselves to die to ourselves and loose our life for Christ, and give up our life for our friends. You know, it doesn't make sense. We are a person too. Why can't we be loved too? (I've heard that to love others, spreads this love, while loving oneself then, does not. If everybody loved others, then this love would grow, and the group would be brought together as one. But if you loved others but no other loved you, then you would not be brought together with these others, and would remain alone. -Maybe they just don't want you to be part of their group. In this case of being all alone, is where the directive to only love others breaks down and where I se the logic of also loving yourself. We are a person and a friend to ourself, too!)

In a world with destruction, it is true that the greatest love a man can have is that he lay down his life for his friends. But to sacrifice your own life for your friends, involves DESTRUCTION just the same. Love does better when it is free from all destruction, including self destruction. Destruction is the big problem. Over all the passage of history, it remains with us. (Individual) Mankind has not been able to solve this problem. /(Being one, and not as many-individuals, is so important, even to die for?) /The obtaining of our essentials has caused us to develop appetites in obtaining them. Our essentials and quasi essentials have evil in them that compels us to obtain these things. Is it these destructive forces that Christ is trying to deal with in telling us to die to ourselves?

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting 'lay down your life'; in that Christ really means 'to utilize' your life, (doesn't involve destruction and sacrifice of that life unless forced to). And since you are a friend to yourself (ie: lay down your life for your friends) as well as others, you also are loved. Then again, perhaps I didn't misinterpret.

What is Christ trying to say? What is so different between us loving others and us loving ourselves, that we sould love others but not love ourselves? The thing is that when we love ourselves, we bring down our Godly parts unto our earthly parts to do so. Yet we often don't recognize the Godly parts as a separate entity, (as they still respond to our will). But they are a separate entity, and the consequences of bringing them together with our earthly parts (to love ourselves), destroys their evil free status and growth. /To love others, recognizes a separate entity, other than ourselves, and joins them together. (But there is no joining together of entities gained in self love, as the self is already a together entity even before any additional self love.)

It is our Godly parts that have the power and capability. Jesus is instructing us not to invest in our earthly parts, which we'd do by bringing down our Godly parts to feed them (in a self love).

When the evil of this earth destroys part of us; we don't replace what evil destroys with our Godly parts. The evil thus boxes itself in while our good parts escape into the Spirit of God.

What I think Jesus is trying to say here, is to forfeit your individual life, living alone as an individual separate from God; in favor of a life together with others and God. Here we are all one (with God). Bear one another's burdens; if one suffers, we all suffer. If one rejoices, we all rejoice. As a union, we are above reduced capability, and are thus out of the trap of evil. Godly parts are one and together with God, whereas earthly parts are not. When we become a new entity ie as part of a new entity by being one with God and one in the bride of Christ, we hae thus denied 'ourself', and an individual existence (also denied). What good is it to live life alone (in a reduced capability position), when we can become one and join together with others and God (and be at high capability, no longer in the trap of evil)? Perhaps this is the idea behind 'deny yourself'./

We are imperfect because we're forced to do destruction to survive and we have destruction within us. But does Christ want us to self eliminate because we aren't perfect? (so as to make room for more perfect life forms?) Is self elimination the way to go? Love others, but deny ourselves? We are person's too. Why can't we love ourselves as well as others? Why can't we be loved too? How can we love others as we have been commanded, if we self deny and self destruct? If we self destruct, we won't exist to love others nor self deny nor do any more self destruction.

This idea about dieing to yourself, or not feeding the evil by not bringing in good things: The contrast between eternal life and our life here on earth, is made with respect to this dieing to ourselves (in the verse(s) Matthew 6 v19-21; 16 v24-25; John 12 v24-25 -namely John 12 v25). Our life here on earth is a life caught in togethrness ith evil; whereas eternal life with God is life free from evil. When it comes to dieing to ourselves or allowing ourselves to be killed, that involves destruction. My point, is we don't allow this dieing to carry over into our eternal life; so that we don't do harmful things in our eternal life that's free from evil (according to the text). -We are instructed to self deny in our earthly life. Do we continue this self denial in our eternal life? (No.)

The difference between our earthly life and our eternal life, is destruction: our earthly life is trapped of destruction while our eternal life is not. (Self denial can also be (self) destructive and (when it is -and it is when self denial of essentials/quasi-essentials is involved), can thus be classified as part of earthly life). The question is what do we do about the problem of destruction? It's not Jesus Christ or God who stands over us in a Holy presence and gives us a hard time all day; but it's the force of destruction we're trapped of in our earthly life that does this.

One of the more important precepts Jesus taught and elevated to importance, is that what we do to others should be done to us as well. -What goes around comes around. (I get this from 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you'.) This shows a difference between good and evil. If you do good to others, you don't mind when it comes back to you and others do good to you. Good is not scared of having it done to itself. But if you do evil to others, the last thing you want is for others to turn back the evil you produce onto yourself so this evil is done to you.

If you make this self-denial a part of yourself then you are thus instructed to deny this self denial itself, by Jesus' command to deny yourself. (And when we fragment, we also fragment our action to fragment.) A reduced capability environment results. We are instructed to bring our earthly life to reduced capability. (And this mirrors what we've been discussing.) If you self deny and self eliminate, there'll be no mind left to know about religion, but the forces of growth and destruction will continue in your area, but without mind or intelligence to care about obeying anything. This is one scenario of what might happen if we were to self deny. But if we actually attempt to self deny or self eliminate, then the denial/elimination itself will have become part of ourself (part of the self); so that when we continue to self deny or self eliminate, we also deny or eliminate the self denial/elimination action itself. We deny self denial, and eliminate self elimination, if we actually obey the command to self deny. Some denial and elimination will be accomplished, but it will come to a stop after a certain point, as we can never achieve complete denial or elimination because the denial and elimination will knock themselves out after a certain point. This thinking about self denial and self elimination, and religion, takes intelligence and thought power above an animalistic instinct driven mentality. Once the intelligence to consider and obey self denial has knocked itself out, what's left is our animalistic instinct driven mentality, which still exists (due to incomplete elimination and denial) and this thus then takes over and we do according to it. In short, the message of self denial is to cast religion and complex thought aside, and do according to our lower basal instincts; until a complex thought system is created which contains no evil. This is the environment of reduced capability but not total desolation we've been discussing for separating the forces when there is evil. But where there is no evil, we don't need this environment of reduced capability. But where there's evil; and there is lots of evil and mean spiritedness out there; then this is just the ticket. Go ahead and fragment them, yourself, everything. There's no religion, or teaching of self denial that can stop you. Unfortunately for that religion, any religion or system with lots of self denial and self elimination, self eliminates itself and returns the fragments (the individuals) to reduced capability; out of which develops new religions and systems. And this cycle repeats until a religion or system free from/of destruction, develops.

In our solution to evil, (after our Godly parts have left), we fragment ourselves where we're trapped by evil, in as non destructive a way as possible, where our fragments can be put back together by a force of good but not by a force of evil (due to evil being the weaker force). Our fragments provide a rich environment for forces of good to grow in, but not too rich so that the force of evil cannot grow here.

In fragmentation we have denied ourself; as 'ourself' no longer exists as an entity -only fragments. We do this to deal with the problem of evil/destruction. And Christ doesn't instruct us to self deny in our eternal life -only in our earthly life, where life is trapped by evil.

Advanced capability groupings such as ourselves shouldn't exist where there is evil. We should fragment so the evil is separated from the good and dies, and so the good-alone will then grow/produce advanced capability groupings such as us free from evil.

///Jesus says not to fear man who can only destroy the body, but fear He who can destroy the body and soul in Hell. -And how God in the judgment has his enemies who'd not have Him rule them, slain at His feet. And Jesus made a whip of cords and cast the money changers out of the temple. (Yes, without access to money/banks, the rich and poor would be the same and shops'd be forced to extend credit to all. But the they'd just tattoo a chip under the skin -the mark of the beast- to handle transactions.)

But the Bible says God is love. Jesus says to love your neighbor and your enemy. But if God eternally tortures people in Hell/the Lake of Fire: is that loving your enemy? If this passes for love: anything goes. Won't God reap what He sows? Yet if people torture each other so and choose/create a God who does this; then they are the source of this. -It is from them; and I don't have to follow in those footsteps. I choose otherwise. I choose Love.

Note that the Bible saying of how God will have his enemies who would not have Him rule over them, slain at his feet; is just unnecessarily irritable. You see, since God is Love: those who would not have love rule their hearts, will suffer the destruction which they instead choose to have rule them, without God having to lift a finger. It makes a big difference who God is, and what God is like. And God is Love.///

Chapter 9

"Intricasies and Details"

Chapter Introduction:

This chapter deals with what religion (the Bible) says concerning sex, as well as a few other things; and some detailed ideas on how to do our essentials, including sex. The chapter is divided into 2 parts A and B. Part A deals mostly with religion and sex. Part B deals with the discussion of doing our essentials. Note that I no longer practice many of these mental techniques, and I put them out mainly as a type of journal to show may passage through this area, and also to offer possible ways and possibilities.

In part B some serious abbreviations are intermittently used. These are: 'inc' means incomplete, as in inc (incomplete) fragmentation;

'red cap' means reduced capability, as in red cap (reduced capability) zone.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

Part A

Jesus Christ came here on earth to confront the problem of evil, by separating the forces in all areas. I don't specifically find this in the Bible, but it does say He came to destroy the works of the devil.

Once the forces have been separated, this is finished, and no more of it needs to be done. There is no more growth of this. In the Bible, it says that Jesus Christ (not God the Father), is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This means that He is not growing. And this is true. Evil doesn't grow and generate new things like good does, so once evil is dealt with, that's it. No more action is needed. Because the body of Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus Christ as a man), had no growth, the Holy Spirit extended beyond His body from the Father. It is this Holy Spirit that can then have all manner of growths free from evil.

So you don't believe God the Father grows. Well, not according to the Bible:

Colossians 2, 18-19: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (increase means growth)

God causes other things to grow:

1 Corinthians 3, 6-7: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

God IS growth:

Hebrews 6, 13-20: For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Saying, Surely blessing(1) I will bless thee, and multiplying(2) I will multiply thee.

And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the ›hope› set before us:

Which ›hope› we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail;

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It says that God sware by himself. And He called Himself "blessing" and He also called Himself "multiplying". God is Blessing; and God is Multiplying. Multiplying represents growth. If you're going to multiply, growth is going to be involved. And the blessing part represents that the growth is above reduced capability; that it is free from evil.

(It is also written that God is Love. So we see that love is also blessing and multiplying. Love involves growth (IS growth).) You know, they could have said, "God is loving". The Bible may say God is Holy, and God is righteous. But it doesn't say that God is Holiness or God is righteousness. But it does say that God is Love and God is Multiplying and God is Blessing. And it is clear that it is God the Father being referred to here, as that is who is "within the vail" at the temple being referred to.

Next we'll portray an interesting twist to Bible verses concerning sexual love:

Mark 10, 6-9

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19, 4-6

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19,9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, comitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery(although this doesn't directly relate to 'putting asunder').

There is the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. But since you don't love yourself in a sexual way, this wouldn't apply as to loving your neighbor in a sexual way. But if you are married, and you love your spouse in a sexual way; you ARE loving yourself in a sexual way because the twain have become one flesh. So the commandment can be seen as instructing you to love your neighbor in a sexual way if you are married. This is a very liberal view of how we should be behaving towards each other sexually. But it has a restraint that I agree with. That what is being spoken against in adultery and fornication, is not love making, but love breaking. When you love your mate sexually, and then you love a second person sexually; it usually happens that you are required to (or you) break it off with one or the other. It is this love breaking that is the wrong being committed. "Let not man put asunder what God has joined together". When young people are fornicating; one set of partners make love; but soon they break off and find a new set of partners. It is this love breaking that is wrong. If you're going to do all this sex, well fine. You can interpret these Bible verses to OK that. But you've got to keep your old partners. You can't discard them. You've got to keep loving them. Also, when a man has sex with his wife, since they are one flesh, 'his seed has remained in him'.

The release of seed is not the evil, it is the body's prevention of the release of seed, or destruction of brain chemicals, that is. But, the creation of seed is a fragmenting of one's genetic make-up (unless one is pure breed); and fragmentation has some destruction in it. So, it may not be good to create seed at all; but fragmentation has its uses in removing evil: but when there's no evil to remove, there's no need for fragmentation. Now, we are also commanded, that if a part of our body offends us, we are to cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. The creation of sperm involves a fragmentation; and if our sperm offends us, we are instructed to cast it from us. (a fragmentation of the product of a fragmentation. thus when we fragment the production of sperm via temporary abstinence, we have a fragmentation of fragmentation, and incomplete fragmentation.)

What I'm looking for, is why. What's wrong with sex? For sure, we can get all moral and morally indignant, but I not interested in that. The Bible may have an anti sexual directive; but if so, I want to know why and for what reasons. That way, if we know what the trouble is, we can work around it in the most positive ways. Well, here, we see that Jesus speaks against the breaking of the bond God joins between two sexually connected individuals, concerning the wrong of adultery. But there's more. The sexual area goes deeper than this. Because we feel compelled to sex (because we live in a world with death which is not of God, where we must reproduce or die off as a species), there is an evil in sex where our pleasures, which should go evenly to all things, are removed from other things, to surround sex with maximum pleasure to compel us to sex. This leaves the other things lack luster and lacking in pleasure, and this is the destructive part. And with destruction also being selected for in sex, this glut of pleasure is slowly destroyed, leaving us completely lack luster and lacking in pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Matthew 5, 28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The key word is lust here. (Define lust.) Even if you're married, if you look at your wife the wrong way, its adultery. So if you're not allowed to have sexual feelings for your wife, then I guess you don't love 'yourself' in a sexual way. (Still, there remains something sexual between a husband and wife in what is allowed in marriage.) Well, like I was saying, there's an evil or destructive force in sex we all need to be careful of. If we refuse to allow the pleasures from our other things from entering into our sex, for as long as we can hold out, then the evil in sex which consumes our pleasures, will not be fed. The time spent doing sex at reduced pleasure capability allows the good to separate from the evil, and the evil to die. And even if we're not able to hold out till complete separation is achieved, some separation is achieved, and we can then do a special series of fragmentations. So what does Jesus have to say ultimately about sex? Lets continue on in Matthew:

Matthew 19, 10-12

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Here, point blank, they are considering if any sex at all is OK; and Jesus' answer in the next verse:)

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying (the saying, Matthew 19,9), save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Well, the answer I get from this, is that it's not as simple as yes or no, but that sex is a complicated thing, that we need to figure our way around the dangers.

We were born with hungers and desires that are not of God. We were born with what we are. Call it 'the flesh', 'the natural man' or 'mammon', but we were born with desires of the flesh (hungers) that we did not ask for. Also a part of us, is a desire for God, goodness and to please God. What we have; who we are; and what we were born as: is this body and mind. We may not have asked for these hungers and we may even choose against them, but they are part of us just the same. Any religion that does not recognize this, sells us short. OK, go ahead and say that these hungers are wrong and bad. I will agree that it is OK to list and acknowledge what is evil in us, and call it what it is. But to expect us to do something about it, is another ball game altogether. And religion expects us to overcome our desires and hungers. We have to eat. That is destructive to plants or animals (other life forms). (What about the commandment: Thou shalt not kill?) I acknowledge that this is so and that I eat; but there's nothing I can do about it. I am not able to live otherwise. Would you like to be eaten? The golden rule condemns eating.

What we have, who we are, and what we were born as; is this body and mind. This house; this body and mind, which serves as a house or container to hold our consciousness; is composed of both God and mammon. What I suggest is that we let the parts of us that want to serve God, go and do that; and the parts that want to serve mammon (our hungers), go and do that. My point is that we have no interest in seeing such a house as ours to remain standing. There is no benefit to have Godly parts be together with mammon parts. This 'house' our body contains both God and mammon -two opposing directives - together, within us. It is not in our interest to maintain this togetherness. Thus when Jesus instructs us that we can't serve two masters (you cannot serve both God and mammon) and that a house divided against itself will not stand; we go ahead and be a house divided against itself (which is what we are and were born as), and let this house (which was not of our making or choosing), to fall. And that is gravy for us as we'll be eliminating togetherness of the forces and obtain separation of the forces. Jesus says that 'we' cannot serve two masters (God and mammon). And this is true. The entity we know as ourselves, will no longer contain both God and mammon. The part of us that wants to serve mammon and go to excess in the desires of the flesh, will go and do that. And the part that wants to put God first will go and do that. But they will no longer be one entity, but separate entities.

Getting back to sex and religion: One may wonder, is there sex in heaven?

Mark 12, 25:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

What is the sex life of an angel? Unknown. But we may speculate that since the only sex allowed here on earth is in marriage, and since there is no marriage in heaven, that therefore there is no sex in heaven. But just because the only sex allowed by God on earth is in monogamous marriage, doesn't mean that holds true in heaven. Now, I wouldn't give this much weight, except for the EXAMPLE that God has set.

Jesus Christ: He was (is) the son of God. He was (is) God's only begotten sone. You know, from first glance at religion, you'd get the idea that we were beneath Him, and basically the scum of the universe (an evil and adulterous generation) (violence and sex). But then God goes and has an offspring with an earthling. God chose to REPRODUCE with one of His creations, an earth woman, and had an humanoid son, Jesus Christ. He must care about us a lot. I wouldn't go as far as saying God had sex with an earthling, as God is free from the hunger and coercive force we know as sex which has been shaped by death through the generations, and the need to reproduce to replace what death took away. And the Bible says that the Word (which then became Christ when the Word took on humanoid form) existed with God and as God from the very beginning. But human reproductive function free from coercion and evil, with the human woman Mary, did take place; and a humanoid offspring was then generated after Mary's conception. Perhaps only Mary's genes existed from her virgin birth. But at age 12, the spirit of God descended upon Jesus. -The life essence from a human woman (12 years later) was combined with the life essence of God (a spirit), and in a loose sense of the word, an offspring (Jesus Christ) was created. Luke 1,35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God." If God did it (although only once) I don't see why a loving God wouldn't sanctify and purify an already existing action (reproductive function) that represents growth, (Growth being what God IS).

Oh yes, was there a marriage license? Was there a courtship? Was Mary even taken out to supper? Never mind that Mary was already betrothed to another man. Basically, Mary was told not to fear, and that she had found favour with God, and that this was what was going to happen. At least she was notified of the coming event.

Now, sidestepping the sex issue, we note that we believers are supposed to compose the bride of Christ. We become one as part of the body of the bride of Christ. This being so close together in one, is closer than even sex could bring us. Remember that sex causes people to be joined together as one flesh according to the Bible. Being part of the same body, we can probably feel what each other is feeling. Here is the oneness that Jesus wants for us:

John 17, 20-23,26

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.

26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

And here is a Biblical account of a big group hug that Jesus did:

Mark 4, 19-21: . . . and they (the disciples) went into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. (a euphemistic way of saying they were touching.)

And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

When we're considering what's wrong with sex; what is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? Well, the Bible and Jesus tells us of the golden rule, which is: Matthew 7, 12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This rule is given a high place by Jesus, because it can be used as a test to tell if something is good or evil, right or wrong: thus Jesus raises this simple rule to be the whole law and the prophets. Recall that the 10 commandments are part of the law. We can use this rule to tell the difference between good and evil; right vs wrong. Good doesn't mind having it turned on itself and it done to itself. But with evil, that's the last thing it wants. For example, ask yourself if you like to kill. If you got mad enough at someone, you might; but then ask yourself if you changed places, would you like to be killed? The answer would be NO. So, killing is thus wrong and evil. Ask yourself if you would like to steal. Well, if it meant you would get something nice, you might say yes. But then switch places and ask yourself if you would like to be robbed. The answer would be NO. So, stealing is wrong and evil. But if we apply the golden rule to the sexual area, things aren't so cut and dried. If we have a man and woman (or even homosexuals) who both like sex and who are sexually active: if the man does sex to the woman and asks himself if he likes it, he will say yes. Now if the two changed places and the same question was asked, the answer would still be yes, because the woman enjoyed it too. And if they didn't mind multiple partners, that would be a yes all the way around too. (Why limit your love (to just one person)?) So here, sex would not be considered evil or wrong by the golden rule. And since the golden rule represents the whole law (according to the Bible), sex would not be wrong or evil according to the golden rule. (Now this is not to say there isn't an evil in sex. There is the evil in sex of an essential. So if we are to choose whether or not to do sex because it contains an evil (whereby we're unable to do sex without the evil): well, then just do the sex in an environment of reduced capability; and take advantage of the difference between good and evil, which allows the good and evil to separate in reduced capability, thus purifying the good of sex to now be without any evil (the evil dies in separation). Whereas if we said NO to sex altogether, we'd have nothing. -No good and no evil: which is the same as the inanimate, and stagnation; and also the end result of destruction alone.)

(Now of course, if the situation is where the man wants sex, but the woman does not want sex or doesn't enjoy it, then that's different, and the golden rule turns this out as evil. But I'm not talking about, or trying to defend that situation.)//////////////////////

///You may have heard 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'. But I just want to warn them not to burn down the kitchen.

The condemnations of the law seem to say: 'we'll flush you if you don't flush yourself'. Either way, you get flushed (down the toilet). Instead of expending your energies to 'flush' yourself (according to the law), expend your energies to deal with 'flush', while letting others expend their energy to flush you and themselves. Because it is 'flush' itself that causes all the problems. If God or the legal system is going to either eternally destroy (kill) you in Hell or capitally punish you for murder (or other sins/destructions); then they themselves have broken their own law (thou shalt not kill), and should also carry out the same sentence against themselves and their law, thus bringing everything to reduced capability so that there is nothing beyond what we are now here at reduced capability life here on earth.

It just doesn't make sense: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do you believe in capital punishment? yes. Do you believe in even enforcement of the law? yes. Well, somebody has to put the murderer to death. (The murder will not kill himself will he?) (Let the murderers kill themselves and leave me out of any killing.) Is not he who put the murderer to death: hasn't he also killed? And since he has killed, shouldn't he also be put to death, according to the law that if somebody kills, they should be put to death? The thing is that what the law attempts to stamp out (destructive behavior), the law does so by engaging in destructive behavior. The law (both of man and the Bible) brings in and engages in and contains what it aims to stamp out. Will it ever stamp out destruction? The answer is, yes: when the law and lawmakers/enforcers do to themselves what they do to others, they will then bring our whole society to reduced capability where separation of the forces can occur and the evil (destruction) die. Only when the law and lawkeepers do to others, will the destruction be ended. Otherwise, the law and lawkeepers just keep introducing the destruction they act against and it will always be with us, keeping us in the stagnation that comes from having evil around. Since the law contains the destruction it seeks to stamp out, the law seems to say that we must have destruction and we can't be without it. Well, there is another way. Destruction is not the only way. There is alternatively the possibility for life free of destruction. This is the possibility I will be seeking to obtain.

One of the differences between good and evil is that Good is not scared of having it done unto itself. But evildoers don't want the evil they do, create, and bring into the world, to come back and be done to them. The law just completes the cycle and returns what the evildoer produces(evil), back to the evildoer themselves, without having to drag the rest of us and the whole society down to get to this point (where the evil the evildoer does, returns to them). Yes, murderers will kill each other, but not until they have brought us and the rest of society down to depravity. The law just shortens the process (of the destructor receiving the destruction they produce) so we who want nothing to do with destruction, don't have to be dragged into it. This is the major purpose of the law. We who have no interest in doing destructive things, have no kinship with the destruction of the law because we have no destructiveness within us. With no destruction within us, the external destruction of the law has little hold on us, and we are able to shake it off and deal with it in peace of mind, as we do with all other external evils we encounter.

But if you are going to participate in the destructiveness of the law, then destructiveness is already within you. And if a whole society craves to participate in the destructiveness in the law (craving revenge on criminals), then there is no need to have the law, because all the law is for is to hasten the day that the evildoer's evil returns to them, so the rest of us who want no part of destruction, won't have to be dragged into it. But if everybody already craves destruction and has destructiveness (of the law) within them and everybody hates each other, then there is no point to the law as far as protecting those who want no part of destruction because there is nobody who isn't into destruction. -They all have destruction within them. So it would be better for this society to be lawless. Otherwise it would destroy itself and cease to exist.

We want an environment of reduced capability, not total desolation. And the added destruction from the law would move the society towards total desolation. But in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate, and the evil dies, so that some good comes out of this society. So it's better for there to be no law and for God to give these people up to their own cravings, in a society that hates.

When the law picks on people who don't have (much) destructiveness within them (such as being arrested for chewing gum or not flushing a public toilet, or not washing your hands before eating or healing on the Sabbath), then the law introduces destruction where there was none before. One purpose the law can have is to shorten the process by which the evildoer's evil comes back upon them so the rest of us won't have to be drawn into their destruction. But in this case, the law here has subverted that purpose and has taken the role of the evildoer in a lawless society; as this law drags people into destruction who don't have such destruction within them. This law needs to have hastened, the day the destruction it does, comes back upon it. (If it can't take what it dishes out; it shouldn't be in the kitchen.) (Eventually the destruction it produces WILL come back upon it, but in this case, all involved will be dragged into it like it or not.)

If you insist on an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, (in order to insist on executing murderers): realize that this system uses destruction in order to stamp out destruction. If destruction works so well and is the preferred choice of the system; why is it then trying to stamp it out?

And if you insist on strict adherence to this system, then you must be consistent. If a lecherous man stalks, hugs and kisses an attractive member of the opposite sex, then his punishment must be for a member of the opposite sex to stalk, kiss and hug him; according to this system of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Concerning sexual love:

How can a thing be right and wrong at the same time? I say it can't. Either an action is good, or evil, or a combination of the two in different areas. When a husband has sex with his wife; that is supposed to be OK. But when a man has sex with a woman not his wife, that is supposed to be terribly wrong. (If the same man and the same woman have sex, but with different marital ties, this act can range from acceptable and OK, to terribly wrong, depending on the marital ties.) But it is the same act in both cases. A man is physically capable of loving only one woman at a time. When a couple first gets married, their sexual passion is as hot as ever. But after a time, due to sameness and lack of variety, that passion may wane. I mean, if you ate the same meal day in and day out; you might get bored with it, even if it was your favorite food. But if the intense sexual passion between a newly married husband and wife is OK, then why is that intense sexual passion not OK between any man and woman? Either a thing is good, or it is bad. But we go about treating an action as perfectly acceptable and good and then due to a few technicalities, we treat essentially the same action as totally unacceptable and terribly wrong. And we do so without a second thought. Essentially it is the same act in both cases. The inherent goodnesses and/or destructivenesses are going to be present in the act in both cases. Simon says touch your nose. Touch your nose. (Simon is a 3rd party bureaucratic rule maker). Can a thing be changed from good to evil, evil to good, just by putting the word or a blessing on it? If that is so, why has not all the wrongs been righted, and paradise on earth yet been created with the word and a blessing? More specifically, why hasn't the word or a blessing been used to free us from our essentials and quasi essentials instead of leaving us trapped of them? We can have Jesus' word or blessing upon us if we choose, but that does not yet free us from our essentials/quasi essentials. "Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's". (In this case, our eating, and our reproductive function appear to be yet Caesar's, as they are still our essentials/quasi essentials. Dictating how we are to do these, is definitely Caesar's way, and they are thus correctly rendered to Caesar. But let us try to escape Caesar and Caesar's controlling dictates that hide behind Biblical commands.)

The only logical assertion that makes sense is that all sexual desire contains some error/destruction and is wrong: but that like eating, we can't get by without it. (So that God is willing to process and purify a certain degree, a limited amount, of sexuality; but not an undue amount of it.) Therefore allowances are made to allow a limited amount of it. Well, if allowances are going to be made, then I'd like more of a selection of ways; and I'd like to have a hand, and understanding in the fashioning of these allowances: since this area so deeply effects us all. Its obvious that sexual passion is being limited by these rules over sex. But sexual passion itself, is defective. If we love only those whom are attractive; whom we are sexually attracted to; then this limits our love. The love of God will not be limited. And God loves everyone irregardless of their attractiveness. In this respect, God is a more prolific lover than any sexual lover. What I suggest, is that we are what we are and all we need do, is acknowledge this and that our sexuality is defective (imperfect); take additional action to quarantine or deal with the evil in it. And that once we do this, we do not need to try and prevent it from coming out.

In the Bible it says "To those that have, more will be given and to those that have not, that little they have will be taken away and given to that has". Or the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Doesn't it seem like this is the way it is? -That the rich are getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Well, what about God? God has done very well and is far richer than the richest man. Thus between God and the rich (and all the rest of us), we will all loose it all to God. But if we as the poor make ourselves part of God, we will inherit a share of it all because we are part of God. How do we do that? The Bible says God is love. If we act in loving ways and generate our income through loving ways, then we will have made ourselves a part of God through this. If we believe on Jesus Christ we will have made ourselves part of God. So this is how many of the last can become first and the first last. But those who become rich through meanness and underhandedness, will loose this wealth to God who is far wealthier and more powerful. And since they have not made themselves a part of God, they won't get any of it back as inheritance and will loose it for good.

One thing about welfare I have to admit, (although I don't like what the republicans are doing when they cut off welfare); is that if you refuse to give someone a handout, you haven't done destruction to them. You aren't helping them, but you haven't done a harmful act to them either. Now, if you control their environment so you hinder their access to materials and prevent them from making a living like you do, then you are the cause of a destructive act. But just refusing to help someone (that you've never helped before), contains no destructive action.

Likewise, when a woman brings a child into the world through sexual activity, it's not her fault that human children are born with a destructive force within them whereby if they're not cared for, they die. I mean, its not the rich man's fault that humans are under the condition whereby if they don't get enough food they starve to death. Yes, one would hope that a mother would love her children and care for them out of her own choice. And if she doesn't, the state should step in and do so out of its own choice. But to try to hold mothers accountable for neglecting their children, I think goes a bit far. (I'm not talking about abuse here. Abuse does contain destructive acts.) If we are going to hold mothers accountable and punish them, then we should hold rich men accountable for the plight of the poor and punish them, because neither has helped when help was needed. Are we going to legislate love? Now you may say that because a mother created and brought into this world, a little baby; that she is accountable. (We have to put the burden off on someone when the rest of us don't want to help out.) But if that is the case, then we must hold this woman's mother (and father) accountable for creating this woman in such a way, that the babies she had, have this destructive force within them that without care and food, they die (which is the human condition: we are trying to blame the human condition on the mother). And not only the mother of the woman, but her mother, and the mother before her, and before her, all the way back to Eve and Adam, helped contribute to the existence of the destructive force within a baby which kills it if not given care and food. And then not only them, but also God, because He created these people in such a way that they could fall from grace. If you're going to hold a mother accountable because she created a child, you must also hold God accountable because HE created us. And I think to myself: they have already held God accountable: -they nailed Him to a tree. So if you want to take your place with those who crucified Christ, then go ahead and be judgmental and condemn those mothers who you feel haven't sacrificed enough for their children. I'm not saying it's right or good to not help your children. It's not. But if you're moved to do something; help the child, don't judge and condemn the mother, nor force sterilize the mother, nor imprison the mother.

The work mothers do in raising their kids is just as important if not more so than any work done in a factory. It is fitting that mothers should partake of the materials our society makes. They should be paid. I've been told that the Bible tells mothers to take care of their kids. I'm not surprised. It's just common sense. But the Bible here also states that every 'man' shall be rewarded for their own labor. And if we pay a factory worker for their work, we should also pay a mother for hers. Many mothers have raised kids for no pay, but I'm saying and the Bible is saying that it's right that they should be paid. Now if the republicans take away welfare for these single mothers, and these single mothers can't find a job or a high enough paying job, then they won't be able to take care of their kids, and social services will take them away from their mothers; and put them in foster care. It costs money to pay people to take care of foster children. And if you eliminate foster care, destitute mothers will just drop their kids off at hospitals and someone will have to pay to take care of them and it won't be them without money. It's going to cost more this way than before. Why not just pay the mothers in the form of welfare? When will you realize that raising the children is as valid a job and deserving of pay as any office or factory job or capital gain from smart investment, that you do for a living? Why do you single out certain types of work and say that they are less worthy and refuse to pay? (Just because men and women naturally form family units and tend to take care of their kids naturally without pay: ie human sexuality provides the incentive for a little free labor.) May the stripping of pay you've done to these mothers, come back on you, without the rest of us having to be drawn into it. -You produced it. It stinks. We want to be far from it, leaving you with it.

Some mothers may think they own their children (whether 5 or 55) because they brought them into the world and are required to take care of them: therefore that care doesn't ever end. But no one can own another. Remember that we shall all lose ownership to God (and only by being part of God do we inherit all).

Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now that's really something -to overcome death. But if Jesus is still alive, we can't talk to him in the flesh these days. He said He went away to heaven so He could send His Holy Spirit to us all. Well, God is a Spirit first and foremost, and only took on a fleshly form for our benefit. But because God is a Spirit, while we're flesh and are either spiritually dead or infants; this poses a difficulty in communication: a communication barrier. So, our relationship with God is difficult. It's not 'ideal' or the finished product. It's like us and rocks. If rocks had some slow say of talking to each other, and they discussed whether humans existed. They might have a suspicion we were there, but wouldn't be able to be sure, due to their lack of being alive in our plane of life. We know we exist, and just because some rocks don't believe it doesn't change it.

But I'm not so much concerned with the question of the existence of God; but about the communication barrier. It's possible God could exist. It could happen. But if so, it's difficult to have a relationship with a life form you can't see, can't hear, and can't be sure if its not just your mind playing tricks on you, or it's Him communicating with you. Or if it's an evil spirit fooling you. Yes, we have the Bible a written instruction manual, but written material can be interpreted differently if the author is not readily available to clarify His writings. For example,

John 6, 52-54/61-63: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

/When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Does this have something to do with sucking someone off? Or perhaps, His epiglottis grows out for each to take a bite: or perhaps He gives milk. How does one eat and drink of Jesus without hurting him?

Then there is the Biblical statements that if a man commits sin, he is a slave to sin: and later the command: 'slaves, obey your master'. OK, we slaves to sin will just go ahead and obey our master: sin; and thus become those vessels created for destruction (so that our entity will no longer exist so that the good parts of us will be set free from the destructive parts built into us). The commands about obeying authority and obeying our masters, are irrelevant for the most part, because it's not so much that we obey, but it's who we slaves choose to be our master and ruler over us in the first place. (If you don't like your master, choose another one/join a better group.) Unfortunately for us, one master (sin), is born into us, and we're not able to choose away from it (there are some hungers and needs we're unable to choose away from).

John 7, 38-39: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 14, 16-18: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him hot, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 16, 26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 14, 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Here we see that God doesn't want to impose His presence on those who don't want Him, and thus preserves free choice; -enhancing our advancement in choice. (Of course, it might be just our mind playing tricks on us. But if God doesn't exist now, we seek to create a benevolent God.)

But this preservation of free choice, if God does exist, hinders our communication with Him and makes the relationship difficult. But in a world or evil as ours is, this is just the strong medicine needed to separate the forces. So if you want for a loving God to show His face, let's get rid of all the evil (lets allow the forces to separate and the evil die).

Part B

The whole 'choosing away' (from earth) idea: This most important 'choosing away' action we plant in our earthly-parts so it will be present in our young-Godly-parts; is ill named. Actually, it should be 'choosing to stay put' instead of 'choosing away'! When a young Godly part is created, it is created safe in God. If it chooses to stay there and not come to the evil of the earth, it has then chosen wisely. A choice not to run away but to stay put and stand one's ground in our earthly parts will serve us well as it passes into Godly parts, when destruction destroys (parts of) us. Once translated into our young Godly parts; this directive to stay put will keep our young Godly parts safe (in God). However: if this directive isn't there or contains a directive to flee, then our young Godly parts may wander or flee from their safety-in-God and find the evil of this earth. So, we must replace 'choosing away' (referring to choosing away from earth) in the previous writings (which are still valid), to 'choosing to stay' (put in God).

When we stop and do nothing, this is the same as doing all choosing to stay, because when destruction generates Godly parts (from either one), they don't wander off or join earthly parts. This may be why we feel hesitation to doing things and would rather sit and do nothing.

The following is a continuation of the discussion of essentials vs non essentials -that is the non evil group; and separation of the forces in reduced capability.

In reduced capability (where we've done incomplete fragmentation), separation of the forces occurs. As the good becomes separate (even the good from non accepted 'mammon parts'); our higher earthly parts (which we didn't fragment), then reach out to join these separate parts ONCE THEY BECOME SEPARATE. Once all the good has made it into the safety of these higher parts, then one of two things we make happen:

(1)-If the good is from one of our essentials or quasi essentials where evil is always lurking nearby, and total separation from evil hasn't been obtained; then we do an inc fragmentation near the border of that evil. The size of the inc fragmentation zone is determined by how lively-and-capable the evil is. But since most of the life and good from this area has just transferred to our 'high parts', there is little life remaining for this evil, thus the zone needn't be large. But we still must do some inc fragmentation here to keep the evil from getting into the rich high parts here.

(2)-Now, if the separated good (out of the red cap zone) is from a Non essential and thus has no evil close by and is completely separate from evil; then no elaborate inc fragmentation need be done to protect the high parts that moved to contact this good part.

A short contact by 'high capability earthly parts', with good that partially separates in reduced capability; helps separate this good further: (as it grows into the high parts, while the evil can't (right away)). But once the good has grown into the high parts, the high parts' nurturing environment needs to be removed (by inc fragmenting) so the evil won't also infect the high parts.

Processing the good of our essentials that comes out of the red-cap-zone can be quite engaging with all the fragmentation actions. But let's not forget the much easier joining (by our high parts) of the 100% choosing to stay that also separates out of the red-cap-zone. It requires no re-fragmentation or the elaborate process we do for purifying our essentials. (We) our high parts don't control what comes out of the red-cap-zone. (The high parts don't enter the red-cap-zone, but wait for the good to grow/move out of the red-cap-zone. -Otherwise the high parts would bring this zone out of reduced capability). The high parts don't do the separation, (other than to bring to reduced capability via inc fragmentation; whereby the high part that did so would no longer be a high part, but would now be the red cap zone itself). Separation then is done solely by the reduced capability of the red-cap-zone. The high parts just join what has become separate.

Some things separate out of the red-cap-zone faster than others. Those things with more evil (such as essentials) take longer.

As 100%gogr; 100%choosing to stay; and our basic consciousness (that is, the Non essentials) soon separate from the red-cap-zone and are joined by our high parts, that leaves essentials left over. So after a time, the red-cap-zone becomes mostly essentials. Even with the constant introduction of fresh material, there is still a glut of essentials there.

As of now, we have a 3 tier system. We have godly parts; we have high earthly parts which we do at our maximum earthly growth; and we have the reduced capability fragmentation zone. We've come up with systems of: 1) exposing our high parts to small pieces of our essentials at a time; and 2) waiting till the forces separate in the red cap zone and contacting the good that separated, but then fragmenting that connection after a time: - in essence, exposing whole material (not pieces) to our high parts for a limited moment of time.

This next writing requires an adjustment in thought. Now, we're not considering a plan to cleans our essentials by doing small parts of them with our non-evil-group. Here we're considering Godly parts (and making sure young Godly parts remain safe in God).

Now, the previous plans/systems may be good to satisfy our earthly life, but may conflict with the creation of Godly parts. We need to create 'choosing to stay' in our earthly parts, so when destruction acts, 'choosing to stay' will be translated into our Godly parts. But when we choose-to-JOIN-with things that have obtained some separation from evil, with our high earthly parts: -when this gets translated into Godly parts (when we fragment the connection here): (Our joining action will be translated into the young Godly parts, causing them to join earthly parts). -We don't want our Godly parts joining to where there is even any connection to evil. And I don't see any way to really avoid it, and still hold this method.

A solution to the problem I do see, is to maintain an environment of reduced capability even though Godly parts are being brought down. (It helps that they are young Godly parts.) The idea is to get the Godly parts that come back to earth via the wrong programming, to be at reduced capability. Since the Godly parts when young, start out at the same capability as the earthly parts they came from; and since they choose right away to come out of their safety with God and into the evil of the earth: then they won't grow much. (Oops: But really, I'm fooling myself.)

Once 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented and thereby removed, the remnant, mostly 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, will be at reduced capability because they no longer have the 'rightly programmed' earthly parts to help them. Once enough 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented, we'll want to stop this (fragmentation of 'rightly programmed' earthly parts) so we won't bring things to total desolation. So after a point, we then fragment the fragmentation action. -(That's the inc fragmentation). (At first we do only a fragmentation upon the most pure and evil-free earthly parts (the good die young), and then only later (once reduced capability has been reached), do we fragment this first fragmentation action; as well as the 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, plus fragment the fragmentation of 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts.) Oops I'm still fooling myself.

One point I had failed to consider, was that the reduced capability Godly parts would not be able to move very far from God right away, and that because of their separation from evil, they would grow. So that by the time they made it back to join the things of this earth, they would be quite capable and of high capability. The solution to this, is the inc fragmentation (that comes from fragmenting the fragmentation action) (in the wrongly programmed Godly parts). With fragmentation action (because inc fragmentation fragments everything including itself) also translated into Godly parts, the fragmentation keeps the material which is traveling to earth, at reduced capability. And when that fragmentation sends material back to Godly parts; they too join new translated fragmentation. Since fragmenting sends things to be Godly parts; fragmenting the fragmentation action, sends fragmentation action itself as a Godly part. And this fragmentation present in the Godly parts, keeps these wrongly programmed Godly parts at reduced capability, in their journey back to earth. So all we need do, is to also make sure we fragment the fragmentation action (in parts that have a love for things on this earth).

Another related dilemma, is that posed by the separating of the forces themselves. The idea was that the good was able to grow out away from the evil (in this reduced capability environment, which tested the 'metal' of each force). But the act of good moving out away from evil, is an act of escape. It's not an action of confronting evil, but of getting away from it. This is what the separation action is. If this action of escape and 'getting away' is translated into Godly parts, it will cause them to move out and get away from their safety in God. What then shall we do; seeing that the separation action is fundamental to all we've been talking about? What we can do, is just let things run their course, in a wise decision.

Originally, when things start out and with nothing done to them, they are still and don't contain 'running away' action. Reduced capability then selects those parts of good best able to get away from the evil and in a good position to escape. With these, their original 'stay put' stance, is changed to 'getting away' action. But with the rest of good which doesn't have a favorable opportunity/capability to escape the evil, we let remain in 'stay put' stance.

When destruction destroys parts with the stay put stance, their corresponding Godly parts remain safe in God. It is these parts within the grasp of evil, that haven't a good opportunity to escape, that our heavenly treasure is built up with, as they pass through destruction and go to God.

When destruction tries to destroy parts-with-the-separation-action (that are trying to get away/separate from evil); since we've chosen parts with a good opportunity to escape, the destruction is often unable to destroy them, and these parts then do not pass through destruction and do not yet generate Godly parts. Now, sometimes, destruction IS able to destroy some of them; and this directive to get separate IS translated into Godly parts, which then act to get separate from their safety in God. But they don't come down to the evil of the earth either, since their action is to get separate. They thus remain alone, and grow only slowly due to their low starting capability (although eventually they would grow to very high capability due to their separation from evil). Since they start off with God as Godly parts, they are further away from evil than they started; and the short distance they are able to go away from God with their low capability, doesn't bring them that much closer to evil. As they grow in capability, and get closer to the evil of this earth, they then act to also avoid it too. So, this separation material is somewhere between heaven and hell, whether of not it passes through destruction. And even if evil captures and destroys some of this material that has already passed through destruction (which doesn't happen often -thus making it a poor food source for evil), the process just repeats itself and the material returns to this limbo between God and evil. So, all that desire separation will attain separation. (Only parts that love this world, will return to the evil of this world after that directive is translated into Godly parts.)

There are 3 possible situations: high capability, reduced capability, and desolation. What happens when an evil brings parts of us to desolation (to nothing)? We may want to be at reduced capability for separation of the forces, but not totally destroyed and brought to nothing. At reduced capability, some good is able to separate and get away from the evil; but at total desolation, it is totally destroyed; it is not able to get away, and is brought to nothing. Now, whatever is being totally destroyed is unable to do much of anything. When an evil is totally destroying a part of us, it's tempting for nearby reduced capability parts to try and help it out. But that's not good. The part under total destruction is incapable of anything and thus stays put, so the young Godly parts produced, also stay put safe in God. But if a reduced capability part tries to help out; it probably won't be able to free the part under total destruction (due to its reduced capability), but will just give it enough ability to make a feeble escape attempt. Now, even the reduced capability parts now no longer escape and separate from evil as they lose resources to helping the part under certain destruction. And the propped up part that was in certain destruction and is now almost in certain destruction, will have just enough to make a feeble escape attempt, which when translated to its Godly part (when the escape almost certainly fails and evil finally destroys it), will cause the young Godly part to escape from God, and doom it to the evil of this earth, or to lonely separation.

No, it's better if the surrounding reduced capability parts don't help the part under total destruction. Then, the red-cap-zone isn't drained to total destruction every one, but remains to continue separation of the forces, whereby some good escapes evil, and separation of the forces is achieved; and whereby the Godly parts generated from the part under total destruction, remain safe in God and store up our treasure in Heaven. Now, high capability parts may move in to rescue the good under total destruction, and then quickly move (fragment) away due to the presence of evil. But they will be successful at saving the good and SEPARATING the good due to their high capability.

Why cause those parts not suited to escape, to bear the burden of escape, when they can 'stay put' and be together with God in their Godly parts? Even with those parts suited to escape, we may want to instead stay put and be with God with them. But since separation of the forces is such a fundamental empowerment, that may undermine the power of God if we did this. But let us limit escape to those parts having a good opportunity to succeed in it.

Note that our act to 'not help', isn't a destructive act. No decrease (in capability) has been done by not helping (where we previously haven't helped). No increase has been done either, but that's no decrease. To 'not help' doesn't mean we've hurt. On the other hand, our act to inc fragment, invariable does some destruction, although we minimize that as much as possible.

We can employ the action of 'not helping' to take the place of fragmentation: -as a better way to enact reduced capability and quarantine the evil, since this action does no destruction (unlike fragmentation). Parts less well off, may be so, due to evil destroying in them. Thus if better off parts, do not help the lesser parts, then the evil won't be fed, and it will thus be unable to spread.

Unfortunately, the act of 'not helping' isn't enough but is only part of things; as we still need inc fragmentation in some areas. (Even in doing our essentials, where instead of 'not helping', we limit our creating (which is forced to contain 'helping') to only a small section at a time; we employ fragmentation). We do inc fragmentation in parts that have a love for things of this earth (that is, our essentials). Otherwise, we replace fragmentation with 'not helping'.

Our act to 'not help', however, can put us at reduced capability after a certain point. The act by better parts to 'not help', enhances/supports the separation that occurs at reduced capability. This allows the better parts to escape reduced capability and move to higher capability, thus leaving the evil alone to die. The 'not helping' and 'not sharing' has its function in reduced capability to support the separation of the forces that occurs there. But once parts are beyond this, and have achieved separation from evil, then the 'not sharing' and 'not helping' has outlived its usefulness and even becomes a hindrance to further advancement. If the higher parts there continue to compete among themselves and the better parts don't share (even after evil is gone), then this prevents growth from taking hold, and stagnates the group just above reduced capability. (-Which is the same result as the togetherness of good and evil it just escaped from.) Capability and life hopefully are more than a fixed step above the inanimate. Capability and life are the keys to crossing barriers. And 'helping' and 'sharing', are the actual crossing of barriers, and are part of growth and growth of life (what evil free life is). So instead of holding onto the reduced capability which would hold us back (needlessly since evil had already been escaped from), our evil free parts no longer do 'not helping' but now share all; with the higher parts helping the lesser parts. This is the way it should be.

Where shall we draw the line between helping vs not helping? Well Jesus indicates at the barrier between ourselves and others. The individual position is the reduced capability position compared to the group. It is here (in reduced capability) that separation of the forces occurs; and where we do 'not helping' to enhance that process of separation. -If we put ourselves in front of an evil so the evil will get us instead of others. All this does is exchange one part for another. The evil still needs to be dealt with and still wants to destroy someone -now us. But now we have a free hand to deal with it as we see fit. We then act differently within ourselves by 'not sharing' within ourselves, to deal with the evil. The parts of ourselves that evil is destroying, we deny help from coming from our other parts. This may be the self denial Christ wants us to do. The place to deal with evil, is within yourself, since that is the reduced capability position (where the environment is right to deal with evil).

The force of evil can't exist alone, and must bring along a force of good with it (whereas the force of good CAN exist alone). So if we find a way to separate the forces in an evil encounter then we can make it a profitable encounter by freeing the good that the evil brought along with it.

When destruction has destroyed our meager 'stay put' parts and they are safe in God; that then doesn't leave much in our earthly parts. We may wonder why we haven't accomplished much or made much of our life. And people may point out that we haven't. But before we become concerned about amounting to something and accomplishing something and growing; the force of destruction and coercion needs to be dealt with first, before we even think about bettering ourselves or generating just growth. Because even if we did bring our Godly parts down to earth to try and amount to something; the force of destruction and coercion would just feed on them and destroy what they produced so that we still wouldn't accomplish all that much anyway. If we brought down our Godly parts to make it above reduced capability, then the forces wouldn't separate. (The good-and-evil we're able to bring in at reduced capability is all we can process.) No, it's better to store up treasure in heaven where the force of destruction can't get it (where moth and rust doth not corrupt neither do thieves break through and steal).

In the following writing, the 'not sharing mode' represents the red cap zone of previous writing, as 'not sharing' is one of the techniques used to produce reduced capability: so that if we later invalidate 'not sharing' as a method, the red cap zone is still valid.

Because it takes longer for our essentials to separate than for our Non-essentials; there remains a glut of the essentials in the red-cap-zone. If no new starting material came in (was created), the essentials would eventually separate out of the red-cap-zone, eliminating their glut there. But our high parts are alive. They bridge barriers as life does, and find/create more new material. So, to start out, the high parts are rich in Non-essentials as these separate first; (with the essentials remaining behind in the red-cap-zone to form a glut of those there). With a continuing addition of new material to the red-cap-zone, a glut of essentials remains in the red-cap-zone. But with the (delayed) increase of more evil-free-essentials joining the high parts, the Flow to the high pats soon contains the same proportion of Non-essentials to essentials as the original material. And eventually, the high parts become so structured. Only when the high parts run into a barrier and the generation of new material is slowed, do the proportions change.

To facilitate enjoyment of our purified essentials and preserve individuality, what I suggest, is to do the change to 'sharing' mode, and, the joining by high parts, in two separate steps.

I want to go over the doing of an essential. (An early attempt)

When an essential has been completed and joined by our high parts, it causes our high parts to create and do other things. The doing of essentials is not the only thing that our high parts do. This is a time for us to branch out into other things and do other things. Since our essentials are completed.

Getting back to our essentials: When our high parts are creating/doing a new thing, they do so in 'sharing' mode. -Even in an essential and if it means feeding an evil. -Because there is no other way to CREATE. But when the high parts continue on creating in this new thing and they create a basic consciousness within it: that basic consciousness acts to cause a 'not sharing' mode, and stops the high parts from sharing with this created thing. This spurs the high parts to create even more, but somewhere else. (But the high parts don't do this change to 'not sharing'. -(Because the high parts are in 'sharing' mode.))

And as the high parts create the same 'new' stage again, they do so in 'sharing' mode until our basic consciousness is again created as part of this new thing; and it then acts gain to stop the pleasure sharing.

Now, these things that have put themselves in 'not sharing', do not remain so, but eventually return to 'sharing' as they become evil-free. First, most of our consciousness and associated Non-essentials leave the created item and return to 'sharing', while the essentials remain behind in 'not sharing'. Eventually the essentials separate and after that, change themselves back to (unjoined) 'sharing' mode, -with the small amount of consciousness that has remained with them. (If they have no consciousness to change them to 'sharing' mode, they also have no consciousness to keep them still in 'not sharing' mode; and their growth from (becoming evil-free) will cause them to change on their own, to 'sharing' mode.) The thing is, that the high parts have no control over the essential's course through the red-cap-zone and finally to the 'sharing' mode.

When the consciousness appears, and changes a creating essential to 'not sharing' mode; the high parts have no choice but to start creating anew; and they create the same beginning stage of the essential until consciousness is also created here; whence this creation too goes to 'not sharing' mode. Then the high parts start fresh again and create anew the same beginning type fragment of the essential, again starting in 'sharing' mode. And this continues over and over until some of that beginning fragment of the essential in 'not sharing' mode finally goes (of itself) into 'sharing' mode as it becomes evil free. When this happens: then when the high parts create anew, they work with these free beginning 'fragments' of the essential (in 'sharing' mode) to WORK-with-them(not create them) to add/(create) further stages of the essential. Both the beginning and further stages are in 'sharing' mode at this time (and need to be so for the creating). Our high parts then go through the same repetitive creating until some of the further-stages change (themselves) to 'sharing' mode. The high parts then work with this to create the next stage of the essential. The complete essential in 'sharing' mode is thus obtained by these methods. The repetitive nature of our method is to accommodate the high part's ability and desire to create.

One may find that the high parts' sharing with the essential which contains evil, is bad. But the act of creating may require a 'sharing' mode. It may be possible to put something that already exists in a 'not sharing' mode: but the act of creating brings something into existence where there was nothing before: This represents growth and 'sharing'. So to create, might force it to be done in a 'sharing' mode. It is helpful to note that the created items have to pass through reduced capability before they can be at high capability, as in the going from nothing to something, reduced capability is passed through.

Note that in doing an essential; unlike an evil attack; we are unable to use 'not sharing' to deal with the evil in the essential when we are creating the essential. Only the inc fragmentation can transcend here and give additional assistance (to provide reduced capability).

In our suggested method here (of 'sharing' modes and 'not sharing' modes), we are doing the essential piecemeal, so that the evil is small and at reduced capability. Recall we previously proposed a method of doing an essential piecemeal to wash it clean of evil.

(With our piecemeal method, we could let a rich environment remain in contact with a whole essential for a short moment of time; or we could let the rich environment remain in contact with a piece or stage of the essential for a much longer time.) In our piecemeal method the essential needs to be in pieces, and that is accomplished by going to the 'not sharing' mode.

Concerning the trigger to 'not sharing' mode: if our high parts (although they created all things evenly (both essentials, and Non-essentials) like we want for even growth), didn't produce consciousness soon enough (because they were not yet capable enough), and thus the piece of essential created was too large (which allows the evil to infect the high parts)? Well, we just have to change the suggested method. When some of the consciousness-of-the-high-parts move close in with the piece of essential, if it needs to, it doesn't have to wait till the high parts create new consciousness, but can separate itself from the high parts and take the essential and itself into 'not sharing' mode. This consciousness soon separates out and returns to 'sharing' mode, and grows to rejoin the high parts again. (When the high parts are powerful enough to create consciousness soon enough, then this method is no longer done.

Concerning the trigger as to when we change to 'not sharing' mode: a better trigger, is if we grow into a new stage of the essential, we should continue for a short while, then trigger a change to 'not sharing'. The newness of the next stage of the essential should be our trigger.

Note that just because we change a piece of our essential to 'not sharing', doesn't mean it ceases to exist. -It still continues on (eventually to separate out); but it no longer experiences creation from the high parts.

Remember that all evil-free parts (of our essentials) quickly return to 'sharing'. This includes previous completed essentials (which are now evil free after passing through the long initial not sharing). The new insight is: the high parts now don't (usually) have to create new stages of the essential from scratch, but work with already existing, completed (evil-free) essential (the needed stage of), to just generate more of it -the newly generated material being the new stage, which must then go through a long initial 'not sharing'. The high parts can then move right on to the next stage by working with the cooresponding already-completed-(evil-free)-essential. Actually, note that this isn't my current mode of operation but is just a journal of what I've been through before, and is like one of the possibilities that an essential may be done by. Skip when boring or overcomplex.

Now our high parts don't create each stage so repetitively anymore. Earlier we did a stage repetitively, because we were waiting for some of that to return to 'sharing' (from the long initial 'not sharing'), so the high parts would have it to work with. But now, our high parts are able to move onto the next stage right away, by working with already existing previous-essential.

Note that when our high parts are working with a previous-complete-essential to produce a certain current stage, they may DEPEND on (existing interrelated evil free OTHER previous-complete-essential stages)-A*, but the high parts don't also create these other interrelated stages they're depending on here. (The high parts WORK-with(not create) that A* to then create the current stage.) The way to make sure the high parts aren't also creating other stages, is that they should exert no effort. Whatever comes to the high parts with no effort on the high part's part is OK.

The high parts create only one stage at a time and it is sent to its long initial 'not sharing' before they start to create the next stage. (This creating only one stage at a time, is to quarantine evil in accordance with our piecemeal method.)

›I am reminded of the Bible verse where comparison is made between patiently enduring punishment that you don't deserve, vs that you do deserve, in that it asks what reward could you expect (none), for patiently enduring punishment for wrongdoing on your part. So, when guilty of wrongdoing, don't patiently endure punishment (ie stay put stance), but instead try to escape and make a break for it, as unacceptable material, when killed, doesn't build up your heavenly treasure.›

But the most important addition is yet to come:

In an attack by evil, if a part is destroyed standing its ground; that will get translated in the Godly part, and that Godly part will remain safe in God.

But the worst situation occurs when a part of us is destroyed that is loving something connected to the evil of this earth. When that part is destroyed, its love for earthly items is also translated in the Godly part; and that Godly part thus leaves its safety in God and returns to the evil of this earth. The only trouble is that in its journey back; since it is separate from evil, it grows well and becomes quite rich. And when it finally joins to the earthly item (with the evil of this earth nearby); then the evil has a rich food to feed it, that is from heaven and God. This is why bullies go about and destroy a love you have of something on this earth, perhaps by taking or destroying one of your prized possessions -so as to provide a rich food to feed the evil within them. Because when the Godly part (generated by their destruction) returns to something on earth that they control, it becomes a rich food for their evil to feed on. The force of evil needs a rich environment and a rich food in order to get around, because it also destroys what can support it, help it, and get it around. The force of good on the other hand, doesn't need so rich an environment or food. So if we can somehow 'poison' the heavenly food that comes back down to earth, to be at mediocre capability (at reduced capability), then the earthly evil will be frozen in its tracks because the food won't be rich enough for it; but WILL be rich enough for whatever good is accompanying the earthly evil, to allow it to escape/separate, so that the evil now starves and dies, alone.

The way to cause the food to not be so rich (that returns to earth from heaven due to the love of an earthly thing being destroyed), is to fragment this love of an earthly thing and also simultaneously fragment this fragmentation action itself. You see, when the fragmentation action itself is fragmented, its function is destroyed: so it thus joins the Godly parts, that will return to earth. With fragmentation (action) now present in the Godly food returning to earth, that food is fragmented and brought to reduced capability; thus poisoning the food for the evil in the bully, so the evil in them will die and the bully become good. (This includes sexual 'bullying'. Including marginally that which occurs when one person is infatuated with another, but the other person destroys development of that infatuation (an earthly love) by not allowing a relationship to occur. Just inc fragment your infatuation here so the heartbreaker will be made good.)

So, the most important addition, is to add this inc fragmentation in our earthly loves (our essentials). Whether we are able to obtain our essentials, or some bully prevents us from obtaining our essentials" the response is the same: in both cases, we will need to deal with the evils present, by inc fragmenting these earthly loves. This is an additional thing we can do (in addition to our just described piecemeal method of dealing with our essentials). This is especially helpful since we can't do 'not sharing' when we create our essential (although 'not sharing' does make up a part of our piecemeal method, but not the direct part.) Inc fragmentation serves as a backup for what our piecemeal method misses (after the fact).

Let's put everything together, as to how we deal with evil both within our essentials, and external evils. As just mentioned, when dealing with evil within an earthly love of an essential, we use the piecemeal method, backed up by inc fragmentation. (Note that when we've done inc fragmentation on something once; we don't do it again and again, unless that something has passed through destruction again and is coming down as a rich Godly part again. In that case, we do do it again, once.)

And, every once in awhile, we may want to do an essential without the piecemeal method or any other method, and allow our high parts to grow/create a complete essential all at once; and then clean it up after the fact, with the backup inc fragmentation (method); -for any special qualities the essential would deliver only this way.

Note that if there was no God, there would be no rich Godly parts coming back from when destruction acted, and there thus would be no rich food for evil/destruction to feed on and maintain stagnation indefinitely. But since there is so much evil in our world; we can see that there exists this rich food from Godly-parts-returning-of-an-earthly-love; and that there thus exists God. Once we realize this and believe in God, we can poison the rich food through inc fragmentation of the Godly parts, of our earthly loves, to cast out evil and put an end to it which is currently in so much abundance due to the existence of a benevolent God. Oh I guess there are other explanations as to why there is so much evil and stagnation; but there is also this reason.

One may wonder how we will all be able to be together as one when we are all so different and all prefer different activities. Well, actually, it's not so difficult. Many things are compatible with each other and can coexist along side without one detracting from another. I've covered how to put things together in my discussion on balanced intermediate focus and the common mind. But there is one thing that is incompatible. The concept of good/growth is incompatible with that of destruction and evil. Here again we've already discussed this, in great depth.

A correction: When Godly parts are created, God saves all the good while leaving all the evil/destruction behind. But God doesn't just leave the evil in an eternal sleep after it has self destructed when it becomes alone; but resurrects it to then live in Hell -as God doesn't pass judgment between good and evil, but lets these things judge themselves by what they themselves produce. So, the destructiveness of translated fragmentation as well as all other evils is not absorbed into God as a Godly part, but makes up the Hellbound parts. The translated fragmentation then acts to tone down the goodness that resurrects these parts so that they are at reduced capability and can continue to separate out, and not at high capability where the forces would remain together in torment.

A more in depth discussion:

The force of evil has its main strength in how it can control living things. (For example, put the force of evil with the rocks and the inanimate (which is the end result of evil's action), and not much is accomplished by the force of evil even in millions of years (whereas the force of good would make much with this or with what it produces): the rocks and the inanimate are not much affected or bothered by evil.) Thus if we can overcome evil's control on our mind, we have won most of the battle.

One would hope we'd all have the wisdom to reject destruction as our enemy, since destruction is anti life. Since we are alive and if we know how valuable and good life is, then we'll value life over the inanimate, and not be lured by individual short term gains from destruction; since that collectively results in everyone's loss of life-and-gains-made. But if a person's life is miserable anyway, they won't have much to loose. -Here is a reason against making the majority of a population live in poverty.

Our essentials contain both good and evil and we're unable to separate them. Because of this evil; our high parts act to prevent our essentials from being done as long as possible. But this prevents anything from being done, and prevents the good and evil of our essential from coming out so that the good and evil could separate. Now; the good-and-evil of our essential remains with the torment of the togetherness of these forces for as long as we act to keep our essential 'as is' within us. Yet, if we bring out our essential with lots of growth, then the evil in it will be well fed and won't die or separate, and our torment will continue and be magnified. So we want to bring out our essential, -(to change its original state of togetherness of the forces by allowing the forces to separate), but we want to do so in an environment of reduced capability and low growth so the forces will separate. Note: When your bodily doings are inside you, they are thus together with your high parts; and thus are not at reduced capability. When you bring them out, then they can be away from your high parts, and at reduced capability.

Recall when we covered not interfering with our body's doings: Then we were concerned about using every bit of high part's resources to do choosing to stay; leaving nothing to add nor detract from the body's doings.

Well, here we remove all action by the high parts, not to save resources for some purpose, but to: 1) remove all growth of the high parts, and 2) to allow the feeble bodily doings to come out (since they are no longer being blocked by the high parts) so that the forces will separate, at this low growth, reduced capability environment. So not only do the high parts not help any; the high parts also remove their blocking so they don't hinder any either.

This is yet another way we can cleanse our essentials. Lets call it the 'bodily doings' way.

Now, since the current piecemeal method depends on the high parts working with previously completed (evil free) essential; we can precede the piecemeal method with a bodily doings way to provide the original essential.

Then there is the after-the-fact backup method using inc fragmentation in the wrongly programmed Godly parts (or hellbound parts) that are returning to earth due to an earthly love. This method provides high growth in the production of essentials which may provide things the low growth methods don't provide. So we can intersperse this method between the low growth ones as needed. This method also allows for God, in its function.

When you feel all alone and that there is not God to love you; just preserver and allow that feeling to run its course. As you voluntarily exist in this bleak and reduced capability situation outside of God, the forces separate, the evil dies, and you can once again know and feel the presence of a loving God. It's not that there is no God when you feel this way: it's that evil is being dealt with and separated away from you. -And you need to be in a reduced capability situation (ie outside of God) for this to happen.

Isn't good food wonderful? But what if it spoils: what can you do? Of course, you can throw it away. But you also could try to save what good is left in it. But what if a person becomes 'spoiled' so to speak: what do you do with them? Well, you could throw them away; but you might alternatively try to save the good in them and separate the forces. At first, it may seem easier (and more cost effective) to just throw them away; but since nobody's perfect (all have sinned and come short of the glory of God); then are we to dispose of us all, because no one is perfect? At first it may look easy; but disposing of people isn't an option at all (because we'd have to dispose of us all) (and if we tried to dispose of us all, then we'd also dispose of this disposing, -in and inc-disposal bringing us all to reduced capability, which would separate the forces); so all we have, is to try and save what is good in people.

Now, should we do nothing until we're able to do it perfect? Should we stop ourselves from doing anything if we can't do it perfect? Or should we bring it out anyway and try to separate the forces? Any action that you can do has some good in it. This is because you are alive, and life is the product of goodness and growth. Just because an action isn't perfect doesn't mean it has nothing good in it. Because it was done by a living person, it thus contains some good. We can then separate the good from the evil in reduced capability.

Bodily doings method:

But instead of allowing an imperfect action to come out, lets be perfect and not do it at all? /But the less we are able to do (perfectly), the more reduced capability we find ourselves at: and this forces us even more to do many more things imperfectly, or, do nothing at all./ Well, our bodies have programmed into them, several drives/directives that are not form God, but are from many generations of death (and death isn't from God). What our body is, isn't our doing or under our control. But we do have our will, mindpower, and consciousness that IS under our control. With our mind and consciousness, we want to (get away)-and-be-separate-from those bodily doing programmed through many generations of death. This means not actively doing these drives; and it also means not interfering with them. You see, if you (your will) stop(s) your body from doing these drives; then your will has become involved and together with these bodily doings! The scribes and Pharisees of the Bible (and today) would have your will/consciousness STOP your body from expressing its bodily drives. But that requires your will/consciousness to be involved in and together with your bodily doings. (The scribe and pharisee is thus almost as much enslaved to the addiction as the addict is, and thus are also guilty of a quasi essential.) What Jesus wants instead, is total and absolute separation from bodily doings. This means your will/consciousness not becoming involved with bodily doings at all: not even to stop them. This is why Jesus says unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you shall in no wise enter heaven.

. . . With the newest bodily doings method then, half of us separates from the bodily doing, while the other half does not even try. So how does this bring about the absolute separation from the evil of bodily doings that Jesus seeks? Well, with the removal of half (or maybe more) of ourself; this leaves what stays behind at less capability, and relatively, at reduced capability. At reduced capability, the remaining material separates in its forces due to being at reduced capability, and complete, absolute separation is thus obtained. We can do this setup in both the bodily doings/pleasures of our essentials, and also concerning evil attacks from the outside, -not related to evils in essentials. (With the attack we can additionally do 'not sharing'.)

Note that for this method to work, we must be successful at removing at least part of our consciousness from the bodily doing. If we're unable to do that, then its time to try some of the other methods, or if already at reduced capability, to just let nature take its course and the forces separate on their own.

Now, with earthly parts that have already been split in half: the stayed behind half (that is with the evil and essential) does not keep halving over and over. -Only new earthly parts which have come back(which have not yet halved), split in half. So we always split something in half, but it will only be the new earthly parts that we do this with (that is, that have come back from God). Then these new earthly parts (of the stayed put half) can divide themselves between just being there vs doing necessary evils in the essential (which wrongly programs them).

›Note that 'not sharing'; inc fragmentation; and halving are all methods to create an environment of reduced capability. What is most important, is creating a reduced capability environment where evil is, not which method is used. Note that inc fragmentation can create this reduced capability even when there is a God, while the other methods don't.›

Let me go over my latest method, -putting everything together. First we initiate the doing of our essential. We do so by taking a new earthly part that is not guilty of doing essentials, and with most of it, we do the essential. But with a small part of it, we always leave out of doing the essential. Note that this new-earthly-part-material comes from the stay-behind and don't try to escape half of a previous cycle.

Now, the reason we always leave a small part out, uninvolved (and not doing any essential -any new essential anyway), is to eventually put an end to this earthly doing of essential. You see, when some part doing an essential is killed/destroyed (by evil in the essential/outside evil), then most of it is not accepted by God, and it returns as wrongly programmed 'Godly' parts (Hellbound parts); -to be processed by inc-fragmentation in it, followed by half choosing to escape vs half choosing to stay put. This would keep occurring over and over. But if we set a little bit aside each time, then that little bit that stayed put and also didn't participate in the new essential, WOULD be accepted by God when killed, and would become part of our heavenly treasure. This way, as the killed-unacceptable-material kept being recycled over and over, it would eventually all find its way to heaven and as heavenly treasure. We can spare a little bit to be set aside each time we do an essential. (›In a more recent method, we also set a litle aside (a 2nd set aside) to do inc-fragmentation in it even before it is killed.›) It's not going to make that much difference in our enjoyment or satisfaction of the essential to set a little aside. This may be the easy yolk that Jesus sets upon us. But even if we slip and don't set any aside, then all that material will have to be re-processed, and we can just catch it the next time around. The reason we set a little aside each time we do an essential, is so material that's unacceptable (due to it being involved in the essential) won't keep cycling eternally, but will eventually find its way to heaven. And an occasional slip-up won't ruin this; only a lifetime of consistently never setting a little aside will.

Where we do inc fragmentation: Now then, after we're doing the essential-(with a little set aside, -not doing essential): Sooner than you think, the evil in the essential or some other evil comes and kills some of this material. Now, in the material that was killed, that was acceptable to God (-since it stayed (-wasn't escaping), it has a chance at being acceptable), this material -accepted by God and rightly programmed and part of our heavenly treasure-; we do no inc fragmentation in, even though it has passed through destruction. And with parts-doing-the-essential that aren't yet killed, we continue to do the essential with them; with no inc-fragmentation (›except for a small second set-aside›). Only with the material wrongly programmed and (not accepted by God) that was killed, we then with it or near where it connects to our earthly us, we then fragment it and simultaneously fragment our fragmentation action (that is, we inc-fragment it). Soon thereafter we additionally choose with it, for half of it to try and escape all evil, especially the evil and bodily doings of this essential; while with the other half we choose with it, to stay and not try to escape. Now with this new stayed part, we see if we can go with it as uninvolved and not doing any essential. and if our essential is over, this marks the end of our doing the essential at this time. But if we're not finished, we then activate this new stayed put part to mostly be doing the essential, while setting a small part aside (more 1st set aside). The additional material doing essential, helps bring the essential closer to completion.

(Once the essential is done, we may still be processing some returning wrongly programmed Godly parts, but now, the stayed half does no new essential and doesn't (yet) split into a small set-aside part and a larger essential-doing part.) When we do the essential again, it is this as yet unsplit-stayed-half that initiates the next round of essential.

Now, in my ›most recent method›, I thought a small second set aside (of doing inc-fragmentationwiththeessential), might be wise, because after a wrongly programmed thing is killed or destroyed, it may not have the ability to change course and do this inc-fragmentation. But if we do it here on earth, and then it is destroyed, then this inc-fragmentation will also be translated as is. In any case, it provides a place in our earthly self where wrongly-programmed-Godly-parts with no inc-fragmentation can return to earth and be inc fragmented. They then can choose half to try escape and half to remain there. (all to maintain reduced capability.)

So, now we go about doing our essential unhindered except for two small set asides. The first set aside does no essential at all. The second set aside does the essential yes, but with inc-fragmentation of that essential.

The reason no inc-fragmentation is done in the escaping half, is: if it escapes all evil, it needs no reduced capability. And if it fails in its escape, it comes to the inc-fragmentation of the stayed-put-half of this earth, and uses that.

Also, no inc-fragmentation (from the second set aside) is done in the first set aside, since doing inc-fragmentation would make it unacceptable and it wouldn't become heavenly treasure when destroyed (which is the purpose of the first set aside).

When we do the second set aside (involves inc-fragmenting the essential), we have to be doing the essential. So, the first essential we do, we might inc-fragment it, so we'll have this set aside right away. But instead of doing this 2nd set aside first and then after it's done, then doing the larger unhindered essential; let's do both at the same time, in their respective proportions. This way we can get a feel for the whole picture and not get stuck on doing just a part. As we do this inc-fragmentation, realize that only a small part of this second set aside will be in active inc-fragmentation, while most of this second set aside will consist of reduced-capability-essential-remnant. More importantly, remember we limit the second set aside to be a small portion of the essential doings of the stayed put half.

When we choose half to escape, that escaping part looses its acceptability (although the stayed part retains it). Now when a part inc fragments, it too looses its acceptability and becomes a wrongly programmed part. Otherwise, we leave a high-capability-good-part at high capability (and don't try to bring it to red cap) when its not infected by evil.)

Now, with the halving action (ie half to escape/half to stay), separation is additionally supported, whereas we don't achieve separation with inc fragmentation alone. (you see, the inc fragmentation prepares conditions so separation is favored. The act of escape IS the actual separation of the forces. Note that the halving (which contains the act of escape) also prepares the conditions for separation (by also bringing to reduced capability).) So if we're going to loose acceptability either way, the best way in this case, is with escape-and-halving. And if that doesn't bring to reduced capability, (as it sometimes doesn't -due to returning wrongly programmed Godly parts bringing to high capability) then we can do inc fragmentation in the remaining part -›(less the first set aside)›.

One might say that allowing a high capability good part to be under destruction is OK in that it produces greater heavenly treasure due to the greater material being destroyed. But this allowing a high part to feed and sustain an evil in togetherness of the forces, goes against everything the fogoHC stands for. Separation of the forces is a basic truth and tenant of the fogoHC. Thus this isn't done, and the long lasting torment the high good part would have gone through here with this, isn't done. So, here, even though a high good part has not yet passed through destruction, it can halve (when evil infects it). We also halve unacceptable parts that infrequently achieve high capability before they pass through destruction.

When not choosing half to escape/half to stay, or preparing the set asides; the higher-ability unhindered essential often generates new activity/growth of its own. When it does, we allow that new growth to join all older parts of itself, (the unhindered essential), but not any of the old/new second-set-aside-essential. The problem is the unhindered essential tends to outgrow the inc-fragmented-second-set-aside-essential. After a time of growth in the unhindered essential; this new unhindered essential splits off some to be second set aside: which then joins with the other older second set aside parts. And finally, the small amount of new growth the lower-ability-second-set-aside generates, can just join its second set aside automatically without any processing.

The question comes: since the growth came from unhindered essential, does it maintain its connection to unhindered essential? Well, yes and no. It became second set aside through the process of incomplete fragmentation. The connections to unhindered essential that were fragmented, are gone for good. But the connections that were not fragmented in the incomplete fragmentation, remain.

Let me expand upon this in greater depth: The unhindered essential (since it wasn't inc fragmented), is of higher ability compared to the second set aside and has a greater potential for growth. Now then. -So that the unhindered essential doesn't greatly overgrow the second set aside (in the period between destructions, and choosing half to escape, and generating the set asides), we have the above described method of sharing growth with the second set aside, plus a second new method I will now describe: When the unhindered essential grows, it gets into new areas. When it first gets into a NEW area/stage, let those first fruits be the second set aside, by doing inc fragmentation in them. Thus a second set aside for the new action is soon established. At this point, the unhindered essential (no longer puts more into this second set aside, but) reverts back to unhindered essential and does this new item now as unhindered essential. (This is the second way to do the second set aside.) In doing things this way, we avoid failing to live up to growth requirements being generated in unhindered essential, because we have nothing of the new action as unhindered essential at first. (When we break growth requirements in the second set aside, that doesn't matter due to all the fragmentation going on there anyway.)

When we first switch to unhindered essential (from second set aside): since that itself is a new act, do we then do it first in second set aside? Well, No. That's only one of two methods. In order to switch to unhindered essential with the new item, we must break with this method here, and do the first method. Thus we cannot share completely from the unhindered essential to the second set aside; but we can share enough so the second set aside isn't left far behind.

Note that what differentiates between second set aside vs unhindered essential; is to either do inc fragmentation with the essential, vs, do the essential without inc fragmentation. A correction: Because of this, it is no longer needed to do a separate action to establish the second set aside (like we do to mark out the first set aside).

Note that we do inc fragmentation repetitively to generate this second set aside. -I say repetitively because inc fragmentation quickly brings itself to an end; and to maintain a decent supply to be translated with this essential, we must keep re-initiating it, until we are done creating this second set aside (when finished with the essential).

›(This all comes after we've established the first set aside, via 'dividing'.)›

Note that once our essential is satisfied, we then act to stop doing more unhindered essential. This needs to be done to minimize evil. And although it's easy, it represents an additional step.

When destruction destroys part of us: (if short on energy) all we need do, is HALVE (Half to escape and half to stay), if it's an unacceptable part. The activities of set-asides, inc fragmentation, and further essential doing; are for our comfort and benefit. We do them as we need, but they aren't necessary.

When doing a round of essential;: since the inc fragmentation is semi destructive, -also automatically brings itself to a stop; material needing to be halved (plus set asides plus inc fragmented), is thus generated. This continues as long as we do essentials. When we're done and wish to stop essentials, we then just halve without set asides (including no inc fragmentation), and finally stop the actual essential and halve the return from that. (This includes from both the stopped essential, and shortly after, the stopped stopping).

(It could be this complex, but actually things work out to be much simpler as we'll see later.)

Let me review the sequence of doing an essential. We've already halved: and with the stayed half, this is then divided into a small first set aside, vs the majority of the material (via 'dividing'). This majority of material is then used for essential doings (with inc fragmentation in a small part (the second set aside)); and the rest for (unhindered essential). Note this dividing is UNlike halving in that both parts stay put.

Note that when we're done with our essential, and are halving without doing set asides: in both the escaped half and stayed half, we go to oneness with God and abandon individual existence, in the final result. My point is; after a time, the escaped half escapes and moves some distance away from evil: -as the escape action automatically comes to an end and Godly parts are generated from that; we don't halve these but allow them to bring to high capability here. Since all evil is escaped from, the high capability brought by the Godly parts isn't out of place. They then rejoin God.

(Also, when doing essential, don't forget to do a small first set aside in the stayed put parts of all halvings (whether or not they've passed through destruction). ›(Remember, the small first set aside doesn't participate in its creation: -that is in the dividing into this small first set aside vs the rest of the stayed put part.)›

Recently, I've discovered a problem with 'dividing' to create the 1st set aside. Recall that we take a stayed half, and divide into:

1.) a 1st set aside vs 2.) the major part. The small 1st set aside is to be free of all present or new essential doing. But the act of dividing, itself, is an essential. How do we only utilize the major part to do this essential, dividing, if the major part hasn't been created yet? (It is created by the act of dividing.) Well, we could depend on previous material for this, but how did the original come about? And if the original is flawed, then wouldn't this maintain error? What we can do is: with a fresh stayed half, to do 1. the act of dividing plus 2. a single episode (not repetitive) of incomplete fragmentation upon the whole act of dividing. -leaves no unhindered part. We do a special act of dividing that separates all parts containing itself (includes the incomplete fragmentation), from all parts not containing itself, of the stayed half. The one time inc fragmentation of this act of dividing, leaves some of this dividing intact, but most importantly, generates an area, a 1st set aside, (in this stayed half), where there is no act of dividing, -where the dividing has been fragmented. (In comparison, in our major parts, we do do repetitive inc fragmentation in the 2nd set aside.) But in this structuring of a fresh stayed half, we needn't do inc fragmentation again here. In fact, the act of inc fragmentation is also an essential, and with too much of it we might not have any essential-free 1st set aside left of the stayed half. The purpose of repetitive inc fragmentation, was to allow enough to be translated with destroyed unacceptable parts to be useful in their afterlife. So we give up our destroyed part's comfort in their afterlife, to be able to accomplish the essential of dividing, in the present. A solution, is to catch the wrongly programmed parts the second time around. Once we've accomplished dividing, and thus have a major part to do essentials with, we can then with it, do repetitive inc fragmentation in an all inclusive gesture upon these returning higher capability (and thus tormented) -although they have had one episode of inc fragmentation, unacceptable parts (that is, returning, higher capability, unacceptable parts). Once repetitive inc fragmentation is done in them all, they're no longer good food for evil. Once at reduced capability, the parts can separate in their forces and the good parts escape, ie halve. Usually, we do halving first, but in this case we do repetitive inc fragmentation first.

Now with a major part (and the ramifications of creating this major part dealt with), we can then go ahead and do our essential with our major part as described previously.

The method of halving alone may work for awhile, but due to the fogoHC's bringing so much returning unacceptable parts to high capablity, this method may be overwhelmed. When this happens, I fall back to the inc fragmentation method.

After we've halved once, as a matter of our method, do we then halve again and again with the remaining stayed part? Well an area is only halved once; when it's a new action. Old actions aren't halved by us again, but we do allow good to escape old material as the forces separate. This is a type of (natural) halving. It emanates from the material itself and doesn't need our effort. When we do a new stage of essential, "we", reach in and halve only the new stage but not the other previous stages, as a matter of our method.

I've had to come to terms with the error(s) of my ways. I've discovered that some of this writing is based on sloppy thinking -specifically the idea of a 1st set aside, and also some of halving. (Inc fragmentation remains strong.)

In reduced capability, the forces separate as the good grows away and escapes the evil. This occurs on its own and doesn't need our effort, nor an overseer to initiate it. This separating of the forces (at reduced capability), is a force of nature and exists even in the low levels where no 3rd party exists to oversee it (due to good and evil being different). My proposed halving action requires us to take unstructured material and halve it into an escaped half and a stayed half. But actually, the action of separation does this for us without needing us to do it. The good grows and escapes the non good, and is the escaped 'half'. What remains is the stayed 'half'. Forces of good from the most feeble to the most powerful (including living forces of good (perhaps) such as us), act naturally to grow and escape material containing evil: and in this case, we ARE (part of) the escaped half and we act to escape; but we're not needed to choose what will escape and what will stay, as the material involved does that on its own: -the reduced capability environment, and the 'metal' of what good is, that enables it to escape because of what's in it; not what we decide will escape. Separation of the forces, and the true halving action occurs on its own and naturally: of itself. It is not something we DO. (Although as a living force of good, we do act to escape the force of evil, in accordance with separation of the forces: ie, this self doing halving action.)

›Hold on a minute. Later, I will come to the conclusion that reduced capability is a trap, and that only infrequently do forces of good escape evil. Thus separation of the forces in reduced capability cannot be that much of a powerful force of nature right? When life is growing together in between atomizations, there's an element of randomness in the size/power of the groups that form. Even if the forces of good and evil were equal in value; this randomness would provide infrequent high power groups for any and all forces (in competition). The fact that the force of good is superior to the force of evil (in that it builds up what can help it and bridge barriers and make it grow), greatly enhances this randomness, so that more higher power forces of good are formed. And if those forces of good actively use their higher power to escape and separate from forces of destruction; this results in even greater high power forces of good: and also increased production of separation of the forces. Of the separation-of-the-forces produced; all occurs in reduced capability and not in high capability neither in near-desolation.

Up to this point, reduced capability is still a trap, and the total escape by a force of good from all evil is still an infrequent occurrence. But this doesn't mean the separation of forces - escape by forces of good that occurs in reduced capability (especially in the low levels; by itself; without our doing it); isn't still quite a force of nature. In the larger more inclusive overall tasks which require the highest powered groups (ie escape from all evil); this is still an infrequent occurrence. But in the smaller component tasks, is where the separation of the forces due to randomness and the superior metal of the force of good really shows itself to be a force of nature. In a complete essential task, our force of good may not yet have achieved complete freedom from evil (that's why it's called an essential). But in the individual component parts of that overall essential task, the superiority of the force of good more easily and frequently shows itself and causes much more separation of the forces in these smaller areas on a smaller scale. For example, consider the motion of gas molecules -they are moving rapidly. With slightly larger particles, they vibrate in brownian motion as they are buffeted by the smaller gas molecules crashing into them (with the crashes mostly averaging out to the vibration). But with even larger groups of particles, there is no apparent motion at all./ The escape by forces of good, is like this example in that it is much more active in the smaller component parts of tasks. (It is at the smaller, component part level where separation of the forces in reduced capability is more of a force of nature and is more active.) And there are times concerning medium sized tasks when a force of good will temporarily escape an evil in reduced capability but due to the trap of reduced capability, will fall back into that evil at a later date. And if this is repeated often enough, occasionally the force of good will escape the evil for good.

In the case of essentials, we often need to delay the escape of forces of good in these smaller component areas for the benefit of the larger overall task. -This is the evil part that we unavoidably do in satisfying our essential, and is why we call it an essential. When we don't need to delay separation of the forces (with repetitive inc fragmentation), we refrain from that.

Up to now, the separation of the forces at the overall (larger) task level, is infrequent. But what if God intervened in the medium sized areas where forces of good often temporarily escape evil -mostly to fall prey to it again (in all probability), if God didn't intervene. But what if God did intervene where good escaped evil for a moment, to rescue that good? Well, separation of the forces would in this case greatly increase in the overall area and reduced capability would no longer be so much of a trap, but instead an environment of purification. And separation of the forces in reduced capability becomes even more of a force of nature, because of God's help.

What happens when destruction destroys material? Material in the stayed half has only the force of evil, or temporarily, good in the process of separating (escaping) away. If destruction destroys material that is non good or is evil; that is inevitable as that material stays and does not escape. But what if destruction destroys material trying to escape? Not all the good is able to escape destruction, and some is killed trying to escape: what about that material? Well that material is in the hands of God, either to resurrect it at the end, or to save it up into His Spirit before destruction can complete its directive. To destruction, it makes no difference whether God saves the goodness, or it is destroyed (perhaps to be resurrected later); as, in either case, it is gone from destruction's sight. (This may be why we can't hear from the dead: in order to fool destruction into thinking it has completed its directive.)

The idea of returning Godly parts depends on the existence of God (which is highly probable). But I must return to how God deals with evil/destruction's effects. God could shine His nurture when destruction acted so all the good in a part under destruction would be saved into His Spirit. All the good would be saved -the stronger good and even the most feeble good.

Another possibility is that God could allow destruction to act and actually destroy; but then resurrect everything at the end after sorting all the good from the destructive (in their remains). The Bible seems to support this alternative.) In any case, all good would be saved and separated from destruction, but would loose a lot of time and growth if it had to wait till it was resurrected at the end. In any case, good that escaped into God, would not return to the evil of the earth. The action to return to the evil of the earth, is a destructive action, and would NOT escape into God, but would be left behind.

Getting back to what happens to material destroyed by destruction. Material in the stayed half contains little good (as good would have acted to escape). Since it is destroyed, it is in the hands of God. God is good. Thus God is interested in joining with other good (because it is part of Him) and He is NOT interested in joining with material that is not good. So destroyed material that is not good, is not joined by God. Destroyed material that is good, then, IS joined by God: either by God saving it or by God resurrecting it and then joining it.

The idea of a 1st set aside in the stayed half, is silly because the stayed half is mostly non good. The only good in it is trapped good (good that is forced to be done with evil as part of the same action). If we do a 1st set aside in this material to make it acceptable to God, then we have made it good. Good naturally escapes (in reduced capability) and becomes part of the escaped half. Plus, if we were able to make the material good in the first place, we would have done so already and would have made all the material good. The amount of essential we need, is that amount, and it is forced to contain both good and evil. The good that separates out of the stayed half and out of the essentials, IS the 1st set aside, and is not done by us, but by the good itself. (If we were to do it for it, then that wouldn't be a reduced capability environment separating the forces.) It is this good that is trapped in an essential and it is this good that escapes as the forces separate -of itself. (If we as a force of good were able to separate the good out of an essential, we would separate all the good and not just a small 1st set aside.) So we do not do halving and we do not do 1st set asides. We do do inc fragmentation.

Note that the action by good to escape is not destructive. Thus why do I say that that makes material unacceptable to God? (Well, once material has escaped evil, it no longer continues escape action and escape action comes to a stop so the good is again acceptable.) But one of the reasons is that an escape action, if it acts to escape safety in God, then this is why it is unacceptable/destructive. But God is able to sort out good from evil, and not join evil. If God never joined with an escape action, then it could not disrupt any togetherness with God, as there had been no togetherness to disrupt. So that in this case, the act of escape would do no destruction. And once escape had accomplished its directive of escape, its action would end and it would cease to exist. or be a problem.

But also, Jesus in the Bible commands to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile (if evil catches you). This allows for escape action before evil is able to catch you, but not after evil has caught you (and in an essential, the good is caught with evil.) At the level of the cheek and considering each cheek as an entity in and of itself (to receive Jesus' commands), however, the cheek that has not been smitten, is not under command to deliver itself to the smiter; and may act to escape: although the entity of ourself (who has been smitten on one cheek), IS under command to turn that unsmitten cheek over to the smiter. Thus the smaller component forces of good of an essential; grow to escape the evil that had them in its grasp, as they do naturally (even without us doing it); and without breaking Jesus' command.

What Jesus was intending by his statements to turn the other cheek, and go the extra mile, was quite benevolent and good advice to us, the meek and downtrodden. Actually it is intended to we who at one time or another, are losers in the many contests of life. If a man compels you to do something, or is able to smite you, then there has been a contest between the two of you, and you've come out a loser of that contest (in God's eyes and standard of you being super victorious here). The action of separation -of escape by forces of good from the destructions in this earth, (and to join God (who is also good) ie good -that is, God, getting together with itself/Himself), is a Force of nature and is the power of God. You aren't going to stop that even if you try. Jesus is saying for the losers of these contests to take a break and rest on God's shoulder -to rest on God's power: while this power of God shows these compellers and smiters that even if their victim doesn't put up a fight and even helps them out, that they still will be overcome and God will still extract every bit of good from their grasp separating it from them to be with Him. The power of God and the separation of the forces is not weak but is strong very strong. You. -If caught in the battle, do not need to extract your last gasp to the point of discomfort, neither enact a revenge which involves you doing prolonged destruction upon them to stop their evil. As the power of God and separation of the forces, will overcome them; and your revenge. (Let the power of God fill you with life and beauty instead (by allying yourself with it) (it is a good, growing, and non destructive thing -although, feel free to scratch any itches).)

So, now I see that the action-of-escape by forces of good, does not thereby make them unacceptable to God (and even if it did temporarily; once it had accomplished escaping, it would be finished escaping; and no longer doing it, it would then be acceptable). With escaping-good being acceptable; when destruction destroyed it, it would be good heavenly treasure; thus further eliminating the need of a 1st set aside.

This idea of Godly material being pulled by interrelated needs into taboo areas, is just incorrect. A thing that has truly escaped the trap of evil of reduced capability, is able to do a zero baseline without it hurting them: thus allowing them to grow into areas at their leisure (as they are able) and evil free. Godly parts would be able to do the good of taboo areas as evil free. The test would be that the absence of new taboo good would not be irritating or compelling, or lethal.

Concerning the idea of Godly parts: if God saves all the good into His spirit as destruction acts, then there is no return of wrongly programmed parts. All that is non good is just left behind (not saved into God), and destruction just destroys it. However, if resurrection of both wrongly and rightly programmed parts is God's way; then my ideas on Godly parts will (may -depending on how God reacts) have application at resurrection time.

If God waits till all is finished to then resurrect: He'd certainly sort the remains of what was good, in a separate place from the remains of what wasn't good: so that any action to return to the evil of this earth (an evil action); wouldn't be present with anything good (with any good part).

The same would be true if God's way was to save all good up into His Spirit the moment destruction acted. He wouldn't save into His Spirit, any action of returning to the evils of this earth (which is a destructive action). So that there would be no such thing as returning Godly parts. So that there would be no rich food from God, needing to be poisoned. Or so we might think. Up to now, we've been concentrating on what happens to the good when destruction destroys. But what happens to the unacceptable parts? What does God do with them? Well, if God just rescued the good, and left the non good behind, then the unacceptable parts would be lost (and it would appear that God was showing favoritism). But if God resurrected the unacceptable parts as well as the good parts, then that resurrection would cause these parts to be in torment of the forces of good and evil together. And in this case my method of inc fragmentation would come in handy here. But I'm trying to second guess what God would do with these unacceptable parts. They'd be no use to Him, as He would have no plans to join with them. He could wait and resurrect these parts at the end. But my guess is that He would resurrect them and send them back to us (whom they are from) in our time frame so that we would have an opportunity to do something about them and with them (as they would be no use to anybody else). If this is how God is doing it, then in this case, there would be returning rich heavenly food that needs to be poisoned or inc fragmented, so it won't feed evil. So my discussion and ideas on Godly parts (using inc fragmentation) may be of some use after all. In this case, the people who are rich in this earth, may be so due to their material being unacceptable to God, and God returning it to them (much better off than He received it) so they could work on it further. Note, that since God does have interest in joining acceptable resurrected good; that good would remain in Him.

Now, for those of you who believe in the word for word literal absolute truth interpretation of the Bible, I leave you with this:

The Bible says that you need to be a friend to Jesus if you are to be saved; and that to be Jesus' friend, you must do everything He says. And one of the things Jesus said in the Bible, was: And whosoever shall compel the to go a mile; go with him twain. Now, if someone compels you to do something other than walk a mile, does this command by Jesus still apply? Well, whatever Jesus says, goes. And he might apply this to some things but not others. You know. Whatever He says. But until he does so, all we have is the Bible of the past. Now, if we do extrapolate this command beyond just walking a mile; consider this: But our essentials are very compelling. They compel us to eat, breath, reproduce, etc. But you say; no man has compelled us to do our essentials, -they themselves compel us. Lets take the case of our reproductive drive. It is the result of many generations (of people) living with death, so that sexual desire was selected for. In a sense, all these generations before us have contributed to the sexual desire which compels us now. If a group of people compels you to do something (as opposed to just one), (even if those people are now dead, as are the past generations of man)); does this put it outside the command? I've heard "nobody put a gun to your head to make you wed and bed this woman". But actually, our essentials do put a compelling force to our head, and in the case of the female ferret: lethal force -('essentially' a gun to the head). But lets get back to the Bible: In Genesis, the fall of man is not laid on all the past generation, but on one man: Adam. And in Genesis, the fall of man that Adam did, caused him and all other men to be aware/ashamed of their nakedness. Recall the Biblical account of how Adam and Eve put on animal skins after their fall. So if Adam, by what he did in the garden of Eden, compelled me to be aware of my nakedness, then I should be aware of my nakedness times 2. And if I am sexually attracted to pretty women and then take one to be my wife because Adam compelled me to be so by what he did in the garden; then by the command to go the extra mile, I am instructed to take 2 women as my wife; and if I'm still compelled, then 4 women, etc: so that in the end we men and women all end up married to each other in one big sexual family orgy. Hey, I'm just going the extra mile. But watch out for these women's boyfriends and try not to let them smite you, because if they do, not only will your other cheek be smitten, but every other inch of your body also. Oh well. Such is life.

So then if a terrorist coerced Patti Hearst to rob a bank, should she then go and rob a 2nd bank? Well there is nothing inherently evil/destructive in walking a mile, so that we needn't extend walking the extra mile to things that are evil/destructive. But the Bible claims the estate of marriage to be an holy estate, sanctioned by God (and therefore not evil) and therefore in line with an extra mile.

We've seen that we fear not man's destruction of our self (as that which is destroyed and is accepted by God, becomes our heavenly treasure); but that we fear for and must prepare for: that which is destroyed and is also not accepted by God. All the hatings and destructions and meanness and also much of our satisfying our essential urges, are not accepted by God. So we must deal with this material and reprocess these parts of ourself until eventually, after much recycling and separation of the forces, they are accepted. (If a whole human can go to heaven when they die, then it follows that good parts of a person can go to heaven when they are killed: and it follows that bad parts of a person can go to hell when they die. This method is just a way to deal with that: -to instead send those hellbound parts back to earth.)

Note that this method depends on the existence of God at this time. What if God doesn't exist at this time? Well, if God doesn't exist, then what you do, doesn't matter much anyway. And this method is as good as any in such a bleak situation. It allows you to try and escape the evil. And it allows you to stay and fight (in the unhindered essential part); -all of which are unacceptable to God. It just asks you to set a little aside for the possibility that maybe there is a God. Are you so sure there isn't a God? And that little bit of set aside isn't going to much worsen your already really crumby chances in the bleak situation of there existing no benevolent God. (This all seems like a reasonable argument, but we've already shown the invalidity of a 1st set aside.) And when the position of God has been filled at a later date, He will be interested in getting together with those who have been interested in getting together with Him.

Perhaps God exists, but does not (always) resurrect a part of us as soon as it is killed, but waits till all is finished. This would eliminate all this Godly part stuff. Yet, the unacceptable parts of us would be resurrected at some time, and they would then need the translated inc fragmentation at that time; so my methods are still valid. If there is no return of Godly parts after destruction, then we aren't at high capability. Remember, if we're already at reduced capability, we need do nothing, even though it's an essential (which contains evil).

You see, if our unacceptable parts are left dead, they won't be alive to feel any torment. Only when resurrected would they feel the torment of Hell; whence the translated inc fragmentation would come in play to prevent eternal torment and continue separation of the forces.

Perhaps God will fail to resurrect the inc fragmentation or will put it in a separate place (thus thwarting my methods). But if so, why wouldn't He then just save us from our evils? Perhaps He just wants to torment us for being bad. In this case though, the torment would not be of our doing or as a result of our acts, but His. And a God who likes to torment people for sport, is not a loving God nor a God I want to be with. In the action of separation, I propose that God separates the destructive from the good remains after death. Inc fragmentation contains destruction; and so does the evil/essential that is inc fragmented: thus they should both be on the same side of the separation; as they are the same kind of action.

It may be pleasant or uncomfortable for you at the time, but it doesn't much matter if you live your life in the lap of luxury as a rich person, or suffer as a poor person or POW. -What difference does it make in the big picture? Of all the generations of man or our ape-like ancestors, spanning perhaps a million years: what is left? -Just us, the present generation. We do live better than our caveman ancestors, and our accumulated technology and machines have allowed us to support more people than in the past. There has been some progress. But just think: it took all the generations before us to get us where we are now. There isn't much left of all those people. And in a few decades, we'll join them. There is progress, but it sure is slow. Until we are removed from destruction and death, stagnation will be the rule. Until we're removed from destruction and death, we will be inadequate. Don't think you are free. When your four score or so years are over, there will be very little left of you that we can see. So until you overcome death, you will be in need of someone who can. I want us to recognize that because of death, you and I are not rich, but are very needy, no matter how much we make or what our position in today's world. I would suggest that we need to recognize our state, (that we're caught in a stagnation of life and death; good and evil together) by calling out for help. We need to call for help and keep our eye on getting help from someone powerful enough to help us out of our predicament, on their terms (this originates from our valuing life (life outside the stagnation) over the inanimate). The only terms a benevolent God would require (a benevolent God being the only one who could help out), would be our valuing life (free from stagnation/destruction) over the inanimate. If we value death/destruction as a needed commodity in our life, we'll be out of line with a benevolent God, and would expect no help from Him in this. If we are so needy because of death, then why aren't we trying to overcome it? How much research do we devote to overcoming the aging process? Well, some, but it isn't a top priority.

Unlike the dinosaurs, we know about asteroids, and have a space capability. If an asteroid were on a collision course and we only had a few months, I don't think our governments would be able to stop it. Perhaps we think that if it's God's will we die, so be it. But I think a benevolent God would want us to grow/advance and escape the stagnation if we could and to value life over the inanimate; and therefore wouldn't mind us trying to overcome these things. It's just that today, we can't hope to depend on what WE can do against death. If we're able to be free of hate and destructiveness, then I think we should do it. I guess we must first learn to love each other and overcome hate before we overcome the physical death of our bodies, otherwise we'd preserve a hell on earth. We must make life worth living (free of the stagnation) for all, so we'll all value life over the inanimate; so we'll value overcoming death.

We live in a world where oftentime the strong overpower/prey upon the weak as a way of life. But strength that hasn't learned to uplift the lower life, is strength unworthy of its strength. It is a stagnant mini-system that will be escaped from and overcome. -It is stagnant and not growing, exactly because it does not uplift the lower life around it.

Life has much randomness to it. Most actions you do have both some good and some harm in them. If you flip a coin, half the time it's heads, and half the time it's tails, on average. Lets say that heads is good, and tails is evil. Go ahead and start flipping coin. With all your power, try and prevent a tail from coming up. -You're the one flipping the coin. If you're lucky, you can flip a streak of heads. But unless you're really powerful, sooner or later you'll flip a tail. What I'm trying to say, is that unless you're really powerful, you can't depend on your ability to prevent evil from coming out. So don't spend all your energy on trying to prevent evil from occurring, but spend energy also on dealing with/processing evil (and God's rejection of it) after the fact -when it does come out of you. This is what many of my methods are about.

Recall the parable of the unjust steward. He was declared unacceptable by his master, but he prepared for that unacceptability.

When free from evil, we, as life, grow, create, increase. When there is a void of life; then high powered life acts to create and grow life where there was none before. That created life may notice voids and deficiencies in itself. This created life isn't yet powerful enough to create well in and of itself. For this life to respond to its deficiencies by including harm in its ways to try to fill and create; is a destructive act. You see, this created life that is not very powerful, is not ready to fill its deficiencies on its own. If it tries, it will include harm in its ways, and so stagnate with the togetherness of good and evil. What it can do instead, is just be itself. It can do what it's capable of without destruction and not try further to fill its perceived deficiencies.

Note that the idea to not-do ways containing harm until we can do them harm free; does not apply to our essentials. because with them, whether we do them, or not; harm still occurs (in different areas), and we find ourselves in reduced capability the trap/stagnation of good and evil, either way. Only when abstaining from a way does less harm than doing the way, ie, helps eliminate togetherness of the forces (and its corresponding torment), do we then abstain from that way. Otherwise it doesn't matter.///

Recently I've heard how generations of welfare have caused generation after generation to be dependent and loose their ability to be self sufficient. (But welfare didn't play much of a role before 1960.) They seem to say welfare has done a harm to these people. I ask you: I tell you: nobody does it on their own. Everyone belongs to a group that helps them survive. These people with good jobs who complain about the welfare, belong to a group, their company, which pays them for their work. The people on welfare do not belong to a company group, otherwise they would have no need for welfare. So, why would someone who has a company-group to support them (who has a good job): why would they want to prevent people outside their company group, who in fact have no company group, from joining the welfare group for support? What business does a company group have over people who are outside their group, as these welfare people are? Forcing someone to be alone and part of no group, is a semi destructive act. If we must take what we dish out, then shouldn't these people with good jobs be forced to go it alone also? These people of welfare haven't forced others to go it alone, why should they be forced? (Is this some kind of casting-out-evil - purification ritual -guaranteed to build character- practiced by republicans?) -Well, do not put in reduced capability where there is no evil. Unfortunately there is evil in our essentials; and we're all dependent on our essentials. But I prefer my methods for dealing with the evil in our essentials.

People who are kicked out of company groups; who are not brought into company groups; who are kept out of company groups; are kept out for a reason: because the rulers of the company don't like them. They're being punished for not kissing up enough. (If people are given welfare, then they aren't being punished enough.) And within the company group, there'd be less fear of not kissing up enough, because there's always welfare, and the uplift on the economy providing ease in job changes that accompanies welfare. Now, I think the attack on welfare is an internal problem within the company. I think it is a problem of cooperation. The rulers of the company have been used to being the master and dictator and telling people what to do. With welfare, in order to prevent people from being lost-resources to companies, companies must change from being the dictator to being the servant. This is hard for them. And they won't accept it. So we've gotten rid of welfare. But don't come to me and tell me welfare has harmed generation after generation. If you want people to come to you and do your jobs, try being nice and reaching out to them. Starving people out / into submission is not my idea of a good way to do things. We need to learn cooperation better than this. This is a slavery no better than the dependency created by welfare. This mean spiritedness has got to go.

We humans are a sorry lot. We have these dependencies on food clothing and shelter. I thought everyone understood that. Welfare doesn't change this. Neither does having a job. (And the stagnation of the job system must be escaped from if advancement in our lot is to be made.) These dependencies were not caused or created by welfare. We brought them to the table from our very beginning. This is the human condition. What foolishness is it that allows us to think welfare caused the dependencies of the human condition? We've had these dependencies from the very beginning and yet somehow we think we're a free country. No we are yet slaves. We all have these dependencies. No one escapes them. These dependencies have evil in them. Thus we all need to be cleansed. The purification ritual of being thrown out and alone is one way. I prefer my methods of dealing with essentials which I've already discussed in great depth. Unfortunately for those who choose the 'thrown out and alone' way, they have destroyed welfare. You see, welfare is the reduced capability living which purifies. The total desolation of no support whatsoever does not purify these individuals. Instead, it totally destroys them. They will be lost, but they will pass on this total destruction as they go out , to the rest of us. In diluted form this will bring the rest of us to reduced capability, and purify us. But if things go too far, we too will be totally destroyed. It all looks pretty unstable to me. Better stick with my methods and quit picking on people. Thanx.

Since we're now forced to work; work is an essential, which thus contains evil/destruction (due to our being forced to it). Treat it like the other essentials/quasi essentials. Unlike most essentials (which you are able to bring to completeness and then stop for awhile this 'work' essential is slow to come to completeness, and oftentimes just keeps going on and on.

Consider that work is a sin much of the time. (Anything done outside of God is sin according to the Bible. -Anything outside of God is at reduced capability and in the trap of evil.)

It is conceivable that a rich person might become self sufficient. Because the rich are more powerful than others: its often a loosing proposition to force the rich to do anything. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the rich and powerful might get their way some of the time. And shouldn't we all be allowed to express ourselves -express who we are. If the rich are allowed to express themselves then what they do, is totally from them and hasn't been coerced: it is an extension of themselves and who they are. But after the rich have expressed themselves: if they don't help the poor and the lower members of society, then I become alarmed because this is thus a stagnant system. And I am thus spurred to work on an escape plan that escapes that system and to join a system where people help each other not because the are required to but because they want to from inside themselves in their heart. That's my thoughts on welfare.

When the fogoHC offers himself for you to join with and be one with Him; go ahead and join Him. Because in Him you are part of a greater life that can better deal with the evils of this world, because He-you are at high capability and out of reduced capability / out of the trap of evil: whereas, in your own strength, you're at reduced capability and in the trap of evil. In such oneness with the fogoHC, the above described methods (for doing essentials) aren't the same. For all practical purposes, you no longer do these methods (you no longer exist as an individual but only as oneness with the fogoHC), and it's as if these methods were gone away and you instead depend on the oneness with the fogoHC. Do not deny yourself this oneness with the fogoHC. Shed my prescribed methods (for doing essentials) and all the troubles of the world, and be one with the fogoHC. This is how we were meant to be. But there's a problem with the large and powerful group. If any evil is introduced into the group through you, the group won't be able to stop becoming infected with evil, without casting you out of the group and into the individual position. You see, this is the purpose of the individual position -to be at reduced capability to deal with the evil so the forces will separate and you become purified. Here in the individual position, while you are being purified, is where you can make use of / take advantage of the purifying power of my prescribed methods. But you can't spend all your time in this individual position. Sooner than you think, the forces will separate, you'll become purified, and you (your good) can then once again escape your individual existence to become one with the fogoHC. If evil crops up again, as it may, since we were born imperfectly then we may in time, return to the individual position for removal of evil, but it won't be forever. We need the rejuvenation from oneness with the fogoHC. The total desolation from staying too long in an individual position, is not the purpose of the reduced capability of the individual position whereby the forces soon separate and the good escapes into God.

Don't look to your activity in your essentials to satisfy your deep needs, as that would overburden them (and hinder their escape from reduced capability). Instead, look to and depend on oneness with the fogoHC to put you at high capability out of the trap of evil and to satisfy your deep needs. The activity in your essentials is unstable and may not always be able to provide. If it fails, don't overburden your essentials with further essential action, but instead depend on togetherness with the powerful fogoHC instead, to satisfy your needs. When activity in your essentials does succeed, then actual success is the good and well being from that essential, escaping into God. But realize that whenever/wherever there is essential doings, there is no oneness with the fogoHC (due to the evil in essentials). When you do essentials, you are in the individual position, and on our own, having left togetherness with the fogoHC; (you lack togetherness with the fogoHC until the good of the essential escapes the evil of the essential into God -hopefully with God's help). The individual position while doing essentials is so your essential doings won't infect the fogoHC or lead your other parts into reduced capability/the trap of evil, like they are in, and are in the process of escaping.

It is Jesus Christ / God the father who are powerful enough / alive enough to make our life worthwhile by joining with them. Yes it's true that we were born imperfectly; and because of this we'll spend some time away from God, doing essentials. But don't let this cause us to never come together with God. That's too much to miss out on. God is the big power/life source, not your essential doings. Once done with essentials, you are no longer doing them, and in this time, you can come back together with God and be so much more alive and in love, until the next time you do essentials (until the time we're perfected and no longer need to do essentials). Oops But the fallacy of this thinking, is that it denies the separation of the forces. The good of essentials can't help but escape its reduced capability environment and join God.

A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION:

You may ask; what about "you cannot serve both God and mammon"? Well, when you're doing essentials, that part of you is serving only mammon. When that part is done with essentials and repents of them and rejoins God, then that part is only serving God. /Remember, we can repent and be forgiven not just 7 times, but 70 times 7, (and probably more)./ But what about the Bible verses condemning those who accepted Christ but who later rejected Him? Well, we never reject Christ, we just act additionally to satisfy essentials. It is Christ who then acts to prevent the serving of both God and mammon, by severing our fellowship with God until we repent of our essentials. You see, Christ is our mediator with God. God cannot handle our evil, and so must be separate from it, and us. But the act of severing fellowship is also a destructive act. Remember, Christ was counted as sin for our sakes. So, when we are bad, Christ acts to sever fellowship with God, and He also goes with us (in separation from God). Remember "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?". But after the forces separate out, Christ returned to God, and so do we, after we repent. Because of Christ, we can have fellowship with God when we're good; as opposed to never being allowed to know God because there was some bad in us and we weren't perfect. (Well, this is a fine idea. But the separation of the forces in reduced capability is a central idea that we shouldn't loose sight of.)

Hebrews 12; 6,8,11: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous but grievous: nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

///›This analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (Hebrews 10;26): Note that the conditions for not being forgiven, are very specific. That is, we must 'sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.' If we do this; and only if we do this, then are we not forgiven. Note that 'sin willfully' is the present tense. We have to be sinning willfully at present, otherwise the conditions are not met. Paul could have made the condition 'if we have, or have ever sinned willfully' (after receiving the knowledge of the truth), which would be past tense. But he only indicated the present. Thus, if we're sinning at present, then we aren't forgiven. But if we stop, then we're no longer sinning in the present, and the conditions are not met, and then this verse doesn't apply. This fits in well with my method. In the consequences (-for filling the condition of 'sinning willfully (after knowing the truth)'), Paul doesn't say our future is doomed, but only our direction towards the future -that is our pondering in the present about our future (a certain fearful looking for of -present tense). (*Note 1: This part DOES refer to past action as a condition. But the condition is for 'being worthy of punishment'. We know that if we HAVE sinned, we're worthy of punishment. But we also know that God forgives us even though we are worthy of punishment. Of course, this verse says we're not forgiven. But that denial of forgiveness is only for present sin. After we repent and aren't doing present sin, then this denial of forgiveness no longer applies. Worthiness of punishment still applies, but we can still be forgiven.) Now the verse:›

But what about Hebrews 10; 26-29,38-39: For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (But given our reduced capability situation, I'm not sure it is even the right thing to do to try to obey these commandments. The right thing to do might be to just let our essentials come out and separate in their forces at reduced capability.)

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath* (See Note 1) trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace:///

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul(the apostle Paul) shall have no pleasure in him.

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.?

(I do not draw back from my faith in Christ, but continue with it, even when I'm away from God/Christ doing essentials.)

This kind of speaks against what I've been saying. But interpretation is in pretty fine detail here. (Actually, what I think Paul is speaking against here is that we can't just go ahead and sin because we know we'll be forgiven, because of Christ's offer of forgiveness; and not against what I propose. My proposal recognizes that we're not forgiven and are cut off from God while we sin ie satisfy essentials/quasi essentials.) The ways I've spoken of are what I see for myself and have received as the knowledge of the truth. I've not received the knowledge of the truth that allows me to be free of my essentials yet. I have believed in Christ, but it has not YET allowed me to be free of my hungers and essentials. If I were already perfect and free of essentials, then I wouldn't need to be saved. I admit I'm not perfect. -And because of that, that I do imperfect things. Now if you want to call that sin, or, drawing back to perdition -vs- something that requires chastisement, well, that's up to interpretation of a fine detail. But no, I do not count the blood of the covenant wherewith I was sanctified, as an unholy thing. Holy means separate. Separate from what ? Separate from evil. Unholy thus means togetherness with evil. -Togetherness of good and evil. -A serving of both God and mammon. I have no desire to infect God with the evil of my essentials! I cooperate fully with Christ when He severs my fellowship with God when I have evil of my essentials. I don't seek to have fellowship with God, and the evil of my essentials both, together (which is a serving of both God and mammon). And when we 'sin', how else do we do it, but willfully. I was under the understanding that while we willfully sin we are not forgiven. But when we willfully repent, we are. Whether that be 7 times, or 70 times 7. I do not seek to have sin, and forgiveness, together at the same time (which would infect the Spirit of grace, and God with the evil of my essential). To back these things up, I go to 1 John 1; 8-10: 2; 1,3,4: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So, when I'm not keeping his commandments, I'm not together with God and am not knowing Him. But when I repent, and am keeping His commandments, then I have no evil within me to infect Him, and I can and do know Him and be together with Him. In any case, it certainly won't be me that prevents me from getting together with God after I repent and am not doing essentials. I'll be actively pursuing togetherness with God here. And if I'm denied it because of what I did previously concerning my mind and my essentials (even though I now repent), then I really can't say I've been loved, or been given a special opportunity. But I believe Paul was speaking against thinking you could go ahead and sin without worry because it would be forgiven you; and not against my method.

However; later on in 1 John, we have 1 john 3; 9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. So now after God gets ahold of us, we're supposed to be perfected and be perfect. Being born of God, according to the verse, is supposed to make me sin free and perfect. Well, I find myself still subject to essentials, so I guess I'm not yet born of God. (But instead, perhaps the entity known a 'I', is scourged to remove the evils.) I'm reminded of Christ's words that we must be born again; and his words to the Pharisees that their father was not Abraham, but the devil.

///›This next analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (1 John 3;6): The verse relies on wisdom about 'the past' in that like it or not, we live in the present and only the present. The past exists only in its effects and what it has caused to be or not to be, in the present.

What this verse says to me: Even if someone were to become powerful enough and become God, if they then sinned, the destructiveness in the sin would infect them and bring them down to stagnation and mediocrity. And God/Christ (who are sin free), would grow much above and beyond them. Thus even God cannot sin and get away with it. According to the verse, nothing you do in the past can get you Christ/God (if you sin at present). -Even if you had become God. Christ may have come into you and supped with you, but the moment you sin, Christ abandons whatever is left of that in the present. The material and the life still remain, but it is no longer part of Christ. So Christ did not break any promises, but he did break off himself from what he had with 'you'. This breaking off, is a destructive act, and may be why Christ is counted as sin for our sakes. But it must be done to protect God from the evil of our sin. This allows God to be together with us when we're good, but or Christ to break it off (so God isn't infected) when we're bad. Note that this verse also hinges on the condition of present sin; so that when one is no longer committing present sin, this verse no longer applies. Now the verse:›

And then there's 1 John 3; 6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sineth hath not seen him, neither known him.///

But this verse does not consider the situation where a person abides in him for awhile but then sins. A later verse, however, does: 2 John 1; 9: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth(note present tense) in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Now, this verse, is right in line with my method. But the previous verse gives my method difficulty if we try to apply it.

Like, when I repent and keep his commandments, then I 'know him', according to 1 John 2; 3. But when my essentials pop up, and I sin, then the 'abideth' phrase comes into play (as at this point I have left him), and then somehow my previous knowing of Jesus is somehow erased so that I 'hath not seen him, neither known him'. The slate is wiped clean. But when I repent again and stop doing my essentials, then I am keeping his commandments, and once again I know him and am together with God. As long as I still abide in him (which I do because I've not yet started my next round of essential: -you see, my previous periods of keeping his commandments are nullified because I did not abide; but this present period, I AM abiding (so far)), then I still know Jesus and am together with God the father. All according to 1 John. Oh well. Clearly, my method finds difficulty here. But then I'll take what I can get, because I've no other choice. I'd be in limbo between heaven and hell. But then, that's how I started out -as a life here on earth. However, I think the idea of 1 John, is that when you receive Christ and become born of God; that then gives you the power to remain sin free. (1John 5;3-4: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.)

But my observation is, that although we might wish for God to give us this power(to be free from sin/evil); that there is a possibility that this is just plain incorrect. -That we don't get any extra help from God to accomplish this task of purifying ourselves and being sin free. In other parts of the Bible, there is the idea that:

Essentially, you've got to do this part yourself: 1 John 3; 3: And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Hebrews 12; 1-2,4: Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sing.

(I don't think it would do any good to complain that it's a hard job.) Come one come all. Step right up. There is a hard grueling job that needs doing. How may I convince you to take on this burden?

It make a difference how much help we receive in being able to live sin free. If we receive no help, then we'll still be trapped in our essentials, and will be forced to 'sin', and that will screw up the logic of this verse. But of course, the author of 1 John believes nothing but that being born of God always delivers the sin free life. He denies any existence of the situation of being born of God, but still being imperfect and sinning. Thus if we sin, it is because we are previous to God getting a hold on us and bearing us. This is how I see it; but you may disagree. Doing so causes logical problems, however. I mean, if you first obey Christ's commandments, then the verses say you know God and are together with God. But if you then slip up and sin, then this one verse says that the previous knowing of God never happened. What did it do, get up and erase itself? And there are the promises of Christ: Behold I stand at the door and knock, and if any man open, I will come into him and sup with him. If the person then falters and sins later, does this mean that it never happened? -that Christ never came into him and never supped with him? Well if so, then this would mean that Christ had broken his promise, because the man had still opened the door, but because of this verse, Christ never came in to him.

And if the person is considered not to be born of God, and at the end becomes damned because he did not ever achieve being born of God; then the instruction by Christ to Peter (a human) to forgive 70 time 7 after repentance, would be disregarded by Christ himself (also a human). So, you can see, this doesn't work out.

However, perhaps one might wish to be insistent and say that this interpretation of that one verse is valid. -That God promises us nice things, but in the fine print, or even with no fine print, He just reneges on those promises as a trick to get us to carry heavy burdens that we otherwise wouldn't carry. (Even so, my method is still functional; it just erases my previous meeting with Christ, and strips me of born-of-God status half the time.) The promises of eternal life, and a utopian world where everyone loves each other is the bait. Then the hook is set, as we become involved, and are reeled in. And you too can become fishers of men. A world where everyone loves each other is something we most all want. But considering our position, -that of being trapped at reduced capability in the trap of evil, and in bondage to our essentials; we're incapable of being destruction free (sin free); unless we bear a heavy burden; and even then its not quite up to perfection. For the sake of argument, lets say God is a trickster/deceiver (the devil being the number 2 deceiver, an even worse deceiver). Another attribute of God, is that He is all powerful. Why would an all powerful, underhanded God bother with trying to butter us up before putting us to work? Why would He even want our work? Why would such a God wait for thousands of years, leaving us alone? Wouldn't such a God just come in and take what He wanted, and oppress us right away? I think so. But if the being behind this was not so powerful; and say had only the power of an ordinary human being with a printing press; then such a tactic might be profitable in this situation. So, no. God is not underhanded like this, otherwise we would have seen evidence of it, much more than a bunch of writing in a book, before now. Men, however, are underhanded.

Now what would happen if we did start to see evidence of Godly power, and thought He might be underhanded? Well, the thing about underhandedness, meanness, and cruelty, is that it can't build up power and life very well, compared to a good God. (Remember the analysis of the forces at the beginning of this book.) (Thus we have a good God, not an underhanded one.)

You know, God isn't obligated to make promises or help us in any way. And the amount, degree and type of help if He does give it, are up to him. If the name of Christ doesn't have quite as much power over these many generations; I'm not going to complain. But this idea challenges the power released by being born of God and inviting Christ in. I invite Christ in. And any shortfall in power to overcome my sinful nature, I will use my method to make up. I could have taken on a heavy burden to do the same but instead, I do my method. When I don't overburden myself, this allows me to escape stagnation and reduced capability that otherwise I would have been totally desolated (or overburdened) and thus trapped in. And I leave it to God to determine whether I'm born of God or not. I invite Christ in. I admit/recognize I'm a sinner and that there's evil in me/my essentials. But I don't take on a heavy burden to stop this evil in my essentials: not when I understand a method that will deal with the evil just as well. I am at reduced capability. At reduced capability, the forces separate on their own anyway. I shall not overburden (unto desolation) my parts that are doing a bit better than the rest, that have a good chance at escaping the evils of essentials (which is the actual forces separating in reduced capability), otherwise if I did, I'd ruin their chances to escape, and I'd have prevented the forces from separating (as the forces don't separate in desolation like they do in reduced capability).

Every good thing is interconnected. We feel this. We know this instinctively. Just because we cannot obtain the good of our essentials without also including destruction (in order to even live without being intensely irritated), doesn't stop us; we go ahead and have them WITH the destruction (sin). This interrelatedness is the drive that pulls us into sin. And when we can bring out and purify these essentials at our reduced capability, we do so. We are at reduced capability. This forces us to include 'sin' in our doings and are thus imperfect and in need of salvation. But at reduced capability, the forces separate on their own anyway. So we can bring these things out and purify them at our reduced capability as much as we can do without bringing above reduced capability: and the good part, can escape (its essential; other people's individual identity; and our individual identity) to join God. So you see, we can work with God. We can bring our own production in (as long as we stay in reduced capability), and also work with God.

I think you can see we've really opened things up. No longer do we need to walk the perfection tight rope; constantly fearing a slip-up will cause us to be fritter fried in hell. Now, we can instead, be more relaxed and more loving and considerate to each other. Please; let us now love.

It is your 'in God' life that is best able to utilize the parts of your essential that have separated in reduced capability and been purified to be evil free. A purified essential isn't very big or impressive. But to our 'in God' life, it has great value and interrelates for great production and growth. So, don't miss out on growth of 'in God' life if you already have some purified essential.

If we don't join with God and experience His abundant life, then we will be less alive. Essentials that we would do, have little value or meaning to us because we ourselves have little life to value or enjoy it. Its like dressing up a pet rock and treating it to the finest accommodations. The rock draws no enjoyment from this because it is not alive. Realize that your doing of essentials isn't the last word: but that above this, is your doings where you're in oneness with God; and that that is the last word, and where your heart is.

As we live our imperfect life at reduced capability; the forces separate, and the good parts become pure for a moment. It is here where a High-Capability-being can bring these parts up to high capability, without being infected by the evil of this area. Here, is where help from the fogoHC is expedient, and needed. Because if a fogoHC doesn't help here, then the probability is that these pure good parts will become reinfected with the evil of their reduced capability life as they continue on living their life, which is made difficult by the reduced capability they are at. So why would an all powerful God blame us for our lack of production of perfect life, when He could just help here (at this timely junction) and greatly increase the production of perfect life at no risk to Himself? However, if there was not yet an all powerful God, but only religious tricksters; all they would have is the pulpit to blame and shame us, without the power to do anything about the bad situation.

The path to creating a fogoHC when there is no fogoHC, is long and hard and slow; and very few make it. But once a fogoHC is created, they can help when evil has been separated away, and greatly increase the life that escapes the trap of evil. But if there exists a fogoHC who does not help the good parts, that for a moment, have become pure in reduced capability, then it is the same as if there existed no fogoHC at all. If no help is given by a fogoHC at this point where help is needed (and is also safe for the fogoHC); and these people in reduced capability are expected to escape the trap of evil of their own reduced capability life; then this fogoHC will have made no difference here, where they could have safely made a lot of difference. To blame and hold accountable we-at-reduced-capability for this kind of a fogoHC's inaction, is just more of the same reduced-capability bullshit that we as reduced capability life will still be seeking to slowly, hardly, and longly, escape from as if there were no fogoHC at all: free from such a fogoHC's presumed commands. (Those commands, much of which we seek to be able to do, as they represent a life free from destruction; but that we're unable to do-and-also maintain our reduced capability life, due to our being in reduced capability and the trap of evil.)

Perhaps the reduced capability life we live, is just God's way to deal with the evil. The forces separate in reduced capability and the good escapes the evil. Things are going according to plan. But if the fogoHC stepped in with His power here; this would no longer be a reduced capability environment. So maybe it is good that the fogoHC doesn't interfere. But the commandments given by God, are interference. To the extent they make us aware/notify us of the problem at hand (and don't bring above reduced capability), they have served their purpose. But to expect that they will be obeyed in our reduced capability situation, is unrealistic, and a heavy burden. Even so. Even though not obeyed; the forces will separate and our good will be purified. So let's try to be as good as we are able, and escape with that good.

You see, there is the motivation (because our own life values this) of trying-to-free-ourselves-from-evil; vs, the motivation to do so to get on the good side of a strong and powerful perhaps vengeful God. I as a reduced capability life with my own motivation to try and get free from evil; do see the advantage in joining with a powerful loving fogoHC and giving up my individual reduced capability existence, to accomplish this escape from the trap of evil. But if that doesn't work out (due to my failing to obey commands in my reduced capability situation); then I will still have my own personal motivation apart from any pleasing-somebody-else motivation; and will continue on with it in the slow hard way (without God's help/ as if there were no God) (the only way I would have). What other choice have I got in such a situation? And you can't blame me for trying to link up with a loving God. I would still be trying.

And if I do happen to be the lucky one to create a loving fogoHC out of the hard long slow road; I certainly won't continue this long hard slow road, but will as a fogoHC, act to make a difference when it is no danger to me.

I was just thinking: if the major purpose of Christ was to allow us to be together with God when we're good while only severing fellowship when we're bad, then that right there is the help we've been looking for. That right there is the help that comes down and rescues our good that has become separate from evil out of reduced capability for a moment. So God through Christ, is already helping.

Separation of the forces is the basic tenant here. There is an area that must be at reduced capability, and not at high capability, so good can escape and separate from evil. This means the fogoHC cannot be here as they would bring to high capability. But the fogoHC can stand outside this area and enhance the separation that occurs, by joining with what becomes free for a moment; as opposed to letting it reenter reduced capability and the trap of evil. And I hope in Jesus to do this.

Yet, since we are still trapped of our essentials and quasi-essentials, means that we are still in need of help getting out of them -even if that help be just allowing us to work them out in a reduced capability environment so that the good escapes and separates from evil and into God. And if we are totally destroyed as punishment for breaking commandments, then that is NOT the reduced capability environment we need, but is an environment of total desolation, where the forces also do not separate and where we cannot become purified. Anyone who causes this, is against the separation of the forces, and is for keeping the forces of good and evil together. (This is the society of 'haves' and many 'have-nots'; and not a society of all middle class.)

Note that an environment of desolation (ie a very low capability environment); although it does stop the forces from separating; it doesn't prevent the formation of a fogoHC in the slow hard road where only a few make it. Parts with both the force of good and evil together, remain so in this torment and are unable to change or free themselves, for the most part. It is the parts not beset with evil so much that are able to grow together, with eventually some of them escaping this trap of evil to form the fogoHC. This fogoHC can then act to free the rest of us who are trapped (by helping, and changing the environment from that of desolation to that of reduced capability.) This environment of desolation, where one's force of good is unable to escape one's force of evil; is a trap of evil. Here, we need outside help, in the form of giving capability, to help us out of this trap of evil if more than a few are to escape in a reasonable timetable ie in our lifetime. This is where the fogoHC can come in and help us. The desolating of us for breaking commands (in reduced capability) IS this kind of trap of evil; and is not salvation to those it is applied to. In reduced capability, trying to obey these commands is a heavy burden that places us in desolation. And punishment from God for breaking these commands is also desolation. If this is salvation then we will need to be saved from salvation. (A hellhole by any other name, would still smell as stinky.) If we are found damned and are desolated for breaking commands: we would still be trapped in a desolation trap of evil and we would still be looking for a savior to save us from that desolation trap of evil as well as trying our feeble and remote chances of being an escapee. I hope Jesus can be that savior. But if he can't for me, then I would still be in need of a savior, and I would still be hoping. If there is any good trapped in desolation traps of evil, that good would still be hoping and need saving.

A thought about eternal life: to resurrect or recreate a person: if all the possible combinations or possible ways that a person can be created and live their life, were expressed, then each one of us would find ourselves in there somewhere. So that as a fogoHC makes things more and more capable and puts more and more life into all areas; this is what's going to happen. Note that we are used to reduced capability life in stagnation where there is much of the inanimate where life should be. At high capability, the place would be packed full of life, instead. And when packed full of life, all the possible ways that life could be, would be expressed.

A thought I had, was about the idea of turning the other cheek and resisting not evil. Well, if you decide to obey that command then you take that in as part of yourself. And as the evil (in what it is, that is destructive), it will destroy you down to reduced capability. But the destruction eventually will also destroy (the part of) your (life that causes) obedience to resisting not evil and turning the other cheek. So when that's gone -because evil destroyed it -because you resisted not evil -because you stuck around and had the other cheek smashed: then it no longer exists (with you), so we do according to whatever we do at reduced capability without that command. And that would be for the good to escape the evil thus achieving separation of the forces. Another idea that fits in here is if your boss tells you to do something, or has you do work that is destructive to you (either by making you work too fast or it is dangerous work or whatever): You see, the reason you obey your boss: Lets say you obey your boss and do what you're told. To be able to do that, you have to take in and make a part of yourself this action to do what you're told and obey your boss. But as that work destroys on you it eventually gets to destroying this part of you within you whereby you do what you're told. And when that's partially destroyed, its at reduced capability and the forces can then separate. And when that is completely destroyed, it is gone. You don't any longer always do what you're told. Thus you have escaped your boss. And are on your way to escaping the stagnant system.

I've convinced myself that life is what's important. And something I can't argue against is the force of growth is just the way to go (that is, vs the force of destruction). And so if you bring out the idea of the existence of a benevolent God or a benevolent son of God: there's so much life there; that I'm going to respond favorably towards that. In the actual living of my life however, I find myself unable to be totally good. And that where the rubber meets the road I'm going to do things that may contain some destruction no matter how much I logically am against that. Like in my essentials of eating, or whatever, animals have to die and stuff. But what I don't like is the use of religion to shame and blame people because of that. I realize there is a problem with essentials and things like that, but that's not a solution. So we have to work on the solution. And if religion isn't going to help to be part of the solution then I don't have time for it. What I don't have time for in religion is the use of religion to condemn and knock people down so as to stun them and take away their life, emotional force, or money.

Some might say that religion is supposed to stun people and knock them down to be at reduced capability for separation of the forces -so as to remove evil from them. This may be all well and good, but the person who does the stunning must be stunned just as much themselves. -Because parts that do stunning, connect themselves to evil through this. Thus they must be stunned equally to also remove the evil from them. High capability evil free parts do not do stunning to parts needing to be brought to reduced capability because they contain evil, since that very action would bring evil into them and spoil their evil free status. No, it is only parts that realize that they need to be stunned that must do the stunning to themselves if religion is to be used as a stun at all.

I want to revisit some thoughts on eating. Eating seems to be destructive to either the animals or plants that are destroyed by it. And the Bible says eventually we'll no longer have a belly, and therefore won't have to depend on eating. But at this point there doesn't seem to be much condemnation against the act of eating; although fasting is revered in the Bible. In human sexuality, religion does put more of a clampdown because its not such an essential. In the Bible, Jesus assures us that we have these needs and that God will supply them and that we shouldn't worry about them.

But we have Mark 16; 15: And he (Jesus) said unto them: go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

Well, a creature is inclusive of animals and perhaps even plants. And since they don't talk verbally with us, we must show them with our actions. And if we eat the creature, that's not a very good way to preach the gospel to them. In fact, that's not preaching the gospel to them. I mean, if putting something to death is preaching the gospel, then if we just kill everybody then that's preaching the gospel. And I guess you do go to God after you die. But it just doesn't fit in with the loving ways of what the gospel is. So if we don't preach the gospel to the creatures we eat, because we ate them, then we haven't done what Jesus said; and we're supposed to do everything that Jesus says. You see, its this thing with essentials that gets us. I suppose you could preach the gospel to them and then kill them.

In the Bible is the 10 commandments. One of those is thou shalt not kill. The Bible does not specify thou shalt not kill another human. It just says thou shalt not kill. If you have eaten animals or plants, you have had life killed. Killing is destructive, and there is good reason for us to be against things that are destructive. But we cannot help but kill when we eat; when we are forced to eat to live. So if you've killed animals or plants to be able to eat, then it can be said that you have broken the commandment: thou shalt not kill. And so I don't think we can say we are yet born of God if we're always breaking the first of the 10 commandments.

Hi. Here is my book. It is too long so I send it in 4 parts, this being the first. Please skip over any boring or complex parts. Thanks.

Chapter 1/INTRODUCTION

"Nurture"

GROWTH OF GROWTH RESOURCES, WHEN WE WANT MORE

Some of us like our work; some of us like parties, food, drink, sex, religious expression, exercise, good music, etc. But to be able to enjoy any of these, we must be alive. (Inanimate objects are incapable of these.) The actions which bring us life/resources; aren't necessarily the same as the actions of enjoying-these-project-things, (with that life). Thus to be able to enjoy all these good projects, we need a balance between actions that (a)supply us with life; vs, (b)enjoying our projects with that life.

I think most would agree we can't make much of a life by ourselves living totally independently; and that we need to join some group or system to have any form of decent life. The big question is; which system? In one, growth is destroyed. In the other, growth isn't destroyed.

When a boss expects one to produce something and work; aren't they expecting one to grow? -to provide/produce something that wasn't there before? (Why sure.)

LIFE CAUSES GROWTH

Employers never consider hiring my pet rock for a job. No, rocks/inanimate objects are not expected to produce growth. It takes life and living things to cause change and produce growth/ -The more 'alive' something is, the more growth it can cause.

The idea of nurturing life to get it to produce more growth, forms one side of an argument/counter-argument: On one hand, we can say we should nurture life to the max so it will produce more growth.

But on the other hand we can point out that if we make life too cushy, there'll be no motivation to work; people will take advantage of our good nature; sit around, relax (slacker), and won't do any work. We must let them know we mean business, and reward only when the job is done, or even punish for work not up to standards. (argues those in favor of rewards). But nurture is needed to edify life: -life which enables us to produce the required growths. -Two conflicting arguments. What shall we believe?

Realize that just because you failed to produce the growths they want, doesn't mean you've done a destructive act. But they may do destructive acts to you for not producing the growths.

Enter the factor of destruction:

There is usually more than one way to do a thing. Some ways involve taking shortcuts and disregarding the harm they cause. But out of all the possible ways; there is still usually one way to do a complete job, without destruction. -A way that contains no harm. -And, It takes more resources to do something in this 'right' way.

We live in a world with both good and evil. Why couldn't we have had a world with good only? The reason we have evil along with the good in our world, is because evil is one of the POSSIBILITIES -that living things can do. (Without life, no actions (good or evil) are possible. But with life; both good and/or evil are possible actions from that life.)

Given a world of both good and evil; our actions thus then contain (both) some good -(growth) as well as some evil -(destruction). Thus when we do actions to obtain a desired thing, we as life usually do some of both good and evil, in obtaining this thing.

There is usually more than one way to do a thing; and many of the possible ways include evil (harm) as part of them. For us to obtain this thing without evil; our actions would have to be free of harm; and this would eliminate many of the possible ways from consideration. To obtain the thing without harm, we'd have to neutralize the harmful parts of ways containing evil, (Or, we could severely limit our possibilities and reject all ways containing harm). This would require more effort than if we did the thing the way it came naturally -(with both good and evil). Thus it takes more capability-power-life to obtain things with a purity in our actions (that is, free of harm). Again:

-The limited selection we have when we reject ways containing harm, often means we loose the easiest ways, just by probability. -Plus, it takes more resources to neutralize a harmful aspect of a way and do a complete job, than to just let the harm happen.

So we can do much more individually with what little we have when we're open to all possible ways irregardless of the harm they cause (in our search for the most productive way), and don't 'waste' resources trying to neutralize the harm of our ways. So when we're short-on-resources, this often forces us to use ways containing harm. When short-on-resources we may not have enough resources to do a thing evil free, BUT we can still usually do it if we lower our standards and allow harm in our ways. (Because we can do more* in the short run/individually/locally if we allow harm in our ways; (*with our scanty resources).)

Unfortunately, this harm we allow catches up to us. As a collective group we find ourselves trapped at being short on resources because the collective harm from our ways lowers us all and keeps us short-on-resources; since harming destroys resources. The harm we allow as we strive to be the best, win the competition, and produce the absolute most; catches up to us, collectively.

When someone builds up life, but then another person knocks it down: and when life/things keep(s) getting built up and knocked back down over and over again; a system of stagnation takes form. And this stagnant system traps us, because collectively we cannot get ahead. Like a process may make a good product and income for a few, but also pollute the environment, and overall cause more harm than good.

We can usually do more and be a bit more productive in the short run/locally/individually if we allow harm in our ways. But this harm we allow, keeps us all short-on-resources in the long run. ((Statement #1;)-And being short on resources forces us to accept ways containing harm.) And doing this harm destroys resources and collectively keeps us all short on resources. Go to Statement #1. As we can see, This is a trap. That once fallen into, cannot easily be gotten out of. So we should not be so concerned with winning in competition and who can generate the highest production as a sole criteria. We should more importantly look at how evil free a 'production' is.

So we should nurture life as much as possible, so we are at as high capability as possible and are not short on resources, so that we do things with much less harm in our ways, -and thus avoid this trap of evil. It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high capability to have the extra resources needed to grow evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil free way); that we do advance and grow overall. We thus overall provide escape from the trap and system of destruction, which is the stagnant system.

EVIL FREE GROWTH VS GROWTH LADEN WITH EVIL

Since you are always growing, (You are alive.); there is a property associated with 'growth': -That there are always areas of you at present that are lacking that you need to grow into, to gain approval in this area. It takes life and living things to achieve growth, and the growth that is required of you. You are a living thing. The thing you MAY have chosen to nurture the life that is you, is the 3rd party stamp of approval.

You need life to cause growth. You have chosen the 3rd party reward to nurture your life. At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from you(r life). But you don't have the 3rd party approval for this as of yet. Without this approval, your life is not nurtured, and thus you're less alive. WITH LESS LIFE YOU PRODUCE LESS THAN ADEQUATE GROWTH. You thus fail to receive the reward or approval. Your counselor or boss, bitch at you for doing such a lousy job. Without nurture you cannot hope to produce the growth requirement. (Abbreviation: fogoHC = force of good of High Capability)

Let's look at an alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of (good) things to nurture your life; what's important isn't the inanimate objects or meager skills you posses or can manipulate, in doing things on your own, outside of a program of expectations; (independent of rewards a 3rd party gives for those actions; but instead, valuing the actions for their own merit). No, it's the life you can join with (that is the fogoHC). It is life beyond what you ever were in your undeveloped self. And from this abundant life comes abundant growth.

Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality. The more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make; and nurture all of you. The unconditional love from the fogoHC nurtures you and puts you at high capability. Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because the high capability growth is evil-free. This is unlike the success you must achieve (and thus lack at present). That type of success has growth laden with evil, because it expects growth before it dispenses the nurture (of its reward). Without the nurture, one has less life, and is at reduced capability. At reduced capability; necessary evils must be done to achieve the same growth. The necessary evils done, destroy gains made, and stagnate the group. (This is the trap of evil you are in.) Again:

Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil free growth, (instead of being forced to allow harm in your ways to achieve the required growth).

Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You have already succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now love.

It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high capability to have the extra resources needed to grow evil free: -to neutralize evil parts of our ways, and to use ways that may not be the most productive (or are more complex) but that are evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil free way); that we do advance and grow overall. There's no destruction destroying the gains we make. And so life just keeps on growing. This is the alternative system and it's not a stagnant system. (the tortoise and the hare story?) The reward system thus looses the argument counter argument, because it forces us to grow at reduced capability, in the trap of evil.

Since it is important for us not to operate at reduced capability, we should depend on the fogoHC to fill the function of whatever we do, and not depend on what we can do or produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC to full the function and our needs, doesn't mean we stop or reject what we ourselves can do. It's just that we do not depend on it, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can do. That still exists; is valuable; and represents growth. But it is no longer burdened with supporting us, and is now free; free to grow evil free.

CHAPTER 2

"The Beginning"

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter proves the most probable existence of a benevolent "God", or that there will be one in the future if there isn't one now. It points out some basic and inherent differences between good and evil. It proposes a way to defeat evil for all time (for good). It shows some basic natural philosophical laws existing in the universe.

Capability is a very general term. What I mean by it, is being able to do something -anything. Something that gives you capability, is something that enables you to do something. Lack of capability then, is not being able to do something.

If you think about it, capability is what separates living things from non-living things. Living things can do a lot, whereas non living things cannot.

Expanding on this area (because some have questioned it): The living world is more powerful than the inanimate world, because 1) A volcano is big only because a human has conceived in their mind that it is big -it takes life to give it its largeness. 2) The growth potential of living systems (which the inanimate does not have), allows life to someday control, manipulate, and harness, the inanimate: therefore which is more powerful -the powerful inanimate volcano/nuclear reaction, or the future civilization which harnesses that volcano/nuclear reaction, to do its bidding 99% of the time (less 1% for accidents)? I have to go with life over the inanimate in the long run in a life system that is not stagnant. Note that pound per pound, matter associated with living things, can do more than matter associated with the inanimate. It takes evolution (ie: the inanimate) millions of years to form a human being. It takes a living mother 9 months to do the same. Men are also quite able to kill each other, whereas inanimate objects find this difficult.

One point touched upon that I wish to make clearer; is that there are two reasons the force-of-good has an edge over the force-of-evil: 1)That although there is a 'bottom', where one absolutely can't go lower than nothing in terms of the level of capability; there's no absolute limit or ceiling to how much capability/life can be put into a piece of matter. Over time as we advance, we become able to put more and more capability into a piece of matter. (Who knows if there's a limit to how much we can put in, as we continue to advance.)

(This represents quality.)

2)That, capability is the key to crossing barriers. It enables one to cross barriers to reach new supplies of raw materials (to make improvements upon).

(This represents quantity.)

If a force of good is stopped by a barrier it can't cross, it builds up the quality of what materials it does have. It puts more and more capability, life, and power into the matter it does have, until it can bridge the barrier, and get in touch with raw materials further away or otherwise unavailable due to the barrier.

An abbreviation used in this chapter, is fogoHC, which stands for force of good of High Capability. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

We can categorize the universe into that which has capability/power/life; and that which lacks capability/power/life. For example, a person may be capable in some areas, but may lack capability in other areas. So, we can divide whatever we're considering (a person, the world, etc.) into capability vs. lack-of-capability.

We can divide the universe into capability vs. lack of capability and make a record of this. But the universe does not stand still, and after a time, our picture of the universe would change. Some things would have gained, and other things would have lost, capability. What I want to concentrate on then, is change in the universe in terms of capability; and not (so much) on a static picture of the universe (in terms of capability).

And there are two directions of change possible: there is increase-in-capability; and decrease-in-capability. I want to state that only CAPABILITY can cause these changes. Lack-of-capability cannot cause either change. For example, a living person can either help or hurt; increase capability or decrease capability. But a dead person can do neither. Has empty space or nothingness done anything? (to help or hurt you)?

(If it did, then it would be capable of that. This thus also reflects the definition of capability./ But whatever capability and life is; if we destroy that, then what is left over cannot do anything: neither helping nor destroying. -(Don't you find this to be true?))

Not only do we have 2 directions of change (increase and decrease (in capability)), (which I will now call forces); but we know that these changes (or forces) have capability behind them. They are caused by capability. The lack-of-capability cannot support or cause either (change) force.

Next I want to establish is that capability is the key to crossing barriers. For example, if you are on an island, there is the barrier of the ocean that keeps you from the rest of land. But if you have more capability in the form of a boat, then you can cross the barrier of the ocean. I hope you will agree that capability is the key to crossing barriers. Certain capabilities allow one (us) to cross certain barriers, but in general, capability is the key to crossing barriers.

Now we are ready to consider the 2 forces (increase and decrease in capability) in different situations. The situations are: 1. The force-of-increase only; 2. The force-of-decrease only; 3. Both forces are present.

Let's consider the situation where only the force-of-decrease-in-capability is present. What this force is, is capability used to destroy other capability, (or even itself). Well, the force-of-decrease goes about destroying capability, and there is less capability. Where capability once was, there is now a lack-of-capability (a hole). Since forces are made of capability, (and not lack-of-capability), this force isn't a growing force because it destroys what can support it. And if it destroys the specific capabilities making it up, then it is a shrinking force. Pretty soon all the capability in the immediate area is destroyed and there is no more capability left to destroy. When this force runs out of capability, it can't destroy (capability) any longer. Thus it ceases to exist in an active sense. But this force could continue to destroy capability, if it could get in touch with that (capability) which was further away. -or in some way separate from it. To do this would require the crossing of barriers (to reach the more distant or not-so-obtainable capability). The force of decrease in capability, however, cannot cross these barriers, because it destroys the key to crossing barriers -capability. The force of decrease thus boxes itself in and ceases to exist in an active sense. So, this possibility of just the force of decrease alone, is unworkable.

Now, let us consider what happens when the force-of-INCREASE-(in-capability) is by itself and is the only force around. This force takes lack-of-capability and produces capability in its place. Pretty soon, everything is so capable, that this force begins to run out of improvements to make. -Lack of capability becomes in short supply. If no more improvements can be made, then no increase can be done, and this would stop active existence of this force of increase. This force could keep on existing if it could get in touch with lack-of-capability that was further away or in some other way, separated from it. To do this would require the crossing of barriers. Since this force produces the key to crossing barriers -capability, it does continue to exist in an active sense. (-Whether it be barriers to putting more capability/life into a piece of matter, or reaching more distant raw materials; the force of increase has the key to crossing these barriers, in capability/power/life.)

›It is easy to see that one can go no lower than nothing in terms of the level of capability. What is not so certain in my mind is; is there a ceiling, a limit that you cannot put anymore capability into a piece of matter? Being of higher capability would allow one to put more in. Well, maybe there's a limit and maybe there's not. But no matter.› (-See chapter introduction.)

So, the force-of-increase can exist in an active sense, when it is the only force around. When alone, not only does it exist, it grows and builds itself up to very high levels of capability. It is a growing force, because what it produces -capability, is also the stuff that forces are made of. And with nothing to knock it down, it just keeps on growing. (It can always cross barriers so it keeps growing (forever).)

Then there is the situation where both of the forces exist together. Here on earth, this is the way it is. When the two forces are together, one produces capability and the other destroys capability. The force-of-increase doesn't grow because the capability it produces is destroyed. The force-of-decrease doesn't shrink because it has a continued supply of capability to destroy. This type of setup can go on indefinitely, and the force of decrease does not burn itself out here. But the 2 forces oppose each other in what they seek to accomplish, and a medium or mediocre level of capability results. The force of decrease can exist indefinitely, even forever.

The force of increase exists here also, but only to supply capability for the force of decrease (to destroy). It exists in a cramped or limited sort of way, as it doesn't grow.) For example, suppose there is a man trying to build a house, but vandals keep destroying it. And suppose there is another man building a house but who is separate from any vandals. With the time and effort and resources that the first man puts into trying to build his first house, the 2nd man can build many houses. So, from the force-of-increase's point of view, it's not so important how much capability it starts out with. What's important, is being separate from the force of decrease, the force of destruction.

Even if a force-of-increase starts out very small, it will grow to very large size and have lots of capability, IF it is separate from the force of destruction. The reason is growth. (Here it can grow.) The largeness it obtains is dependent on the degree it is separate from the force of destruction. And as it grows in capability, it can use that capability to obtain greater separation.

Speaking of evolution: if a small amount of capability develops out of the muck and mire, and both forces are present in equal amounts, then it will stay small, and not grow. If more of the force of decrease makes it up, then it will consume itself and disappear. But if more of the force of increase is present, it will grow to be large and very capable. So, if at any point in the past or future, a force of increase no matter how small, appears from the muck and mire, and is separate from the force of decrease in capability. -or if a force of increase at any time and no matter how small, escapes from a system where there are both forces:: then it can grow, and grow to a very large size. Because of this, it is very probable that there exists now, or there will exist, a force of increase (in capability) that is of high capability, an infinite amount of capability, and that is completely separate from the force of decrease (in capability). And also, that this force is a kind benevolent loving force, not a stern vengeful or mean force. So, I will include the existence of such a force in my considerations. This wraps up my thoughts on the 3 situations involving the two forces. The conclusions are: that the force of decrease cannot exist by itself, while the force of increase can. And when it does, it builds itself up into high capability. When the 2 forces exist together, things stagnate. -The force-of-increase ceases to grow and the force-of-decrease ceases to shrink, and the situation can go on forever. The advantage of the force-of-increase, is that it can exist alone and do very well, while the force of decrease cannot.

The force of decrease-in-capability has specific characteristics of its own, which cause problems. These characteristics, problems and solutions are what I want to discuss next. An important idea that fits here, is that being at mediocre capability forces one to destroy and decrease capability in some areas, to obtain increases in capability in other areas. Whereas if one had more capability and was at high capability, they would not be forced to destroy capability (to obtain these increases). For example, we have to eat to survive. Having enough to eat increases our capability. But we must kill animals or plants to obtain food, which decreases their capability. Now, if we had more capability and technology, we could synthesize our food chemically from the energy of the sun. -And no one's capability would be decreased. The reason we are forced to destroy and decrease capability, if we are at low capability, is because we are incomplete. Let me explain.

In obtaining a good, or increasing capability, there is a task at hand. The doing of this task requires a certain amount of capability, and certain types of capability (depending on the task). If one has enough of the needed capabilities, they can perform the task period, and no capability is destroyed. But if one is at low capability, then they probably don't have enough capability to perform the task. Now you would think that the task would go undone, and that would be the end of it. But not so. If you have a collection of life forms all at low capability; if you consider the total capability of them all, then (if you have the right collection of life forms); there is enough capability to perform the task; but it is divided amongst many life forms. For the task to be performed, the capabilities must all be together, in one unit. -And not divided up. If the many life forms cannot merge into a single life form and assemble their capabilities into one unit (which is doubtful since they are all at low capability); then the only way to put the smaller amounts of capabilities together into one unit, is to remove them from the individual life forms and put them together. -The act of removing the capabilities from the individual life forms, is where destruction and decrease in capability/power/life occurs. Also, the less capability one has, the less complete and the smaller the task, one can do. Like, to burn coal does not take much equipment. But to burn it cleanly does take a lot of sophisticated anti-pollution equipment. So, if one is at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do destruction to obtain some increases in capability. But if one is at high capability they can obtain these increases without having to do destruction or decrease in capability. The situation of both forces together, results in mediocre capability. And being at mediocre capability causes decrease and destruction to be done, which keeps the group at mediocre capability; so that the force of evil is not easily eliminated from this situation.

There is one unfortunate result or symptom of the fact that being at low capability forces one to do destruction to obtain many goods. -That is, a circular process that keeps one at low or mediocre capability. For example, if a group of life forms are at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do destructions as part of obtaining many increases in capability. These destructions balance any increases obtained, and keep the group at low or mediocre capability. Being at low or mediocre capability, forces them to do more decreases in capability. This keeps on and on, and there is no escape to high capability from within. It is a trap (of evil). Outside action is needed to break the cycle (on any kind of a regular basis). Let me describe an example. Let us take a group of life forms, that are all at high capability, but are also ignorant about many things especially destruction. They are learning about life and the universe (from a vantage point of being at high capability). Then along comes the idea of destruction. Here is something to try out. So, one of them tries it out and clobbers one of them over the head (or themselves). Now one of the life forms is at decreased capability. Being at decreased capability, this person can no longer obtain many of the increases-in-capability without doing destruction. This person does not give up these things, but obtains them now with an accompanying decrease in capability. Other life forms have their capability decreased and are now at less than high capability. They in turn must decrease capability to obtain the good things they have been used to. More life forms fall from high capability, and this keeps snowballing until all life forms that are in contact with the system fall from high capability, unless they get separate from this system. -The interesting thing is that high capability in itself, is no protection against this. And once everyone is at mediocre capability, they are trapped there, and cannot get back to high capability. So now, these people know about decrease-in-capability, but the price we pay for knowing about it, is being trapped by it. Some of the properties of decrease-in-capability, is that it is very infectious, -that it spreads through a set of life forms that are within each others grasp. And that once it traps us, we cannot get out.

Some of us like decrease-in-capability by choice. Others of us are against it by choice. But no matter what our choice is we are forced to do it, and are trapped by it. When we must decrease capability to obtain an increase-in-capability, this kind of decrease is forced upon us. It is not by our choice. An increase in our capability would allow us to obtain the goods without destruction, and we would then cease to decrease capability. I would call this 'necessary evil'. But there is destruction that is caused by choice. I would call this 'unnecessary evil'. Destruction can be shown to be 'unnecessary evil', by the giving of capability. This type of destruction is not caused by lack-of-capability or being at low capability. -Because the person already has the capability to avoid doing this destruction, but does the destruction anyway (by choice). (It is interesting to note that the doing of one unnecessary evil causes a long chain of necessary evils to be done, long after the initiating unnecessary evil is gone).

If all of us liked the force-of-decrease-in-capability and chose it as what we wanted to do with our lives, then it'd be OK to let the force-of-decrease feed off of a force-of-increase, and we'd live this way forever, with the 2 forces being together in our lives. But that's not how it is. Most of us don't choose the force-of-decrease But even so, it traps us. How shall we get out? Who will help us? Well, it would have to be a force-of-increase, separate from the force of destruction, and thus of high capability, that helps us out. But I submit, that just helping us out will not solve our problem. For example; say that the force-of-increase-of-H.C. (High Capability), is helping. He is giving everybody lots of capability and bringing us up to high capability equal with him/her self. But the force-of-decrease is present also; and now has access to much capability. (Those with the force-of-decrease, use their lots of capability to do lots of destruction). Thus the force-of-decrease becomes nearly as powerful as the force-of-good-of-H.C. that is present here, helping out. All are brought down to mediocre capability in the togetherness of the 2 forces, where we started from.

But now we are minus one force-of-increase-of-H.C.. This force is still a force-of-increase, but of mediocre capability like the rest of us. This does not solve the problem. The force-of-increase-of-H.C. is unable to help until the force-of-decrease is dealt with. What is the solution to our predicament?

Take a look at this plan: First the force-of-good (increase in capability)-of-H.C., divides into 2 parts; each of which are of very High Capability. One of them stays back and remains separate from this whole situation. The other confronts the problem and comes together with us, and uses his lots of capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas of life, and in all areas. (-even if we wanted to, we couldn't separate the 2 forces in all areas, here on earth, because we don't have the capability to. And we never will because we're trapped at mediocre capability.) But both forces-of-good-of-H.C. do have the capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas; and the confronting HC force-of-good DOES, (or at least provides for, in the area of choice). With the force-of-evil (the force-of-decrease-in-capability), alone and separate, it consumes and destroys all capability within its grasp. And because of its infectiousness, and that this confronting-force-of-good-of-H.C. is here within its grasp; it destroys it too. Because capability is life, lives are lost and people are killed. The force of evil thus self destructs and brings itself to an end; but everybody is dead, or many are dead -even the confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who came together with us and did the separation of the 2 forces, was killed. What occurs next, is the other 'stayed back', 'stayed behind' (represented by '*') force-of-good-of-H.C., who has been away and separate from all this, comes into action. Since the force of evil is gone and has burned itself out, there is no danger to this *force-of-good-of-H.C.. And this *force-of-good-of-H.C. sorts the remains of those who like increase-in-capability into one place, and the remains of those who like decrease-in-capability into another place (and gives them what they want). This *force-of-good-of-H.C. then does what forces of good do - that is to increase capability, and brings these people back to life. And not just to mediocre capability, but to high capability. The confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who provided for all this and was killed; was brought back to life of high capability too. Those who like decrease in capability are in a place where they can do that. (This is what makes hell so unpleasant -everybody goes around hurting each other with their high capability (that keeps on being replenished). -This is what they like to do, and thus want.) But they are kept separate from us who like to do increase-in-capability. This solves the problem. -Those of us who know about the force-of-decrease and who don't like it, are no longer trapped by it. We are at high capability, and are not forced to do it. -And since we know about it and have decided against it; we don't do it. So now we see that the force-of-good-of-H.C. has a sure fire way to defeat the force of evil for good.

The nature of hurt, harm and pain is a strange one. If you cut off and incinerate someone else's finger; you may say that it didn't hurt you, because you are not the capability-and-life that received the destruction. But the only capability and life that received destruction was the person's finger. It no longer exists, and so does not feel anything or any pain. What feels pain, is the remnant part of this person that received no damage, but that (who) was connected to the lost capability (the finger). The only reason you wouldn't feel pain, is because of the separation keeping people as separate entities. But as evil seeks to bridge separations, so as to harness forces of good and burn down capability/life within its grasp (so as to feed); then the pain and suffering will be felt throughout. So when you hurt someone, it will most surely come back on you as well as everybody else who is connected to this system who does not have separation from evil. I hope you see the futility of hurting people, even to punish people (especially non destructive rule breakers/victimless crimes). It just makes all of our lives who are connected to this system, a living Hell. It really doesn't matter whose fault it is or who is to blame. (With the exception of stopping those who are presently destructive, who themselves are more destructive than good. -then it's a tradeoff)

It is not the capability that was destroyed, but the remaining capability that was connected, that reacts to the loss, and feels* the pain -as it tries to carry on, now at reduced capability, now without the help from the destroyed material it had previously depended on. It must obtain the same good it used to get evil-free, now with chains and chains of accompanying necessary evils. It has just been thrown into reduced capability, the trap of evil; from its previous vantage point of being evil-free. And that doesn't feel very good. That's what pain is. *(There has to be something there, something alive to be able to feel.)

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

PRECARIOUS BALANCE.

There is the 'inconsistency of the trap of evil' in my writing. If the trap of evil traps everything it comes into contact (togetherness) with, because of its infectiousness: How then can anything once trapped by evil, ever get out (to achieve separation of the forces in all areas)? How sturdy is this trap of evil?

What I am trying to examine, is raw evil against raw good; with these forces on equal footing, without outside interference (that is, before a fogoHC is created), to see how they turn out, and how well good fares against evil. We have already noticed that stagnation sets in when the forces of good and evil are together, and that this stagnation can go on forever. I want to examine this situation more closely here.

How sturdy is the trap of evil? Can it be proved impossible to get out for anyone over all time? Well, first of all, since evil (at best) is at mediocre capability, it would not be able to contact and control all the life that sprang up in the universe (randomly). And because of randomness, it is probable that some life systems spring up with mainly the force of good as their make-up. Now, because of the statistics of randomness, they would be in the minority; but that doesn't matter; because all it takes is one to succeed. These life forms of good, do not need to be successful at getting in contact with other life forms to succeed: only to overcome any remnant force of evil that is within them. They need to work within themselves to obtain complete separation from evil (by using (some of) what they've gained from previous separation, to accomplish more separation).

For the force of evil to succeed on the other hand; it must get in contact with all life in the universe. Its success requires this contact of other life forms to make sure no force of good outgrows it and becomes greatly more powerful than it; (and not so much doing work within itself). But the force of evil is unable to contact all life forms due to its own trap of mediocre capability.

Now, let us examine this trap of evil more closely, to see if it really is 100% effective in trapping everything it touches. The thing is, it has to be 100% effective to even have a chance of overcoming the force of good. 99.999% is not good enough. 99.999% means that one out of 100,000 will escape. And all it takes is one.

The trap of evil is that one is at mediocre capability, and is forced to do a large proportion of necessary evils just to survive, or obtain many of the good things they are used to. These necessary evils done, then negate any gains made, and keep the group at mediocre capability. This is how the trap of evil is proposed to work. But there is the area of 'good things we are used to'. If we refrained from some of these good things with much necessary evil; but instead obtained some other good thing with less necessary evil, with the resources, then we might be able to work our way out of this. So what we do, is to expand areas that do not have necessary evils, while we get by with as little as possible in areas that are loaded with necessary evils. (There are some processes that are not diminished by their use, while there are others that are. Like the use of a library does not diminish its ability to be an information center. But the use of a bag of cement for one building, diminishes its use for anything else, (unless you happen to be at a rather high capability).) So we work with an emphasis on areas that are not diminished by their use until we build up enough capability to get into other areas in this non destructive way.

When we are forced to do an equivalent amount of necessary evils just to survive, what then? But my question is, what is an equivalent amount that will exactly negate the gains produced by our survival? It seems to me that stagnation is a pretty precarious balance: -that we would tend to either go down in flames; or grow larger. ›This train of thought will be continued from the paragraph with the (*) in front of it. But for now I need to explore some background in some other areas; like the tendency towards atomization in systems with the forces of increase and decrease together.›

What I want to state now, is this: it is a conceptual impossibility to do both good, and evil, in the same area at the same time (to the smallest most specific unit of capability). Take any specific capability. What does it mean to increase and decrease at the same time? This is impossible. At any given point in time, a capability is at some level. This level is either increasing, decreasing, or constant. It cannot be both increasing and decreasing simultaneously. There may be a force trying to cause increase; balanced by a force trying to cause decrease; acting simultaneously on this one thing. But there is no movement in the level of this thing. Take for example a rocket ship. The force of gravity pulls downward on it. The thrust of the rocket engines pushes upwards on it. But the rocket itself can only have one direction describing it. We can say the rocket is increasing (if the thrust overcomes the gravitation). We can say the rocket is decreasing (if the gravitation overcomes the thrust). We can say the rocket is constant (if the gravitational pull equals the thrust). But we can't say that the rocket is increasing at time t1, and then turn around and say the rocket is also decreasing at time t1.

›If the rocket rose and fell at the same time, then at t1+5 seconds, it would be in two places at the same time. (It would have to expand to do this.) And this expansion (a byproduct of the togetherness of rising and failing), has no shrinking to counteract it.›

Now, if the rocket blows up, then some parts may go up and some parts may go down; and then we can say the rocket is increasing and decreasing at time t1. But if we are at the most basic and specific unit of matter or capability (in this case a rocket fragment); then there can be only one description of its motion (or lack of motion).

What does this lead to? Well, if we are forced to do actions that contain both increase and decrease, then that increase and decrease must be upon different (separate) areas, to have both increase and decrease be done. An action that tries to do both increase and decrease on the same area is likely to break it apart into smaller units; separate and divide it up. If it is not blown up (divided up), then no increase-and-decrease will have been done. Forces of increase and decrease done on a unit, often act on different component pats of the unit; and have a tendency to blow that unit apart if it is not strong enough to hold together.

We live in a world where both good and evil are heavily together. As we have just seen; systems with the togetherness of good and evil, cause all in their grasp to be divided up, blown apart, or 'atomized'. Since these fragments are all of less capability than the whole, they are less able to overcome the trap of evil (that forces them to do necessary evils, as a result of being at low capability). This isn't where the magic occurs. The magic occurs when these fragments attempt to grow back together. There are so many actions that do both good and evil, that every unit of life is atomized and fragmented. Those parts that happen to have more good done to them, and that are themselves good; are better able to grow. And they are better able to grow together to form groups-of-fragments. Thus the good grows together leaving the evil (and the disadvantaged) behind, still separate. (Separation itself isn't bad, but if something is evil it will consume itself in separation.) So in this coming together of the fragments, there's a tendency of the good to come together; and there's also an element of randomness. I want to state that, that element of randomness cannot completely be eliminated (or even nearly be eliminated) by the ruling forces of evil, Because of evil's mediocre capability.

›When things are coming-or-growing together after being fragmented; this is the problem or barrier of necessary-evil. -The problem of many life forms assembling themselves into a single life form, and thus being able to pool their resources without doing decrease in that pooling.›

SEMI TANGENT: In my description of necessary evil, I suggest the barrier of many life forms being able to assemble themselves into a single life form so as to pool their resources without decrease. But the journey of escape from the trap of evil (necessary evil), contains many barriers and milestones, of which this is just one (albeit a major one). END S.T.

(*)-STAGNATION IS A PRECARIOUS BALANCE CONT.- Although there is variation in the resulting size (of the fragments coming together before they're atomized again); there can be calculated an average size. The ruling forces of evil could then base the amount of destruction they allow, on this average size; so that the evil done, just destroys the gains made; as a way to maintain stagnation. The trap of evil is that on average, as much destruction is done as increase, so that no net gain is made. When low-capability-fragments with more good and growth are coming together; there's an element of randomness that neither these fragments nor the residing force-of-evil can totally or even mostly eliminate (due to their low or mediocre level of capability). This means there's a variation in the amount of capability that can grow together before its atomized again. Most of the time, a certain average size is observed. But once in awhile and more INfrequently, larger group sizes and power are obtained. It's these less frequent but greater capability-groups that can be able to achieve their nearest milestone (to escape from evil), and eventually work their way out and escape completely from evil. You may say all the ruling force of evil would have to do would be to increase the mix of evil (in the actions that contain good and evil) so that not even these infrequent, larger powered groups would be able to grow to reach their nearest milestone. But if evil did that, there'd no longer be stagnation! The smaller and more common group size would not be able to take it, and would shrink/vanish (die). If conditions were such that the infrequent, more powerful group was only able to hold its own; then the more common (average sized) smaller groups, would get blown away by these harsher conditions; and it'd be a shrinking universe with evil on its way to self destruction; (thus making room for some other life system to evolve). All it takes is for one to escape evil, for them to be able to come back and rescue the rest of us who are trapped by evil. Thus if there is not a fogoHC, there's a good chance there will be created one. And if there is a fogoHC, we can depend on him/her to rescue us from the trap of evil.

What we've just seen, is that due to variability, randomness, and that some do better than others; a few will be able to escape the trap of evil. It may take a long time, but a few will be able to escape. Once this has happened, things do not continue on like this with only a few escaping evil over a long time period. Now, with the existence of an escaped and powerful fogoHC; this fogoHC then does the plan to rescue all of us who want to be rescued; and now, everybody who wants to, escapes evil!

›A tangent: Given an action that has the togetherness of good and evil closely knit together within it; the results of that action, have both good and evil present, but the good and evil are now separate from each other to a greater degree (when this action blows something apart). So we see that the natural result of actions containing the togetherness of good and evil, is that they decay to produce good and evil that is more separate.› End tangent.

As an aside, I might note that atomization is a way of providing separation. The acts that contain both good and evil together; are a way of doing and providing separation. (This argument might be posed.) But this type of separation doesn't separate (just) the forces. It divides up whatever is in front of it, into little pieces. This type of separation does harm, and traps its subjects in the trap of evil. There is one unfortunate problem with using this way of separation: it never achieves separation (complete), because it depends on the togetherness of good and evil to provide it (just what separation sets out to eliminate).

Once free from the trap of evil, we no longer need to depend on the uneven distribution of resources to enable some to escape from evil (to come back and rescue us). Equality can then be instituted without the detrimental effects of stagnation.

Chapter 3

Dependence on God, the Nesting Problem, and Time"

Since its important for us not to operate at redued capability, we should depend on the fogoHC (to fill the function of what we do), and not depend on what we can do/produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC (to fill functions and needs), doesn't mean we stop/reject what we ourselves can do. Its just that we don't depend on IT, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can. That still exists/is valuable. But it's no longer burdened with supporting us and is now free to grow evil free.

There are the things we can do. And there's the fogoHC. The fogoHC can fill in for and substitute for our actions of these very things. This creates a dual structure.

When we depend on the fogoHC, that itself is an action too. Our depending on the fogoHC while letting OUR doings go free -not burdening them, is itself also an action, and a 'thing' (#1). We treat this 'thing' (#1) do different than all the other 'things' (A-Z), so we also depend on the fogoHC to supply the function of this thing(#1). But our action to depend on the fogoHC for this, is also a 'thing' (#2).

Thing #1 and thing #2 are very similar in that they both involve depending on the fogoHC; but there may be some slight difference in that thing#2 is part of a nested, repeating set of awarenesses that is one order higher than thing#1.

But it is mostly the fogoHC Himself, and not our action to depend on Him that gets things done and actually fills the function (of everything we're depending on Him to fill). It's the versatility of the fogoHC that allows Him to do this (His infinite versatility comes from being at high capability) Though, its still true that the action-to-depend-on-the-fogoHC-to-fill-functions remains a bona fide action.

When the fogoHC does an action, that action is a part of Himself. These actions by the fogoHC (to fill the functions of things) are at high capability growing evil free because they are (part of) the fogoHC. They need no additional action of dependence-on-the-fogoHC to provide this because they are (part of) the fogoHC. It's only actions not done by the fogoHC that need the help of the fogoHC (to escape reduced capability the trap of evil). The action/awareness that we are to depend on the fogoHC, is the closest an action can get to the fogoHC while still being an action done by us. All the other actions and things done by us are further from the fogoHC. So all these other actions often come by this dependence action in their path to the fogoHC. All things make their journey to the fogoHC (or the fogoHC to them). And this may or may not include additional actions/awarenesses of dependence on the fogoHC. When (if) it gets to nested actions of: depending on the fogoHC, (to provide dependence on the fogoHC for, the providing dependence on the fogoHC) for, filling the function of all our other actions; -it is usually easier for a dependence action to finally find the fogoHC than to create another order of nesting. (another order of nesting doesn't add much of anything new.)

What I kind of mean by 'the journey to the fogoHC' is that these things grow so they have an awareness that the fogoHC is filling their function and to depend upon that and not themselves (so as to grow evil free). What I really mean by the 'journey to the fogoHC', is that these things grow eventually to become part of the fogoHC themselves.

The bottom line is that things experience evil free growth. The fogoHC plays a prominent role in this, as it is He who provides it.

A disclaimer:

I have no love for organized religion either. In the past they supressed Galelao. And they still heavy handedly suppress those who say what they don't like. For all the concerns by the Church against violations of human rights: they themselves lack a very basic human right -freedom of speech/expression.

As for belief in God, I am perfectly content to have you believe how you see fit concerning God; and also to have me believe how I see fit concerning God, even if it means that I believe and you disbelieve, or whatever.

The Bible it is said, is divinely inspired. Do not settle for second hand inspiration. Demand your own personal inspiration from God. (Why would God change His method -of personally inspiring people, in mid stream? by then leaving people to rely on 2nd hand inspriations) I think that God would reveal himself to you clearly, and that you would not have to strain to percieve Him. I would recomend that you search for God only when you want to, not because of any idea that you should or are supposed to.

Let me list a concrete fact:

We know for certain that if God exists, He has taken a hands off approach, and has not directly, visibly, absolutely revealed Himself to us.

What if someone wrote some stuff about God, and claimed it was inspired by God, but that was in reality, inaccurate or even a lie. Would this be enough to cause God to break His silence and set the inaccuracy straight? Well, I can see the possibility/probability that such a God would continue to be silent. So that just because the Bible is a book aboout God that claims to be true and from God; doesn't actually make it true (It doesn't make if false either. It could also be partly true or partly false). If God inspired these men who wrote the Bible; then He is entirely capable of inspiring each and every one of us in the same way. To accept anything less than your own personal inspiration from God, (such as second hand inspiration), is to allow possible inaccuracy in how God is really like. Each and every part of a writing about God, then requires an independent confirmation from God (in order to eliminate the possibility of human error/deception). Anything that involves men, I am suspicious of. In my experience, men lie. Men deceive. Men can be inaccurate. And the Bible has man's influence, as the hand of God did not visibly come down from heaven to pen the Bible. Man was involved in its writing, so much so that God's participation in such is visibly obscured. So that I have more problems with interpreting the Bible, than with the existence of God.

I had at one time asked why should God need any help in spreading the Gospel. But I think I overstepped my logic. Actually, it is OK for people to express their human desire for a God yet to be. Or it is also OK to help God in the area he needs help -that is in communication with humans without revealing himself completely. However, I was just dissapproving because of the great harm that has been done by nations of old taking along the mission to spread the Gospel, but what they actually did was to stamp out the native cultures they visited, and commit genocide.

THE NESTING PROBLEM

There is a central recurring problem I keep stumbling on; especially concerning common actions needed to be done to all things. In general form, the problem is: "Given things need to be acted on to fix or empower them; the action to do so is also a thing, that also needs to be acted on likewise. And if we then so act; then even this action is also another thing that too needs to be acted on likewise. Etc. etc.. This keeps snowballing with an infinite chain of nested actions each regulating the one before it. It's impossible to completely finish this task, and attempting to will exhaust all resources in useless, nested, regulating of regulation actions.

In my previous writing, I sidestepped the issue by saying a thing becomes part of the fogoHC and no longer continues in these nested actions. (The idea is not to bother wasting resources trying to accomplish an impossible task.)

Now, my final thinking concerning this problem:

When we're successful at something, it interests us, it generates new material, and we tend to work with it. But when we fail at something, we may tend to be frustrated and work all the harder; but eventually if we keep failing, we loose interest and don't do anything in it but move on to other things. We tend to let go of our failures, not wanting to remember them (and also unable to work with anything new in them because they didn't grow anything new). We'd much rather dwell on our successes and work with what we do well at. But whether we succeed or fail, it's wonderful to realize there's an almighty God (fogoHC) out there who loves us. Given such a God who cares about us; we can understand how He might desire we grow and advance in power and love, to also eventually be forces of good of high capability. To be able to advance and grow like this, a basic requirement is that we are able to make good choices for ourselves. If we're unable to think and decide, but need someone to do this for us, then we haven't grown much (above inanimate objects or instinct driven animals). Some believe we should be as little children in that we let someone else think and decide for us and blindly obey (although little children never blindly obey anything). That's not what God has done. Look around you, at what is self evident. God has for the most part, stepped back and allowed us to have our way with this world. God hasn't interfered with man's will. Just look around you and on the news all the pain and suffering and all the wrong things in this world. Why has God allowed all this suffering? Do you see a throne in the sky, or a glowing building where you can talk with God and here Him talk back audibly, and where He enforces his laws? (No, God deals/talks with each of us in the unseen ways through His Holy Spirit.) This world around us is not the finished work of perfection wrought by an almighty God where we are all living in harmony and love. No, what we see around us is dirty rags: a world in travail waiting to be born. Obviously, God highly values the development of our ability to think / make good choices; because He has let us have our way and our freedom (to screw up and make a stagnant mess of this world). An almighty God could step in and put a stop to this. But a God who loved us would value our development and advancement to grow in life and to think and choose well. It's like the non interference directive on Star Trek. Look around you. Has God stepped in visibly to rule here? It's obvious, that if there is a God: He has stepped back and let us humans have our own way. He thus must value our advancing into the ability to choose well and think and not just blindly obey.

So when we're working with things, the fogoHC may be able to do so much more, but He stays out of it, because He doesn't want to violate/interfere with our will or what we're trying to do here.

When you try something; just by the law of probability, sometimes you're going to succeed and sometimes you're going to fail (even when doing the same thing repetitively).

When we fail, we realize we can't hope to depend on or succeed in what we've done (for we've done nothing). Since the things we fail at are permanently out of play (they can do nothing on their own, and are so far gone that only the fogoHC can do anything with them); then there's nothing to interfere with the fogoHC's workings; for the fogoHC to gain permission from, or be free from evil from. Thus the fogoHC has a free hand here and creates wondrous results; far greater than the successes we create. We thus depend on our failures for the mainstay of our existence.

Since we've no preoccupation with depending on what we've done, (neither are we presently working with it): We thus have no hesitation to removing our will from most-of-us (giving our will-resources to a small-part-of-us); so that the Lord will have a free hand over this most-of-us, and can then come in and do wonderful things with it.

The reason we take resources-of-our-will away from most of us and give them to only a small portion of us that's most likely to succeed, is two fold. First, as just discussed, such an action clears us out of the fogoHC's way as we turn that part over to Him. But secondly, this action concentrates resources upon what small part we do give our will to. This is important so what we do, isn't at reduced capability, but is at as high capability as we can muster.

The purpose of our successes, isn't to be depended on for the mainstay of our existence, but to provide new ideas, new areas, and new growth for the fogoHC. We ourselves are the new growth. WE are the product. The fogoHC is advancing and developing US as living thinking intelligent beings able to handle more freedom and make good loving choices. However, we only need a small part of an area to do this. We don't need to take up the whole area. Our successes and our will only represent US, not the supplying and satisfaction of OUR needs. We depend on the fogoHC; not our own strength. (Look at your hand. It's made of meat. But you don't eat your hand even though it's meat because it's part of YOU.) If you try to put more of a burden on what-you-are, than just being you, you'll drive it to reduced capability. Remember, it's just barely making it being YOU, and pales in comparison to what the fogoHC is doing right beside you.

We should move out of most of an area and inhabit only a small part with our will. We need this degree of concentration into an area, to put US out of reduced capability; and to allow the fogoHC to produce as much as possible (since the fogoHC can do so much more). In any case, there's a fixed proportion where we move our will out of most of an area and into a small remaining part.

When we do this action (called the #1 action) to take free resources of our will from most of an area, and give them to only a small part of this area: this is also an action/area. Who does this action? Well, this area is treated as all other areas; and free will-resources are taken from most of it and given to only a small part of it. The end state (just like in all other areas) is that the fogoHC oversees/does most of it, while our name's only on a small part of it.

We're always growing and new parts of us are always being created. When a thing is first created (MAINLY FROM WHAT IS THE FOGOHC'S): When it is first created, it is all US 100%. Then 'we' do an action to move US out of most of this part and into a small fraction of this part. (This I call the #1 action.) Once the fixed proportion is achieved, the task is complete and no more of this #1 action is done on this part. When the #1 action is complete, each part of us has 2 representations. One is run by the fogoHC and is very powerful -a source of power for us; and is always free from evil. The other contains our will and just barely lives up to the glory of God and is often vulnerable to evil.

The Nesting problem: It is the fogoHC representations which are powerful enough to create and grow the new actions we do. But the new things created by the powerful-fogoHC-representations, aren't powerful because the #1 action hasn't been done to them yet. Only after the #1 action has been done, do newly-created-actions join the fogoHC representations and become very powerful. So all newly created actions need the #1 action done to them. But the #1 action is also a newly created thing that also needs it done to itself. So if we create a #1 action-(1) (from our powerful fogoHC representations) to be done upon the #1 action we did upon some other thing; then that #1 action-(1) is also a newly created thing that also needs the #1 action done to it. As we can see, this goes on and on and we'll never be able to catch up and do the #1 action to all newly created actions. This is the nesting problem I had spoken of earlier. What shall we do? Any solution first recognizes that the task of doing #1 action to all newly created action, will never be totally completed. But we can't live all our life at once either. This gives us a way to keep time, as we live out our lives.

The solution I propose, is to carry some over from the past. We need to realize there'll always be carryover from past actions. So what I do, is create a desired project action from my powerful fogoHC representations. I also simultaneously create a new #1 action(a) upon this newly created project action. And I also create a new #1 action(b) upon all past actions that have not yet had #1 action done to them (which happen to be old #1 actions themselves, in this setup). Note that #1 actions (a) and (b) are new actions, but that I allow them to go without doing #1 action upon them AT THIS TIME. When #1 action(b) is finished being done upon all past actions; I make a mark here in time by creating a new #1 action(b) (now free from #1 action upon itself) and is directed upon all past existing (#1) actions ((a) and (b)), that before I had let go without #1 action upon them, but now am doing it to them. All actions which had been allowed to go without #1 action, now have #1 action done to them; with only the newly created #1 action created after this point now being allowed to go without #1 action.

This goes in cycles. Each time #1 action is finished on the old 'past' actions, a new cycle is started, and all which was free of #1 action up till now, is now the new 'past actions' and now has (b) #1 action done to it in a new cycle. 'I' or (my powerful fogoHC representation), can vary the time it takes between cycles. By adjusting the proportion of project-action-and-#1-action(a), to, #1 action(b), that 'I' create, 'I' can change the cycle time. When I do lots of #1 action(b), then the past actions have the #1 action completed upon them much faster, thus spurring a new cycle much sooner. (This I usually do when evil is around and I am dissatisfied.) But when there's a project I have interest in, which takes a certain time, and there's no evil attacking; then 'I' can do more project actions-and-#1action(a) and less #1 action(b). With less #1 action(b), it takes it longer to finish with the past actions. And 'I' can adjust this so when my project is done, then my cycle's also done. But if my good project of interest has no time constraints and can be done in any quantity in any length of time, then 'I' can just do equal amounts of project-and-#1-action(a), vs, #1 action(b).

PERMISSION

Before the #1 action is done on a newly created part of us; that part is still US, and the fogoHC needs to get permission to do the #1 action on it. Since the fogoHC representation created this part; it creates in with it, the permission needed.

When our will is moved out to make fogoHC representation, none of our will is found in fogoHC representation. So 'we' never act out of our fogoHC representation (as an individual will).

Our fogoHC representation is balanced as it includes all non evil things. If we focus on something of interest, we may leave out things. This action is OUR will, and not fogoHC representation. So what we create, doesn't automatically have permission created with it. WE must also create permission via 'our' meager representation. And we must emphasize creating-permission, until our complete obsession has permission; so we can then return to the (balanced) fogoHC representation's way of creating.

The permission we create within what we do, has its permission for itself right there, and doesn't get into the nesting problem. But the permission we must create in our already-existing-self (for present actions), does have the nesting problem. (Since the person and the permission aren't the same entity here (the person was created long ago: the permission for a current event has just been created); then distinct permission actions are needed for each of them.) The permission we create as part of each new action, can keep an instantaneous tab on things. And since this permission doesn't need any complex past/present cycling, we can carry on quite simply for the most part. When we periodically update permission in our main self, just remember to also do some of this permission for past permission not yet 'permissed' for.

In 'our' representation; or US before the #1 action has been done to us, we can easily be too overloaded to do these complex things. Note, I no longer consciously do this mental cycling. I include this only to illustrate a solution to the nesting problem.

CHAPTER 4

"Gripping"

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter is the one referred to as 'the chapter on gripping' at various points in the book.

This chapter describes a struggle between good and evil as to which will get to neutral capability first. After this, we spend a lot of this chapter on the reasons why we need a balance with the actions that give us life. The discussion is centered around avoiding (the concept of) 'overextension'. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

There is a fallacy in my arguments on the separation of the forces in all areas. First I described what it'd be like if only the force of good totally alone and separate, were present. -That the force of good would grow forever and become very powerful. Then I described what it'd be like if the force of evil were the only fore around. -The force of evil would consume what could support it, and would shrink and burn itself out. It would come to a stop. Then I described how one fogoHC did an action of separation that would separate the forces in all areas. I assumed that action of separation would bring about this absolute separation of the forces, as if they were in universes completely by themselves. I went on to say that only forces were separated, But what about neutral capability? Neutral capability is neither force of good nor force of evil. Do we put it with the force of good, or the force of evil, or in a place by itself separated from both forces? (Forces of evil do not themselves produce capability; and only forces of good produce capability including neutral capability.) We decided the action-of-separation didn't guarantee protection of neutral capability. If the fogoHC were to protect all neutral capability, then there'd be no possible way to have any destruction or force of evil. With evil being impossible, there'd be no ability of choice; no ability to choose between good and evil. Because intelligent life does exist, this would prevent us from having a choice. Our capability-of-choice would be decreased or prevented from advancing. As we'll see later, it's imperative that the ability of choice even in this area, be advanced into; and this is why neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection.

The big problem is: if the neutral capability (produced by forces of good) is destroyed by evil, then what is expected from the action-of-separation (that is, a universe with only the force of good), isn't achieved. -If evil destroys the neutral capability the force of good produces, then the force of good doesn't grow. There is stagnation just like with the force of good and evil together. Good doesn't grow, and evil is fed and doesn't shrink. Effective separation then, is up for grabs.

Since neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection (because of free choice); evil can then destroy neutral capability. If evil destroys all the neutral capability a force of good produces, then there'll have been no increase in capability. With no increase done, the thing here can't be called a force of good. The former force of good is now neutral capability. It can then be destroyed by the force of evil as neutral capability, as it no longer is protected by force of good status.

(In future writings, 'undeveloped capability' is synonymous with 'neutral capability').

FogoHC life may not be aware of what everything is, but it certainly is aware of what it grows into and comes in contact with. Any evil parts it comes into contact with are not allowed entrance. Anything non evil that comes into contact with this fogoHC life, becomes a part of this life, together with the fogoHC, and becomes fogoHC life too. So, this fogoHC life can grow into non evil areas just be coming in contact with them. And when a neutral capability(1) becomes part of a force of good(2) by being in contact-together with it(2); it(1) becomes protected due to its new 'force of good' status.

When undeveloped capability comes in contact with the min (minimum) fogoHC (through the contact growth of gripping), it becomes a force-of-good and fogoHC life. To be a force of good, means capabilities are increased. What capabilities does this new force of good increase? Well, it only takes one capability increase to be a force of good; (but this would mean choosing one capability over another), so all capabilities are increased.

A tighter grip on the parent materials (which produce new capability) won't cause what's yet to be created, to be fogoHC-life before it's created. A tighter grip on the parent materials, however, will put what is created, closer to the fogoHC life, so it is transformed into fogoHC life much more quickly. Let's look at the parent materials that are being held or gripped by the fogoHC life: Since thse parent materials are being gripped, they are in contact with the fogoHC life, and are thus made part of this fogoHC life (#1 action and togetherness). This is then fogoHC life gripping itself. And yes, the tighter the gogoHC life can hold itself together, the more quickly it can come in contact with the new capability it creates.

If an undeveloped life isn't being attacked, then it feels fine and feels no pain. Eventually it is touched by the fogoHC life and becomes fogoHC life (#1 action and togetherness). But if the force of evil steps up its attack, then evil may catch undeveloped life before it is touched by the fogoHC, and destroy it. The response or reaction by fogoHC life is to grip tighter so the fogoHC-life touches the undeveloped-life before destruction gets to it.

We must realize that there's a struggle going on, and that pain is just the battle report for what area needs reinforcement. It's a contest to see who can get to the newly created neutral capability first. We must realize the cause of pain is from the force of evil, which acts independently of the fogoHC. It's a struggle that's not yet over, but that victory is in sight. Effective separation is gained piecemeal, in the play by play, in the 'nitty gritty'.

Gripping is only part of the reaction I've been speaking of, to enact effective separation. What the fogoHC grips (and joins together with), is as important as the gripping itself. All fogoHC life has awareness of what is good, evil, or neutral. FogoHC life grips selectively from the undeveloped life only that which is non evil. Anything evil is not gripped because forces of evil are always separated from forces of good (of HC). This selectivity is actively pursued, and every non evil part is ferreted out and gripped, while the evil parts are not gripped. Even with an individual action or person that contains both non evil and evil: there is found a way to grip all the possible non evil there; while leaving the evil parts alone. This selectiveness in the gripping works hand in hand with the gripping itself to provide effective separation. The action of separation does not separate undeveloped capability. This is provided by gripping and selectiveness in gripping.

Note that the pain from evil need not lead us as to our path of growth. Gripping (#1 action and togetherness) isn't only useful in keeping effective separation when under attack by evil: it's also a pleasurable thing to do even when not under attack. At first contact, undeveloped life becomes fogoHC life and is thus protected from evil. But growth doesn't stop here. It continues on and includes tighter and tighter gripping, and advancement of the new force of good. A by-product of this is that it protects newly created undeveloped life from evil. Also note that forces of good are what produce (neutral) capability. And if the producing force of good is separated far away from evil, then the neutral capability produced will also be away from evil.

When the joint venture of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping on itself; there's a circular feedback created that produces tremendous quantities of growth.

When forces of good are producing capability; they can either produce new forces-of-good; or new neutral-capability. Forces of good are made of capability. And for one force of good to produce a second force of good; is a force of good producing a force of good. A force of good can also be a force of good, by producing neutral capabilities.

There are great advantages for forces of good to produce more forces of good, as opposed to neutral capability. For one thing, the newly created force of good can in turn produce force of good of its own; and an exponential increase in the production of the force of good will result. Whereas, with the increase of neutral capability, only a flat rate of capability increase is achieved, and no new force of good is produced. For another thing, the forces of good are protected by the fogoHC, while neutral capability is not. Thus forces-of-good producing forces of good, is more advantageous than forces of good producing neutral capability.

However, before something can be a force of good, it usually has to have some minimum level of capability. Like, it might help if something were alive, so it could reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so it could rise above random action, which produces decrease(destruction) as well as increase(growth). Thus even though the forces of good may want to increase force-of-good capability right away, they have to go through an increase of neutral capabilities to reach a minimum level, before forces of good can start increasing forces of good. (And, a neutral capability cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it is produced. ›But when it is produced/created; who says it has to be a separate entity from the fogoHC? Isn't the fogoHC in contact with it to create it? Yet this is not necessarily so, if only a f.o.g. (especially if not together with the fogoHC), creates it.›)

When a force of good that is able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact (together) with neutral-capability produced by forces of good; that neutral-capability becomes a part of the fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a picture of the fogoHC going about gripping forces of good and gripping the neutral capability that all forces of good initially produce. After the neutral capability has been contacted and is a part of the fogoHC; it is no longer neutral capability but part of the fogoHC. Being a part of a force of good, it thus begins to increase or help in the increase of capabilities. With more neutral capability being produced; those forces of good who can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC), have more neutral capability to grip, and thus turn into force of good capability. As we can see, there is always more and more neutral capability (to grip) that is being produced. But where does the capability go after it has been gripped and is a marginal force of good?

Well, there are 2 possibilities:

A) it goes no further and serves to produce neutral capability for the fogoHC. it

remains at about its original level of capability and fails to advance: being frozen at some

level of advancement so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it advances no further.

or possibility B

B) it could advance in its abilities to first become alive; then advance in intelligence;

and finally become a fogoHC. it continues to advance and eventually becomes a

fogoHC itself.

With possibility A, more and more neutral capability is produced. The amount of it increases exponentially. But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There is no growth in the fogoHC because no lower capabilities are allowed to become fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is taking lower forces of good and advancing them to be a fogoHC.

This is not example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do this. It finds itself with an ever growing supply of neutral capability to make contact with. It might get swamped by the size of it. It needs to grow in size to match the growth of the neutral capability. It could try and make itself more powerful and become of higher capability within itself. But whether it could do this or not is uncertain; whereas the creation of itself has been proven possible by its own existence. The fogoHC must increase its own power at an exponential rate just to keep up with the neutral capability. But this is unlikely as the fogoHC would be increasingly more busy trying to handle the exponential growth of the neutral capability, that it would have less and less time to work on its own advancement. Also, it is into uncharted areas, as it has never been that powerful before. It is a driven and desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up a growth output and is driven by growth needs, if it can keep up at all.

In this picture of a universe, it is easy to see how a fogoHC could become overextended and how the marginal force of good and neutral capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and eventually become unmanageable. It could cease contacting the neutral capability, but that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus the force of evil would step in and stagnation would result after some point of expansion.

Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe where the basic forces of good produced, do advance to finally become a fogoHC. With possibility B, there would be more and more fogoHC to keep up with the more and more neutral capability being produced. There would be no problem of the fogoHC getting swamped. Here, the contacting of the ever-growing neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC that is also growing exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in uncharted areas; only in the replication of more of itself, which by its existence, has already been proven possible to do.

So it's very probable that not only does the fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and turn them into marginal force of good capability; the fogoHC also advances these marginal-good capabilities to be very intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)

As forces of good are advanced, eventually they become alive. They develop the ability to think and make choices and have a will. When the fogoHC contacts us in gripping as a human being; that contact creates a force of good self. The fogoHC wants to also contact the neutral capability our force of good self produces. If the fogoHC were contacting a force of good that had no mind or will; it would also contact the neutral capability it produced. But when a minimum level in the force-of-good is reached, so that the capabilities there represent the basic minimal human being, then the fogoHC must now take into account and partnership, this basic will self, for gripping of the neutral capabilities to occur. For the fogoHC to come in and grip the neutral capability that this living thinking force of good produces, without permission, would be a decrease in capability. When a force of good had no ability of thought and no mind; there was no will for the fogoHC to get permission from. So the fogoHC could come right in and grip the neutral capability produced. But now that this force of good has advanced to possess the ability to think and have a will; what then? Well, if the fogoHC jumped right in and gripped the neutral capability produced by this living thinking force of good; then there'd be no choice for evil. Everything would be all good. Goodness would be insured and the only thing available. The reason we have evil, is because some have chosen evil. To be able to advance and develop the ability of choice; it must be possible to actually produce what we choose. The two valid and possible choices are: good alone, vs, good and evil together (with evil feeding off of good). To have choice in this area, it must be possible to obtain either of these as a result of our choice.

Otherwise there's really no choice yet (in this area). The fogoHC wouldn't yet have advanced these forces-of-good to the ability of choice; as they'd never be able to demonstrate a single choice in this most important area of choice: the choice between good and evil. The fogoHC himself, has and exercises the choice between good and evil. For humans not to have this choice means that the advancement of forces-of-good stops short of becoming forces ogoHC. And this is just not so, as it would create a difficult bind for the fogoHC (as we've seen).

When the joint venture capability of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping upon itself; there's a circular feedback that produces tremendous quantities of this specific growth and gripping capability. When the capability-of-growth-and-gripping does growth and gripping on some other area, (or on a whole that contains much in addition to itself); less or none of the growth-and-gripping-capability is produced. There is no circular feedback that provides for greater growth. In both cases (circular feedback, vs, other things), growth and gripping does produce protected groth of what's being gripped.

Growth/gripping done on itself, produces growth, or growth resources. Contained within our growth resources, is our basic self and our ability to choose. Choice and our will come from here.

Concerning 'growth resources': in our real world, we almost never can be so general as to call something a 'growth resource' to start out. Usually it is only a growth and increase of specific products, in a narrow and focused way. For example, a process and equipment that cans tomatoes would be of little use in trying to make nuts and bolts. Only as we advance, can we be involved in producing more versatile and universal growth resources, that have the potential to do increase over a wide range of areas. For example, robots (industrial), can be programmed to do a number of different tasks. But before a society can build robots, it must have an industrial and manufacturing system already in place.

Our ability to choose, our will, and our basic self; is centered here in these potential-growth-resources and the activation of them. For example, if there's something you want to do but don't have the resources to do it, then you can't do that thing. -And you really don't have choice in this area. What you spend your (potential) growth resources on is what your choice is.

The conversion of potential-growth-resources to active-growth-resources; is what choice is. So, the more versatile-potential-growth-resources (and the ability to activate them); the more choice we have.

To have choice we must have not only the potential to go one way, but also the potential to go other ways. --(If we have the potential to go just one way, there's little choice in that.) So the versatile-potential-growth-resources are the center of choice, and are choice.

A SUPPLY OF (POTENTIAL) GROWTH RESOURCES (WHICH IS CHOICE), COMES

FROM A CHOICE TO ACTIVATE GROWTH-RESOURCES TO PRODUCE MORE

GROWTH RESOURCES: (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'GROWTH, OF GROWTH

RESOURCES')

When you spend your growth resources in different areas that you want to do (and choose to do), these areas grow. But these areas of project or pleasure that you want (and that are growing), aren't in themselves your basic self. Remember, your basic self and choice and your will, is your supply of versatile-potential-growth-resources; not the projects you choose to activate. Without these growth resources you'd not be able to make choices. And your projects and pleasures do not necessarily produce growth resources. They just produce the growth of the project or pleasure. Because your versatile-potential-growth-resources are versatile, they themselves are best suited to produce more of themselves. The production of your project or pleasure is more narrow and is not so versatile.

Note that growth of growth resources (which is choice of choice), is also referred to as the growth/gripping done on itself in a circular feedback.

THE CONCEPT OF OVEREXTENSION.

We would think that if a person achieved all their goals and had everything they wanted, they'd be happy. But this isn't the case. Humans go berserk when they actually achieve and receive the good things that life has to offer. For those who are able to obtain what they desire; they find that these things become their torment. It's like Star Trek's garden of Eden where all the fruits were poison.

Because of this, deliberate barriers are put in our way so we cannot obtain much of these things. Our jobs, our government and our system are deliberately designed to frustrate our attempts to achieve any goals or pleasures we might have. This is done not against us, but in compassion to us and for our benefit.

Now, you say, how can the achievement of good, wholesome, kind, gentle and loving things be detrimental to me? Well, good things have to do with growth. Good things are growing things. -forever getting better. So the good and pleasurable things in life, are growing things. Well, something has to grow and increase then. It is our growth resources that grows and increases them.

Growth itself causes no problem. It is our ability to focus the growth on selected areas that causes our pleasure problem. In many cases, that focus is forced upon us; as the narrow range of our beginning 'growth processes', (as mentioned previously).

When we apply our growth-resources to the areas of a project or pleasure, obviously these areas grow. Since there can be much more than just our basic will self, we're often apt to get into projects and activities we enjoy. These areas grow and keep growing. But since we're not focusing on our basic will self / growth resources; these don't grow. The greater size of our projects and enjoyable activities pulls us to do more gripping on them, as they keep growing, needing more attention, resources and concentration to manage them. We thus become more absorbed in our projects / enjoyable activities. These continue to grow but our basic-will-self ›(and our even increase of all non evil things including the uninteresting low levels and that which doesn't benefit us)› stays the same, as we don't increase gripping on our basic-self/production-of-growth-resources. Pretty soon we're so frantic, busy and absorbed in our projects and pleasures, that we don't have a spare moment to grip our basic will self / growth resources. Our projects/pleasures keep growing while our basic self and consciousness stay the same. We find ourselves swamped by the size of it. We've overextended ourselves, and from now on I'll term this state 'overextension'. The torture of it is that we see all the wonderful things that are out there, but we're too small to enjoy hardly any of it. This is a great emptiness that is just hard to take. It's motivation enough to do destruction.

Once growth resources are spent growing the project or pleasure area, there's little left to grow the growth resources, to provide more growth resources. There's no circular feedback that provides a supply of growth resources. With a neglect of the production of growth resources, the growth resources soon run out, leaving the person hanging at a standstill (and at reduced capability).

Perhaps the Growth Resources aren't consumed in their use. Then the application of a growth resource causes a continuing, endless production of what it was applied to. These project and pleasure areas then grow increasingly faster, while the growth resources and the person's basic self grow at a constant and much slower rate, since the focus is toward the pleasure or project; and not the production of growth resources and the person's basic self. It is then the out of balance growth, and our absorbing focus solely on the project or pleasure, (over our basic self / production of growth resources), that causes our problem.

When a person finds themselves busier and busier just to keep up with the expanding project area, they could do some gripping on their basic self / growth resources so that these grew also; but after a certain point of no return, the project areas absorb the person so much taking all their energies) that they can't find a spare moment to do this. One might ask, why don't they put down what they're doing when it starts to overgrow them? Well, once one starts something non evil; to put it down would be a decrease in the growth of that capability. It would be a decrease of a growth capability. This overextension happens in our force of good self. Most of us like to think of ourselves as good people, successful people (growing all the time); so we are reluctant to stop or put down our project area. ›(Doing so would generate Godly parts needing to be halved.)› Also: Because this action is a decrease and all, we might fear that the fogoHC, who casts away decrease and evil, will cast us away. The fact that stopping and putting down the project area interrupts/halts the overextension; is often misinterpreted to mean, evil and the force of decrease is a needed and valuable part of life. This occurs when people find through living life, that doing this decrease and evil helps here, in spite of their desire and idealism to be all good with no evil.

Destruction in the mild form, can be to stop growing the project or pleasure. (This is a decrease of a growth capability). Destruction because it is so unlike pleasure and growth, can be used to take our minds and focus off our pleasure long enough to restore our basic self, (when in transit between pain to pleasure, or, pleasure to pain). Destruction can also be used to cut down the size of the project or pleasurable area so as to be more manageable ›(and at red cap for separation of the forces)›. Destruction can be used to cut down that non evil part within us that keeps stimulating us to do the pleasure or project. This is otherwise known as self discipline self denial or repression.

The presence of destruction causes a world where the forces of good and evil are together. There is a balance between pleasure, joy -vs- pain. Even the person in overextension has the togetherness of good and evil. As their project or pleasure gets out of hand and becomes too large to be manageable, the person is no longer able to protect it from the force of evil. The person grows to some large size, and at that point their growth is stopped, as evil easily picks off any further capability increase (that is of course, when refusing to accept help from the fogoHC). Growth is halted, stagnation sets in, and its a classic example of the forces of good and evil together.

If you have grown up in a structured world where your life is regulated and you have been prevented from achieving much enjoyment or pleasure; you don't know that there's a danger in achieving your desires (whatever they may be -because you've never been allowed to achieve your desires). You would think these people are just exploiting you for your share of pleasure for themselves; or that they are somehow diabolically evil, and why are they doing this to you? But actually they are preventing you from the sad fact that too much pleasure can kill. You see, with too much pleasure, the active working of the force-of-increase is stifled because there are no more improvements-to-be-made in the immediate vicinity. We need to seek out those areas that need help, with our high capability, so that the force of increase may continue.

They balance pleasure with pain so that you may survive, to carry on just about the only existence possible: a very meager and ragged existence. History and societal evolution has proved that other paths are out gunned.

Human minds have the marvelous ability to provide solutions to problems much quicker and much more efficiently than evolution can. "Human life can transform the single celled egg into a living human person in 9 months: where it took evolution many millennia and a lot of waste to do the same." Being aware that there is a pleasure problem; that there's a problem with pleasure; allows us a better chance of solving the problem in ways that improve the quality of life, as opposed to us being unaware of the problem and stumbling through life, allowing evolution to solve this problem for us.

A problem with overextension is the problem of focus. The action of focus contains inherently within it, both a decrease and an increase. When we focus our growth; we take growth away from everything but the area of focus (this is a decrease), and deliver it only to the area of focus (this is the increase).

Any overall growth of everything the human is, (including the growth of their basic self and their growth resources); would eliminate the unbalanced growth of overextension. In other words, if we refrained from focusing growth, and did non focused growth, then we'd be OK. But often focus is forced upon us because of poverty or our beginning. And there are also advantages to focusing. If we did not neglect the growth of our growth resources and devoted an equal focus to them, as well as our pleasures; this would solve our problem. Now that we know about these things and these solutions, perhaps we can enjoy life without being harmed by such enjoyment. These ways of providing for balanced growth are much better than some of the solutions developed by societal evolution. Some of the archaic solutions provide for our survival but leave an undesirable quality of life as the only option. It almost seems that we need pain and suffering and destruction in order to survive; and that we can't do without it. (Our projects are not alive. If we produce too much project without also producing life, then there won't be enough life around to enjoy the project; and so what's the use of producing so much project?)

Before we get into the solution to the decrease of focus that allows us to do focus without decrease, and neutralizes focus's intrinsic decrease; and also why we need focus at all and what useful benefits it provides: I want to discuss some of the coping mechanisms societies have used to combat this very same problem of overextension. I wish to continue on with my discussion of these coping mechanisms.

What good is pain and suffering in solving the problem of overextension? We can choose to live a life in the absence of pain or pleasure; or we can experience pain and pleasure. The more pleasure we do, the more pain we receive to pay for it.

Because children are ignorant about the world, they will outgrow their toys many times. What they like to do will change many times, as they grow and learn about the world around them. Because of this constant change, they do not have time to become overextended in their pleasures. Thus childhood is a time we can naturally be happy. Anyone who spoils the happiness of a child is cruel indeed. Anyone who sexualizes a child is also cruel, because that is one pleasure that will not change, and leads to early overextension.

This is also why we have so much change in our society. The action of change is a mechanism where we can deal with the problem of overextension in a positive way and a way that doesn't involve much destruction. If our projects and constructions become obsolete before we put them to much use, then we may not accomplish much as we keep switching from project to project; but at least we save ourselves; using this change as a tool to deal with the problem of overextension. Even when change does not represent any change (advancement or decline) in the technology, but just a different way of doing the same thing; it still helps us over our problem of overextension.

There is much more pain in the world than pleasure because it's easier to get overextended by pleasure than by pain. Pain has inherently in it something we don't like. Since we don't like it, we won't do anything to overextend ourselves in it; and when we're not forced to do anything about it, we drop it. (It is self ending.)

This overextension problem is why we have so much senseless violence and unfairness. The violence and unfairness takes our minds off our pleasures for awhile.

Take a look at the societies around you today, and then look at history. The societies in existence today are the result of many generations of societal evolution. Only societies with a balance of strictness, pain suffering, and a prevention of pleasure, have survived.

We duck in and out and between buildings so as to protect us from the beauty of nature. We sleep indoors every hot summer night to protect us from the beauty of the heavens at night. We pollute the environment to eliminate some of the beauty to make room for us to have a place to live. We wear cloths to protect us from the beauty of our bodies.

This paints a pretty bleak picture of human life on earth. We cannot enjoy life only, and survive. If we are to survive, we must live a life without much quality.

But good news. There's a solution free from destruction and suffering that also allows us to survive and prosper. Now that we realize the problem of overextension and have a better solution to it, we can live our lives with better quality and we don't need the makeshift solutions anymore. So when we encounter stress or a stimulus for growth, we get more into gripping on gripping (as opposed to gripping on a project area). The tremendous growth produced in the circular feedback of gripping on gripping, in our will self, will then overflow into our project area, and provide the growth we desired. And we'll be in a position to enjoy it, as our basic self will be big enough to enjoy what's around it. Well, of course we must test this new and claimed-to-be-better solution, to see if it works. Try it in your life. The alternatives aren't really worth it to me.

Now I return to an analysis of focus; the act of focusing our resources:

In our focused and extremely specialized society; it's difficult for us to get away from focus and do unfocused, universal growth. When gripping is focused; the action of focus, takes gripping from all areas (except the area of focus); and delivers it to the area of focus. The action of focus is thus both an increase and a decrease of the gripping-growth capability (or potential for growth).

When we focus gripping (and growth) on too limited/narrow an area; this leads to our problem of unbalanced growth, or overextension. We've said that if we could do a simultaneous gripping-on-the-growth-resources (which is gripping focused on gripping itself); then we could balance the growth to a large degree. However, a problem with the narrow and sharp focus, is that it doesn't include an intelligence or common mind to coordinate between gripping-on-a-project vs gripping-on-gripping; there's no balance.) Thus the area of focus must be widened to include a common mind in each focus unit. (The focus on project would actually be a focus on project-plus-common mind. And the focus on gripping would actually be a focus on gripping-plus-the common mind.) The common mind coordinates simultaneous equal gripping in these areas so there's balanced growth.

There's a contradiction to sharp focus gripping. Since the intelligence (which did the sharp-focus) isn't in the area of sharp focus; it is taken away from (All the growth goes to the sharp focus). When this intelligence that does the sharp focus is completely emptied by the sharp focus itself; then there's nothing to do sharp focus, and sharp focus comes to an end./

We eliminate the decrease from focus, by putting it in an equilibrium, a tug of war, with itself. If we focus on one area, this takes gripping and (growth) from the surrounding areas and delivers it to this area of focus. But if we simultaneously do focused gripping on all the other areas, then the gripping lost by an area through focuses on the other areas, is returned by the focus on this particular area. Thus no gripping or (growth) is actually lost (or gained).

In a large focus gripping equilibrium, that encompasses all of ourselves, all areas are represented. But the area of gripping-on-gripping is special, because it determines whether there'll be growth or not. It's possible to have an equilibrium that stagnates. But since this is like the result of the forces of good and evil together, it's not a desirable option. Thus the gripping on gripping is given a superior position in our equilibrium so there's as much gripping-focused-on gripping as on all the other focus areas combined. This is needed because all the other areas consume growth-resources, while only the gripping-on-gripping area produces them.

In intermediate focus, we include our mind to direct the equilibrium (and balance) between our individual intermediate-focus units. We may not be aware of the details of other focus units from within our common mind, but these detailed awarenesses still exist outside our common mind as part of the larger equilibrium in the individual focus units. An inclusion into our common mind that 'there's more', might not be a bad idea. But the beauty of intermediate-focus-gripping is that we don't have to be aware of everything to enjoy a few simple pleasures. The purpose of intermediate-focus-gripping is to preserve and enhance the individuality of each individual capability-and-focus-area; so the benefits of each doesn't get lost in the combining together of all the capabilities and areas as a whole.

When we combine individual capabilities together to form a whole, each individual capability often looses something to the group, and conformity to the group norm. The intermediate-focus-gripping is a way to retain the individual qualities, while still reaping the benefit of the group. What's the sense of this focusing equilibrium if it causes no change in the gripping capability for each area? The answer is that it provides separation. There's more separation for each area; and the loss of mixing all these areas together into one unit, is eliminated.

When we mix colors together, they become a drab brown. There is something lost in the mixing.

Consider a chemical production sequence. If we do a sequence of reactions separate from each other, we get the desired product. But if we mix all the reactions and chemicals together all at once, many of the reagents will neutralize and negate each other, and we end up with a mess. Take a look at large and small political groups: In small groups, more extreme and detailed positions can be found. But in large groups, the extreme positions neutralize each other and compromise leaves a more moderate and general platform.

When we bring individual, separate capabilities together to form a whole, opposing parts of the individual capabilities negate and neutralize each other, and something is lost. It's this intensity and individuality of the individual capabilities, that this focus equilibrium restores.

Each of the b.i.f. or (balanced intermediate focus) units, aren't bogged down by the operation of the other b.i.f. units. The whole purpose of these separate focuses (that all include the common mind), was to bring out the individuality of each unit. An individual unit has a link (the common mind) which only contains general instructions of the other units. It's not filled with the intricate details of the other units as this'd hinder the individual expression of this particular unit. The intricate details of the other units are contained in their respective areas of b.i.f. focus. Because of focus; when we're acting out of one unit, we may be unaware of the other units to a degree. We're aware of an abbreviated presence of the other units through our common mind; but not of the other units in detail. This we must 'take it by faith' that these other units are working simultaneously and as intricately as the unit we're in at the moment. (To be intricately aware of the other units would spoil the very individuality we're trying to preserve.) Our mind is divided up into different focus units; the detailed parts of which don't come together.

We have both the abbreviated version of a thing, and the detailed version of the thing simultaneously. There's no need to be confused over which one is correct to have; they're both correct in their respective areas.

CHAPTER 5

Our Sequences

Chapter Introduction:

The first part of this chapter further develops the idea begun in the last chapter, about preserving the intensity (and individuality) of things. These are the segments on unresponded-to-happenings (or urt.happenings for short).

The rest of the chapter is divided into two parts.

Part A develops the concept of choice-from-versatile-potential-resources.

Part B reveals growth of growth resources (or gogr for short) as the source of growth and versatile potential resources; and that the growth from gogr is shared with project. These ideas take the form of the refraining action (representing gogr), and the altering action (representing project). Also introduced, is the idea of our repetitive generational sequences, for gogr and project. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

THE GENERATION OF, AND ACCUMULATION OF, UNRESPONDED-TO-

HAPPENINGS, IN WORKING WITH OUR GOOD THINGS.

When we're working with our good things; our work has results and those good things grow. These good things always remain with us as they're never separated away, like evil things are.

The new good things (that have grown from the original good things); exist as unresponded-to, because they didn't yet exist when the original good things were being worked with. As we can see; when we respond to and work with our good things, they grow and generate more good things that need to be responded to.

There are a number of things we could do with the new happenings that are generated. We could respond to them as soon as they're created. Or, we could, not-respond to them right away. If we don't respond to them right away; we experience an accumulation of unresponded-to happenings.

In working with these accumulated good happenings, we will vary our states: cycling in an accumulation phase, and a response phase. We want to allow these generated happenings to accumulate for a time as unresponded-to; and then we want to respond completely to that accumulation. The reason we want this cycling and variation instead of responding to these happenings as soon as they're generated; is to allow them to come together out of atomization. But if we let them accumulate too long, negation is the undesired result.

As mentioned: our good things never end, and it's up to us to pick a size and duration to respond to.

If we pick too small of an interval and amount of good things, then we'd be doing lots of switching, and would interrupt basic tasks. We would also atomize the generated happenings.

If we pick too large an interval and wait too long to respond to the accumulation; then negation would occur. Opposing motions would collide, neutralize each other, and become spread out and dissipated; thus loosing their intensity and individuality. We want to avoid negation.

AVOIDANCE OF ATOMIZATION AND NEGATION, GUIDES AS TO HOW LONG

WE ACCUMULATE UNRESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING (THAT IS GENERATED

FROM RESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING), (BEFORE WE RESPOND TO IT).

Note: I abbreviate 'unresponded-to-happening' as

urt.happening.

When I speak of the optimal accumulation of urt.happening that avoids atomization and negation: I mean this only in a time context.

If we wait too long in a buildup state to respond to the happening; the happening will have passed. Let's say we light a fire, but show up after it has burned out. All the heat energy still exists in the air molecules that were heated up. The energy still exists and hasn't been destroyed. In a sense, the fire continues to exist. But the intensity of it is gone. This is the negation I speak of. After too long a time, the surrounding elements dissipate the intensity of the fire, and cause negation. So we need to respond to the happening within its own time frame (internal limitations permitting).

Concerning atomization: If we respond to a happening in small bits and pieces as soon as those small bits of the happening are created; then these responses can only be directed at the happening that exists, and not the rest of the happening that's yet to be created. This atomizes and interrupts the happening. The small bits of responded-to-happening start to generate their own small bit size of urt.happening, that are out of phase and not coordinated with the other small bits of urt.happening; (which thus makes it impossible for those small bits at different stages of development to come together out of atomization and share their resources in a balanced and cooperative way). Atomization describes the situation. Now, if instead, we do less response project; each generation of urt.happening would have the time to grow together into its full intensity before being responded to.

One may ask, how does responding to a happening change anything, and stop negation? Well, one of the actions of our intelligent response is to keep individual things separate so that their opposing motions do not neutralize one another. Also; when we respond to groups of the optimal time (that avoids both negation and atomization), then this group of happenings has had time to come together out of atomization and develop its full intensity before being responded to and generating a new group of unresponded to happening that is also in phase.

PART A

IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING; WE ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE CHOICE.

I may choose to live in a castle. But if I do not have the versatile-growth-resources to make this happen; then I cannot obtain this choice. -I really don't have choice in this area. Thus choice is the presence of versatile potential growth resources and the activation of them. Before we do anything, we need versatile potential growth resources; before we can activate those potential growth resources. Thus choice comes first. We have choice before we have anything else. Thus we are always able to do choice choosing choice, if we are able to do anything. (This assumes our growth resources are versatile.)

THE CASE WHERE OUR GROWTH RESOURCES ARE NON VERSATILE,

DOESN'T ENTER INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF CHOICE; BECAUSE THE

FOGOHC COMPLETELY HANDLES AND ADVANCES NON VERSATILE AREAS:

SINCE NO PERMISSION IS NEEDED WHERE THERE'S NO WILL OR

CHOICE, (WHEN GROWTH RESOURCES AREN'T VERSATILE), THAT IS.

Without versatile growth resources we have little choice; although we can act narrowly. But without a will or choice there's no intelligent life to get permission from, so the fogoHC comes in and runs this completely. There's no unbalanced growth here. But the fogoHC advances this state in versatility so it develops a will; which could then choose unbalanced growth if it wanted: it now has choice.

PART B

GOGR IS SPECIAL.

Gogr is the source of all growth. This means that everything else, as projects, aren't the source of (versatile) growth. This means things you are told to do may not be gogr or sources of growth. You have a mind and can think. And already have some idea as to what gogr are within you. Only you know how you feel and It's your feelings that effect your life. And only life causes growth. When your environment requires growth, run to gogr, not these other things that are claimed to be the solution to your lack of growth. If your environment requires growth from you in an unfriendly way; since gogr delivers growth; why not do a little more growth and cast out the unfriendliness and overthrow it?

If we place gogr and the fogoHC in the position of supplying growth, then we need not put Mao, our boss, or some technology, in that position, or depend on them for our growth. Note that only gogr and the fogoHC delivers the growth sought for. Mao, our boss, or some technology all fall short of being suppliers of all sorts of growth (versatile gogr); and fail to deliver.

Realize the connection between gogr and choice-or-choice within you, (that choice of choice within you is a large part of gogr).

Note: there's nothing wrong with runaway 100%gogr because it is self supporting and needs no outside resources. But there is something wrong with runaway project because it doesn't produce the resources it needs to supply its ever increasing growth requirements and resource consumption.

OUR REPETITIVE GENERATIONAL CHOICE, (OUR SEQUENCES).

When versatile potential growth resources(1) are activatied to produce more growth resources(2); growth resources are produced. And when some of those growth resources(2) are activated in a choice to produce even more growth resources(3); and when some of those growth resources(3) are activated to produce more growth resources(4): we can see that we have a growth engine that produces generation after generation of growth resources in an exponential growth. And if we share some of the growth resources of each generation with project, then we have a project 'sequence' that mirrors this gogr 'sequence'. From the exponential growth engine of gogr; we can see repetitive generations of potential growth resources (and choice) being produced from this. I call them 'our sequences'.

A CHOICE TO GROW GROWTH-RESOURCES INSTEAD OF WORRYING OVER A

BLEAK SITUATION (SO AS NOT TO BECOME OVEREXTENDED).

If someone has actually absolutely no awareness; then a person cannot be aware of their emptiness and bareness. But with the awareness of emptiness and bareness; is an awareness of this. We had to have resources and choice to be able to choose this. So we can instead, do choice choosing choice.

There are many things we can do. One of them, is to be aware of our emptiness and bareness. Another thing is, we can worry about not living up to expectations placed upon us. But these actions are not the growth of growth resources. So these actions are projects. This project consumes our growth resources, and we can become overextended in it. Since we are able to do these actions, (since we are able to activate potential growth resources towards these things): we are also able to NOT do these things. We are able instead, to choose choice with these potential resources.

THE 'REFRAINING' ACTION IS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE ACHIEVE A

BALANCE BETWEEN GROWING GROWTH-RESOURCES, VS. GROWING

PROJECTS WHICH CONSUME GROWTH RESOURCES.

The simplest choice we could have (even with non versatile growth resources), would be either to do, or not do something. But the choice not to do something, isn't much of an option by itself. There is something they can be activated to. These potential growth resources can be activated in a choice-choosing-choice action (as choice is always present first), instead of for project.

What is done then, is to have a balance between what produces growth resources, and what consumes growth resources. We do not completely shut off our project activities, but make room for more growth-of-growth-resources-choice-of-choice, by only partially shutting off (new growth in) these project areas. This I call the 'refraining action'.

Even though we transferred resources intended for project, to instead grow growth-resources (via our 'refraining action'): in the long run, there is no decrease in the project's new GROWTH; only a decrease in the PROPORTION of those projects; (as well as the increased growth-of-growth-resources). The greater growth-of-growth-resources proportion provides for greater actual GROWTH of the projects even thought he project proportion is smaller.

This transfer action of refraining, is also a project action. Thus to be consistent, we also (partially) refrain from refraining. -As this refraining action can also get too large in proportion, and needs to be applied to itself and also rolled back. We move ALL our projects back to make room for choice of choice and growing the growth resources.

STATEMENT AGAINST CANNIBALIZING OUR OLD ACTIONS.

Let's not do new actions over top of our previously established actions. When we cannibalize our old actions to do new actions, then our old-established-actions have suffered decrease. The addition of new action then, wouldn't represent growth, but just rearrangement. So it's best not to cannibalize our established actions, so our efforts won't be lost in rearrangement. We often need to depend on our established actions along with our new actions; and if we cannibalize them, they won't be there for us. (Of course sometimes we can't afford to do this and must cannibalize.)

Chapter 6

"Important Concepts"

Chapter Introduction:

Here's where we enlighten the (early) important concepts of this book.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT: OUR INDIRECT METHOD OF RESPONDING

TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT REFERRED TO

THROUGH THE BOOK.

When we want something, or when we want to respond to our environment, the simplest most direct thing we can do is to just DO the project thing or (response) that we want. But as we've seen; doing this direct method brings us to overextension when we go overboard with it.

A second method, is to indirectly seek what we want by doing something else, in order to obtain what we want. This is the category our balanced way falls into. There are many things we can do instead of what we want, in hopes it will indirectly get us what we want. Like we could work hard at a job, saving every nickel, to be able to go back to the blue bijou vacation spot. However only one indirect-action delivers on the hope of getting what we want; and that is growth of growth resources. (This is because everything else is project; and other projects have enough trouble finding resources for themselves when on their own, let alone provide for some other project.) The only action worthy of commandeering the new growths of other (project) actions for its own purpose; is the refraining action for delivering new growth to gogr; because gogr is the only action that delivers, (and produces versatile growth resources). And we will be replacing a lot of project-new-growth with 100%gogr, as a means of responding to increased intensity in the environment. This is our indirect method of doing more gogr, to produce more response project.

TWO DIFFERING METHODS OF GREATER GROWTH THROUGH INCREASED

PROPORTIONS OF GOGR: A FAST INCREASE IN GOGR, VS, A GRADUAL

INCREASE IN GOGR. GRADUAL IS BEST.

Now, there is another factor to consider. If we put all our action into producing more growth through increased 100%gogr, then we wouldn't have any left for project. If we all of a sudden made a large increase in the gogr proportion (say from 50% to 99%), then it would take a long time for the greater-growth (produced by greater gogr) to translate into greater project new growth, at the 1% delivery rate. This would leave a long period of time we'd be unresponsive to our (project) environment. But if we increased the gogr proportion GRADUALLY, so the greater-growth (from '100%'gogr) was able to produce greater-actual-growth-in-project (in spite of the lower percentage delivered to project); then we will be able to increase growth of both 100%gogr and project. -Greater growth of project does occur even though a lower percentage is delivered to project because of the much greater overall growth from increasing the 100%gogr. The greater growth from gogr outweighs the lower percentage of that growth delivered to project, after a certain amount of time. After that point in time, both 100%gogr and project experience greater growth. SO if we gradually increase the proportion of 100%gogr, we cause both greater growth of project and gogr. We are thus able to respond to increased intensity in the environment. And we don't have to wait long.

Whereas if we suddenly increase the gogr proportion drastically at the expense of project-new-growth, then, although a higher growth rate is obtained; that growth is not shared much with project for a long time, and project growth and output suffers markedly for a long time.

Thus it's best to do only a short pulse of greater 100%gogr and then bring it back to normal. Once greater growth is produced from this pulse, it gives us something to work with, to then gradually increase 100%gogr.

INCREASING GOGR TOO FAST, INSTEAD OF TOO SLOW, AS THE WAY TO

SLOW OUR PROJECT'S GROWTH.

This is extremely important: All through this paper, I have implied that the way we slow our (project) growth rate and relax, is to do a greater proportion of project (down to the minimum gogr proportion). However, a better way to slow our project growth rate, is by doing TOO MUCH gogr.

The idea has been to gradually increase the gogr proportion in order to speed up. There is an optimal rate of increasing-the-gogr-proportion that causes growth of both project and gogr. If we deviate either above or below this; the growth of project suffers. Now, if we deviate by increasing the gogr-proportion too fast, we end up with a lot of gogr as the byproduct of slowing the project growth. While if we deviate by doing greater project proportion, we not only cut down the growth of project; we also cut down the growth-of-growth-resources. (With the doing of too much gogr, we have an excess supply of gogr to show for our efforts.) These extra gogr can grow unregulated and bridge barriers within us. (There are two ways to relax and slow our project growth).

WE INCLUDE EVERY EXISTING NON-EVIL THING IN OUR INCREASE SO

AS TO BE AT HIGH CAPABILITY (AT ALL ANGLES), AND THUS OUT OF

REDUCED CAPABILITY.

An important action secondary only to the balance of gogr-to-project, is that we spread our growth-of-growth-resources, to ALL good things; when an interest in one-good-thing motivates us. When an interest in one-good-thing motivates us to do more of that thing; we then increase all good things as our response. We spread the increase to all good things. Since gogr is the source of growth-and-increase; if we 'spread' gogr evenly to all good things, we will cause even growth of all things.

The reason we increase all good things when we want one good thing, is to avoid the trap of evil. Including all good things (in our increase), keeps us at high capability, (and we also enjoy what we wanted). But if we just increase the one good thing we want and leave the other good things behind; we set ourselves up for being at reduced capability at some angles/situations.* The trap of evil, IS being at reduced capability. So we include all good things to avoid the trap of evil, and stay at high capability. This is implemented by the 'spreading project' which will be discussed shortly.

* A good thing is a good thing because it helps us out. And we can use all the help we

can get in staying at high capability.

IMPORTANT: A MAJOR REASON WHY UNEVEN GROWTH DELIVERS US

TO REDUCED CAPABILITY:

›The growth of one good thing way above the others, results in greater production of that thing, but also great needs (by this large good thing), for other INTERRELATED good things; which the other, lesser, good things are hard pressed to supply due to their smaller size. This is the major cause of the reduced capability I speak of from growing just one good thing above the others. You see, there is a good degree of interdependence, where each depends on other related and surrounding good things. And if the related items aren't similar in size, then interrelated supplies and needs of these things don't match; resulting in local shortages and oversupplies; the shortages bringing the whole system to reduced capability. So, we're reluctant to tap into the tremendous growth potential of gogr unless we know what to set the gogr at for uniform growth of ALL non-evil things.›

ALL GOOD THINGS ARE INCREASED EQUALLY, IRREGARDLESS OF HOW

WELL WE KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THEM OR ARE INTERESTED IN THEM, SO

AS TO AVOID UNEVEN GROWTH.

With doing everything, we don't need to understand or know what something is in order to do it: we do it without knowing (except to know it is non evil). When there is a good thing that we do know what it is; then that's all the more reason to do it. thus we don't hold up our growth be requiring ourselves to understand, as we would if we only grew what benefited us.

There are two groups of non evil good things: -the type we know about and understand; -and the type we don't know about other than that something is there. If we are to increase every good thing, we include both groups (and thus take advantage of their interrelatedness even before we understand it). But if something doesn't exist; we aren't bound to increase something that's not there.

OUR MOST INTERESTING GOOD THING DETERMINES HOW FAST WE

INCREASE. STILL, WE INCREASE ALL GOOD THINGS EQUALLY.

When we're enjoying one good thing, and have and interest in it, we don't think about increasing other good things outside our area of interest. But what I want to say, is that it doesn't hurt to increase everything. Our specific interest may have been the reason motivating our increase-of-everything (non evil). And our increase-of-everything may be to satisfy a need in just one area. But that's OK.

The reason we do equal growth of all good things; is because we choose not to leave almost everything behind, just because we are interested in one good thing. Why should we make it unnecessarily difficult for us in pursuing one of our good things? We choose otherwise.

"They" keep asking us to cut back again and again. And the idea is to get by with the bare minimum. But a good thing is a good thing because it helps us along. Why should we give up something just because we can get by without it in some situations? Why should we keep trying to prove the bare minimum? Going with the bare minimum when we don't have to, is operating at reduced capability. And being at reduced capability is the trap of evil.

There are times when our interest level is low; when we're not doing much of anything; when even our fun things are low. Since we aren't doing much that interests us, we also don't do much uninteresting work good things; in our equal increase of all good things. Our low interest will mean that we won't fill quotas of growth that may be expected of us. But the thing is that even when we disobey those who would have us do all work and no play; or even when we don't fill the quota: we won't feel guilt or worry or pain in going our way, because our way is still balanced and even. With no pain to deter us, or to indicate that our way is the wrong way; then we'll leave these other ways behind and go with ourselves. Our way will diverge from the taskmaster's way and we shall not meet each other again.

THE MERE EXISTENCE OF QUOTAS OF GROWTH THAT ARE REQUIRED TO

BE FILLED, INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF EVIL.

When the force of good and evil are together, the force of good is forced to produce enough just to keep up with what the force of evil destroys. Because the presence of evil requires that a certain amount of growth be produced in a certain time, (to make up for what's destroyed): the existence of a structure-and-system with growth requirements and a boss who is adamant that these requirements be met; is an indicator that evil is present and is behind this.

Now, there may be necessary evils that we're under because we're caught in the trap of reduced capability; but we shouldn't mindlessly fill these growth requirements and call the job done; but should act to escape or cast out these evils. If we've chosen against evil; then filling the growth requirements isn't so much what we should do: Casting out the evil is what we need to do.

So the mere presence of somebody standing over you bugging you to get done faster, indicates there's evil out there wasting growth, and that growth from you is needed to replace what evil has destroyed. So why put up with the hassle? The result is the same to do nothing. It's better to pass the time as dead (if the evil would kill you for not producing to feed it) where you'd not feel the passage of time; instead of spending an eternity in drudgery.

Attempting growths before you're ready, causes you to do necessary evils to obtain these growths on time; thus eventually putting you at reduced capability and in the trap of evil.

Don't participate in growth that is forced, because it causes you to do necessary evils.

MOST EVIL IS FROM WITHIN.

A large part of our problem with evil, is within us. Without food, our bodies consume themselves and kill us. We have biological drives and instincts, needs, reinforced by evolution, to reproduce the species. (If we didn't have these drives, we wouldn't reproduce, and our species would die off.) We don't feel complete unless we are fulfilling these drives. Thus our bodies may have evolved to deny us piece of mind or other things our bodies need until we fulfill these needs. (Once fulfilled, we get back what our bodies were capable of without the interference.)

So; when we're motivated to cast out evil; there's a lot to be gained in casting out all evil, especially that which is within us. Because if our attention is activated to cast out an external evil, we may overlook casting out our large internal evil; and it will then step in and smother us. This is why the men working on the chain gang feel punished, because in their attempt to deal with the large amount of external evil they put up with, they neglect their internal evils, and their internal evils then consume them. We can avoid this pain and overcome the tactics of correctional institutions of the movies (and perhaps reality), by increasing our casting out of all evil when motivated to cast out any particular evil. (Of course we also do temporarily, initially, cast out the particular evil.)

A dangerous and insidious evil to cast out, is not including sleep in our gogr; or leaving some other component out of gogr (since it is so repetitive and small mistakes are amplified).

When casting out an evil, it's important we do so right away, as fast as we can, so as to minimize the destruction evil could cause. If we wait around, the evil might destroy us or our growth engine, and we could no longer cast out the evil.

FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET LONG TERM INCREASES IN OUR PROJECT

OUTPUT RIGHT AWAY: WE USE THE BEST OF THE INDIRECT AND THE

DIRECT METHODS; AND WE DEPEND ON ACTIONS WE ESTABLISH EARLY

ON. (OUR 'COMBINED METHOD'.)

As we recall, our indirect method of increasing our gogr proportion works quite well in the long run to deliver increased growth of both gogr and project. But in the short run (initially); our indirect method has an initial shortage of project output.

To remedy this, we could do increased project for an (initial and) immediate increase in project output; but this would lower our growth rate and reduce both gogr and project in the long run. Still, we'd have obtained immediate response to our environment without delay, with this direct method. Now, we could try to include the best of both methods. This is just what we do in our casting out of the urgent evil.

We have devised our 'combined' method of responding against urgent evil: In this, we first do more project (but not so much as to put us in overextension). This gives an initial boost in project output, followed by a decline. (This boost is just what we need to respond immediately against the evil.) Next we gradually increase our gogr proportion until the evil is all cast out. -(This further aggravates a shortage of new project (that follows the initial boost).)

I state that during this period of shortage, we depend on what we established in the initial boost. The thing is that our initial project against the evil, has established a casting-out-evil action. And we depend on that to protect us until we get our growth rate up, in the long run.

I wish to add that we should gear our initial response to be all inclusive, and at the maximum output our environment will allow. We do this because we'll be fairly unable to respond to new changes in the environment. By this technique of just producing the maximum output we can, we bridge this time where we're unresponsive to changes in the environment, with no losses.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CASTING OUT ALL POSSIBLE EVIL IN A BROAD

ACTION.

Another problem that ties right in with this, is in the casting-out-evil-project itself. When we cast out evil, we can act to cast out all conceivable evil; or just what evil is bothering us at present. Only the evil bothering us at present is of immediate concern to us. But if we only respond against the evil of our present moment; then evil can change its attack, and each change will bring another urgent need for us to respond. But if we act to cast out all evil, then we will be prepared, and will not be under such an urgent need to respond.

If we include some casting out of all possible evil, then evil's changing attacks won't be so urgent. This is the thing: Because it's not so urgent, we need not lower our growth rate to respond immediately. We can then do our indirect method (of a greater gogr proportion) with its higher growth rate. This gives us time to cast-out-all-evils; (and allows us to use the indirect method (of greater gogr) to produce it).

WE NEED A BALANCE BETWEEN CASTING OUT ALL EVIL, AND CASTING

OUT THE PARTICULAR EVIL.

When evil steps up its attack, I have said we respond by increasing our casting out of all evil. But we could respond much faster if we just cast out the particular evil, instead of spreading our resources this with casting out all possible evils. If the threat of the new evil is urgent, it behooves us to respond against it quickly so it won't destroy our growth. Here again we have a balancing of the need for urgency, with the need for growth.

So we also cast out the particular evil in the beginning, because it offers immediate protection of our growth (-deals with the urgency of the situation). But we don't continue to focus on casting out the particular evil. Once the urgency is dealt with; the best plan for maximum growth, is to move toward casting out all evils. With subsequent attacks from evil, we do much less casting out the particular evil, (because we're already responding against the new evils with our growing casting out all evils). This allows us to keep increasing our growth rate.

›-At the same time, we are gradually increasing the gogr-proportion, over the proportion of every casting-out-evil-project so as to increase our growth rate.›

All these actions represent emphases on growth/increasing our growth rate.

CASTING OUT ALL EVILS RELIEVES US OF HAVING TO SECOND GUESS

EVIL'S NEXT MOVE.

If we prefer to cast out only the particular evil effecting us at our present moment, then it helps to be very smart. We must be able to predict the changes in evil before they happen, to give us time to change our response. If we predict incorrectly, then we won't be prepared for the new evil, and a sense of urgency will force us to lower our growth rate to respond immediately. So, if we don't know everything, we can respond against evil with a blanket action to cast out all evil.

INTRODUCING SOME INTRICACIES IN THE SPREADING PROJECT (THE

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SPREADING).

There are two concepts of importance in the practice of these writings. In a condensed version of these writings, are these two concepts:

The first is:

It is important to have a balance between gogr vs. project. It's important to have both project and gogr. Gogr provides the growth, and project provides the specific action needed for the specific situation. Both the project and the gogr are needed to make a functional unit. Without project, the growth from gogr isn't able to get out into other areas, (other than gogr).

Without gogr, there's no growth to share with project to grow the project.

(Our-interests-in-good-things, and, our-casting-out-evil, determine what our growth rate will be.) When we want to grow faster, we just gradually increase the proportion of gogr.

The second concept of importance, is:

-To spread the decided gogr-vs-project proportion to all things (so all things grow evenly). There's a special part of this spreading to all things, that gets us started. 'Spreading', includes the spreading of gogr to this spreading project itself (internal spreading).

We need both the spreading-project, and the regulation-of-gogr-to-project, to have a functional unit.

THE SPREADING PROJECT IS THE COMMON MIND

There's a connection I want to make. Earlier, we explored the concept of individuality, and proposed a balanced-intermediate-focus system to deal with it. All the specifics of each thing, existed in separate compartments or focus units. To coordinate them, a common mind was proposed, which contained an abbreviated representation of all the focus units. Well, lo and behold; the spreading project (plus its regulation), is the common mind. The spreading project contacts and coordinates all the other things, just like the common mind.

A CORRECTION OF MY IDEAS ON GOGR:

There is this idea we should apply our growth-resources to grow more growth-resources, as opposed to growing project, when we want/need more. This is our indirect method of obtaining more by indirectly investing in growth resources instead of project. But this concept of gogr vs. project assumes certain actions produce life/recouces better than other actions (with the producers being gogr and the consumers being project). But with everything being interrelated, it seems like you're going to have at least a little of every non-evil-action (or that you can have them) in the production of life and growth-resources. Just what are growth resources and the growth of growth resources? That needs to be defined for this to make more sence and not be so overly general it can mean just about anything. With everything being interrelated, how do we decide what is project vs what is growth resources?

Even so, I feel the concept of a direct method vs an indirect method is still a valid concept. An example would be: like, do you (use your resources to) give a man a fish; or to give him a fishing pole? One method is a direct method for using resources to satisfy a need. The other is an indirect, investing type, of method.

But even though this concept still has validity, I wish to correct an error in my presentation of it; and also to suggest that unbalanced growth or narrowly focused growth unto overextension is not the only problem or even the worst problem; but that keeping our force-of-growth active/alive, is.

When we're growing as a force of good will do, we increase capabilities and life. In time, those capabilities do increase capability of their own. And then even those capabilities eventually also become forces of good and then increase capabililties of their own. etc. But before something can be a force of good, it usually has to go through an intermediate stage where it is just neutral capability, until the time it is increased enough to be capable of increasing capability on its own.

If we apply the concept of growth resources vs. project to this situation, we see that the intermediate stage where neutral capability is increased, produces no growth resources at this time. It is thus a PROJECT. Even so, this is an indirect method of investment because in time, the neutral capability will produce resources, even though it now produces none. The correction is that to enact our indirect investment method of gogr, that we do 'project' to enact it. Project itself is the indirect method of gogr. Who is to say that the "project actions" and narrowly focused growth we do today will not someday become part of a force of growth that produces resources at some later date?

I guess, the idea for growth of growth resources vs project, comes from the concept of work vs. consumption. The actions we do in our work, produce resources, while when we spend our hard earned money, we consume resources. Additonally, a parallel can be drawn to actions which generate the resources of life vs actions which consume the resources of life. But with all non evil actions being interrelated, this concept is invalidated to a degree, as each non evil action has need of all the others and also supplies itself to all the others' need for it. Of course, some actions are needed in greater proportion than others.

What we're talking about, is the force of growth. As we grow and experience growth; and as we become of higher capability, we begin to run out of improvements to make. Thus the active existance of our force of growth is threatened after we've become of higher capability. But remember, the advantage to the force of growth is that with its high capability, it can cross barriers and find more areas in need of improvement (or low levels), so that it can continue improving and continue to actively exist forever. However: if a person just sat on their high capability and didn't use it to seek out low levels, then their force of growth would cease to actively exist. It would die and they would become a high level neutral capability.

What if the active-force-of-growth was our life blood and is what gives us life; represents our relationship with God or our soul; and that God is interested in protecting this in us; and is the action that represents growth of growth resources where every other action is project that consumes resources? But wait. Overextension alert: There is yet another action we need and that can be called part of the actions of life. The problem is: If our high capability is always seeking out the lowest levels and delivering resources to them and otherwise increasing them, then there will begin to accumulate a lot of this slightly above low capability material; which will begin to overgrow the high capability. If the high capability is always busy growing the low capability, then how is more high capability produced? Only the high capability is best suited to produce more of itself. But if it's always busy making more and more of this slightly above low capability material, it won't have time to turn some of that material to high capability. You see, the greatest force of growth is found with increasing these low levels; and not as much with increasing further to high capability. And if growth is the only factor and the high capability sticks to producing more and more of this slightly above low capability material (for the maximum growth); then that ever growing material will begin to overgrow and overwhelm the high capability and become unmanageable. After the high capability is bogged down, the force of evil will pick off further increases of this material and a stagnation will set in. What's needed in addition to an active force of growth in the low levels, is to take some of this slightly above low capability material and increase it even more, unto high capability, so there'll also be enough high capability material to manage/protect all the slightly above low capability material. Of course there's not as much active force of growth from doing this. So there's a tradeoff between these two directives. How do we do them? Remember our analysis of gogr and project, and that we discovered 'gradual is best'? Let's revisit the analogy of the fish and the fishing poles. The giving of fish represents helping the low levels, which is a staple: and the fishing pole represents the creation of high capability. The man depends on the fish to survive; so that if we abruptly stopped giving any fish and used all the resoures instead to make fishing poles; the man would starve to death before we got the fishing pole working to catch fish at a later date. But if we gradually used some of the resources intended for fish, instead to support a small production of fishing pole, the man would survive the time lag and would now have a fishing pole. Granted, it would be smaller than in the abrupt example, but the man would still be alive to use it. So the key here is 'be gradual' when balancing the needs of two competing directives. Being gradual means splitting the resources and only devoting a small proportion of the resources at first, in the direction of change. In our case of increasing the low levels vs increasing high capability, we mainly use our high capability to actively seek out the low levels and increase them. This increasing the low levels is our life blood and keeps our force of growth actively alive. A small part however, we devote to enjoying to high capability and producing more high capability. When the newly produced high caapbility is able to act, it too then joins the current proportion where much is used to seek and help low levels, while a small proportion increases the high capability. (and so on and so on).

Now, the small part of the high capability that increases high capability and is full of pleasure; does not have to be the same material over time. In order that all the high capability gets a taste of this, we can rotate this 'duty' (gradually) over the whole body of high capability. At any one time, only a small proportion of the high capability is doing this, and it is not the same material over time due to the rotation. Now, this rotation can take different forms. If the high capability goal is easily obtainable with no time limits, then the whole high capability area can participate in the rotation. But if obtaining the high capability is difficult or time limited, then 2 small segments (of the original high capability area) can be selected for alternating between them, as if they were taking 'steps'. Even in the 'steps' rotation, both directives are represented. Yet, a more revolving rotation, while limiting the material in that rotation, is better.

Yes, we can have multiple rotations, each with varying degrees, types of limitings of the material involved. ( Also include the overall rotation -includes all the high capability.)

Note that every person has an area of them that we cannot see, feel, or be benefitted from helping it, (that they have yet to grow into). It is this void-space that our high capability seeks out to increase it without receiving benefit or pleasure in return, so as to keep actively alive, our force of good. -(our active force of good being threatened by our being at high capability due to less room for improvement in us). We always have this helping all people's low level (including our own), and this is our link and oneness to all people.

Note: when part of you is experiencing (much) pleasure, that the low level (non beneficial, non pleasurable) part of yourself will be more difficult to find and more difficult to see than the low levels of everyone else. But with the high capability your pleasure brings, you will be able to find it. Just remember to use your pleasure and high capability to do that and to seek it out, (of all people -including yourself).

(In the project vs. gogr concept; we can say that the staple of helping the low levels, is gogr; while increasing-to-high-capability, is project. This 'project' is our indirect, investment action which although can only be done in limited amount; and must alter from its path to make good; still IS our indirect method.)

There is a potential problem with concentrating pleasure on any one thing. -Actually, there are several problems (such as the unbalanced growth and unmatched supplies and needs of interrelated things). When pleasure and life are concentrated into a small place, things become more capable and of higher capability. There is a potential problem with high capability. When things get to be so capable in an area, no more improvements can be made. And if no more improvements are made, then active existence of the force of growth ceases. Remember that the fogoHC IS growth. It is important that the force of growth not die. And we are in peril of that anywhere improvements to be made, become in short supply (that is where things become of high capability). We have already discussed that this is the advantage of the force of growth. -That the high capability and life of the situation, allows the force of good to cross barriers and find lower levels and areas where improvements can be made. Thus the force of growth need never cease. However, if the high capability, life, and pleasure of a pumped up area fails to reach out and find lower capability areas, increase their capability and deliver resources to them; then the force of growth WILL cease. This is the potential pitfall of high capability and feeling good in general; and of human sexuality. But only if that high capability failed to get busy and seek out the lower levels, would the active force of good die here.

The people we see each day in a loving family structure, seem to be more real than all the people we don't see or know. But EACH person has an area of them where they cannot see well or feel, where they have yet to grow into, where they do not benefit or derive pleasure from. These are a person's low levels, that have plenty of room for improvement. But the concentration of pleasure, life, or just stimulation of ones senses; into a small area (where we see and interrelate with them every day), can blind us to be unaware of their own (or other's) low level's existance. And if one doesn't seek out low levels (their own and others), due to being unaware of them, due to interests and being absorbed on the area of focus; then their active force of growth will cease here when it didn't have to.

Note: we need to be open to increasing everyone's low levels in even proportion, if we're able. This definitely includes ourself and our mate and family, but isn't exclusive to that but also includes all others. Since we derive no passion or benefit from increasing low levels; we have no resistance to (re)distributing that increase to all people's low levels.

This stuff is also the problem with people becomming wealthy if they don't use that wealth to reach out and help others who are lower. It's not that we must find others who are lower; its just that that's where most of the improvements needing to be made are found; and which would keep our active force of good alive best. Otherwise their active force of good dies when it didn't have to. And God, who is a force of growth Himself, is not pleased by the result. Sexuality and riches can be a danger and a threat to our force of growth which is our very soul (or relatonship with God). But now that we have seen a way around the dangers, we can allow them. Note that I wish to re emphasize the equally important balance with enjoying our high capability and pleasures (in a smaller proportion).

Chapter 7

"3rd Party Rewards, Expectations, Jobs, Private Ownership, our Economic System: as related

to the concept of reduced capability"

THE DENIAL OF ACCESS: A BAD CYCLE.

When we're denied access to things and even parts of ourselves, we think we must earn ownership to get these things back. But ownership and property (which we seek to join the system thereof, to get our goods back); is to deny (others) access to things (just as we were initially denied access to things). We all try to deny each other access to the available resources, hoping we'll be the one left standing to receive them: and we waste much effort in this; resulting in reduced capability. (Denying others access to good things isn't very constructive.)

To gain lost access we need to cast out ownership. Ownership and property is the denial of access; so if we cast this out we'll no longer be denied access to the things we need.

THIRD PARTY REWARDS LINK MANY ACTIONS TOGETHER, THUS OFTEN

INTERFERING WITH THE SEPARATION OF FORCES (OF GOOD FROM

EVIL).

Competition with (against) one another may provide for greater individual achievement; but prevents us from accomplishing what we could as a group: (cooperating with and caring for one another).

(›Large groups, however, are easily infected by (someone) evil.›)

But a problem with competition is in the artificial motivation vs the natural motivation. It's the 3rd party rewards vs the inherent effects of performing the action. Every action can have both a natural and an artificial meaning: The natural meaning, is: the effects and results of that action, standing on its own.

The artificial meaning, is: the relationship that action has to living, capable 3rd parties (who will reward or punish for doing that action; and what are the rewards or punishments).

It is the 3rd party rewards for doing an action vs the inherent effects (rewards) of doing an action. Like working for the money instead of for what the work itself produces.

The problem with 3rd party rewards, is that they lump the effects or rewards of a number of actions together, so evil has a force of good to feed on. With 3rd party rewards, it takes longer for an evil act to die out. This is because rewards are mainly good and cause growth; whereas the action done to get the reward may be destructive. If destructive, it has a good (the reward) to feed on, thus the evil doesn't burn itself out! The 3rd party reward system; -the money system: has inherently in it, the sloshing together of both good and evil; thus allowing evil to feed on the good indefinitely. Good and evil don't tell themselves apart here; so we need a 3rd party to tell us what's good or evil.

Now, with the natural meaning, -the inherent effects (rewards) of an action; there is immediate feedback: The action is separate from the rewards of all other actions, (and cannot feed on them). The action is separate, and if evil; quickly burns itself out. -Following the inherent-motivations for doing actions, is thus a good way to enact separation: so the good can grow, and the evil disappear. (When the forces are separate; good grows, while evil consumes itself. So good and evil tell THEMSELVES apart here: needing no 3rd party to do so for them here.)

Now just because a 3rd party(,) rewards for doing an action, doesn't eliminate the natural/inherent effects of doing that action. However 3rd party rewards are constantly changing; and beyond the scope of the 3rd party, aren't there at all.

When separation is enacted, all things are separate, both good and evil. The good things grow; bridge the separation; and come together to form a good group. But that which is evil does not grow. It doesn't bridge the separation, and doesn't infect the group. This is a recipe for creating an all-good-group, seeing how large groups are vulnerable to infiltration by evil. Thus we can attain the difficult goal of creating a large group devoted to goodness, and enjoy the benefits of such.

THE CONDITIONAL, 3RD PARTY, REWARD SYSTEMS FALL SHORT OF

INCREASING ALL (NON EVIL) THINGS. THEY THUS SENTENCE US TO

REDUCED CAPABILITY.

We do not leave good things behind in our growth. We thus keep ourselves at high capability above reduced capability, and avoid having-to-do-necessary-evils-to-survive. We grow ALL good things and ALL non evil things. We increase things that don't interest us. We increase good things and good people even though we don't receive payment in return. Even if it isn't soon profitable, we still increase all good things. (We do this because all good things are interrelated and interdependent. We do it to be at high capability, out of reduced capability / the trap of evil.)

Haven't we heard this message before? Isn't this the unconditional love given even when we don't deserve it? Isn't this the message of church and religious broadcasts; of the Bible and Jesus? -To be good to those who can't pay us back and give to the poor; to love not only those who'll love us back, but to love our neighbors, the poor, our enemies? (Note that the act of loving people doesn't harm us, even when those people are enemies. -We have a way to cast out evil, and we can do that.)

This is the idea: to spread our love-and-increase to ALL non evil things. (The things that interest us, do set our pace (at which we increase everything). Interest is generated by our doing a thing: -and what a marvelous way of obtaining new interests this is.)

›This isn't written against we at reduced capability, struggling. These cannot afford to do extra work projects so they'll be doing everything. Oops, this doesn't apply. The increase of all things is only upon what exists (evil free in us), not on what we've yet to grow into.›

The question of evil must be dealt with. We don't increase destructive things. And we must first get out of reduced capability for 'the doing all things' to keep us at high capability. Doing-all-things in reduced capability may help us get out of reduced capability; but not necessarily so.

(REWARD SYSTEM:)

The lukewarm money system links the growth of many good things together; but stops short of linking all good things. It's not enough. (The many actions required to earn the money, are linked together: with themselves, and with the action to spend the money / receive services of others (thus allowing evil a reward to feed on).) Yet this doesn't allow us to increase all good things just because they exist. If something exists, but lacks money or some way to pay us back; we deny it our growth and increase. The money system thus falls short of the increase of ALL good things. Just because something is a good thing; and just because it exists: these are reasons enough for us to do and increase them (because we and they are all interrelated). If we deny someone a service that we freely provide to those who pay; then we've chosen to limit our increase-of-things, to less than all good things. This results in our whole society being at reduced capability and being caught in the trap of evil. We are all interrelated; and the destruction from reduced capability will eventually find us if we don't deal with all the reduced capability out there. If we refuse our good thing to those at reduced capability, we will perpetuate reduced capability (when we could have done something about it), so we will have less 'life', and we will be at reduced capability, unable to buy and increase everything good.

GROWTH FREE FROM EVIL IS MUCH PREFERRED OVER GROWTH WITH

EVIL.

The idea of increase-in-capability and growth, is pretty important. It's what forces of good are; and what the fogoHC is. So, anything that has growth is better than other things, right? No. Just because growth-and-increase is there, doesn't mean it is to be accepted. Many growths are accompanied by decreases (in other areas). Here the force of destruction is not alone. -It has the growth to feed it. This is the worst possible situation because the evil persists indefinitely. We have to be more specific: Only increases free from evil are worthwhile.

PROGRAM OF EXPECTATIONS SHOWN TO BE GROWTH-ACCOMPANIED-BY-

EVIL, BECAUSE IT FORCES US TO OPERATE AT REDUCED CAPABILITY:

WITH REDUCED-CAPABILITY'S ACCOMPANYING NECESSARY EVILS. IT

IS THUS TO BE AVOIDED, AND REPLACED WITH EVIL FREE GROWTH.

Let's look at growth-and-increase more closely. The idea of increase means there's always something needing improvement. To increase and grow, means you're better now than before. If better now than before: then before, you were lacking in some area(s); and now you're not lacking. Well, if you're always going to be growing; then there's always going to be areas (parts of you), that can be seen as lacking. (Is the glass half full or half empty?) So in your eternal growth; don't let it be a pain in the butt (that is, growth at reduced capability / the trap of evil), but an enjoyable experience (evil free growth at high capability); because you'll never be finished growing. The concept of being able to satisfy expectations is a myth; because with growth, you're always one step away from not living up to expectations. So, don't let expectations from others pull you through growth. Reduced capability, the trap of evil is what growth pulled by expectations is.)

When certain growths are required of you, and your superiors are constantly pointing out areas that you're lacking in: this refers to your growth. I want to make this point, that what is being dealt with here, is your growth (and increase). Being your growth, it is something sacred. (The fogoHC is made of growth). It must be done free from evil. Otherwise it is a force of good together with evil. And the fogoHC won't have this (without your continued choice for it).

Maybe what is sought, is the commodity of evil. And the only way it can be had in the presence of a fogoHC, is through as many people who can be coerced's choice.

Yes, growth in all (non evil) areas is to be accepted. But the type of growth must be determined free from evil. And since the ability to grow in certain areas (free from accompanying decreases), depends on your own level of capability; then some growths must be put off until YOU are ready. The growths must wait for you; not the other way around. Being at reduced capability means not being able to do some growths. ((like before you have received the nurture of the reward.))

So, just because others point out areas where you're lacking; is no reason to try to fill these areas!

So, when you don't achieve what's expected of you, and don't right away fill what has been pointed out to you as lacking; then (you put yourself in for punishment and discipline and) you're not a force of good in this aspect. But you've eliminated the doing of good and evil together. It's important to not choose good and evil together ›(unless it is already: unavoidably together either way/ at reduced capability / in an essential). (Separation of the forces is the desired end result in any case.)›

If you have growth outside the program of expectations, then the enactment of punishment is the forces of good and destruction together; just as the growth laden with evil is. But the forces are more easily separated under punishment: as they're represented by two separate people -the punished and the punisher. While the growth laden with evil has inherently in it; both good and evil in the same action, where the forces are more closely knit together and are more difficult to separate. So, the path to go is to risk the punishment because you have a better chance of separating the forces, even at your low capability. -Makes it easier on the fogoHC too. Realize that you do nothing destructive in failing at their expectations.

You have a decision to make: -the program of expectations and 3rd party rewards; vs the natural-meaning-of-things; as to what you'll have nurture you. What I want to concentrate on here, is what is alive. It takes well nurtured, high capability life to achieve evil-free growth, and the growth required of you. And if you choose 3rd party rewards; what nurtures your life, is the stamp of approval by 3rd parties. But that approval is always lacking before the growth is done. (Since you're always growing, there are always areas of you which at present are lacking.)

At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from you; and you don't have the nurturing 3rd party reward for/from this as of yet. You now find yourself expected to grow at reduced capability -without the very nurture you need (have acquired a need for) to nurture you(r life). With less life, and at reduced capability, you produce less than adequate growth; (or you do necessary evils to obtain it. Those necessary evils collectively accumulate and cause ultimate failure to grow overall.) You thus do not receive reward or approval. Your counselor or boss bitch at you for not producing. If at this point you still depend on 3rd party rewards / acceptance to nurture you life; then you're going through a terrific withdrawal symptom. (My advice, is to 'just say no' (to the drug of 3rd party rewards).) And if you continue placing such value on receiving 3rd party rewards/approval then there's only a downward spiral of REDUCED CAPABILITY to follow. ›At reduced capability, the good in you separates from this evil system.›

Let's look at an alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of (good) things to nurture your life; what's important isn't the inanimate objects/skills you can possess, doing things on your own, outside a program of expectations. No, it's the high life you can join with (that is the fogoHC). And from this abundant life comes abundant growth.

Just because there's abundant life and growth, doesn't mean a thing if it's infected by decrease/destruction. But fogoHC life, IS free and separate from evil/destruction.

Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil-free growth. The unconditional love/ acceptance/ nurture of the fogoHC, eliminates the need for the necessary evils of reduced capability. It allows you to do evil-free growth, (instead of forced growth at reduced capability, where you'd allow harm in your ways to achieve the same growth); thus freeing you from the trap of evil.

The downward spiral of decrease described in the first example, is separated away, because it is a decrease of life: And is why we cannot join with the fogoHC and also participate in the cycle of 3rd party rewards. They aren't on the same side of the separation done by the fogoHC. "You cannot serve both God and mammon." "Money is the root of all evil." There's nothing wrong with being accepted / rewarded by 3rd parties. But the choice to depend on it for your strength, nurture and self esteem; is a mistake, as it will desert you when you need it most. Money is cast out, not the good things money often buys.

P.S. When you're worried about amounting to something outside a program of expectations, consider this: Once you are joined with the fogoHC, you're already there. Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality. The more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make. The only thing keeping you from success, is the absence of joining with the fogoHC. It may not look like you've succeeded, but the fogoHC will have changed the realities here; so that in reality, you truly will have succeeded. -The fogoHC can make wondrous things with whatever meager things you bring Him, (as soon as your will is moved out of most of the area). But the diplomas, plaques, status and position aren't enough to stake out your success. There will always be areas you're inadequate in, that you'll need to grow into to maintain your success. You'll never be successful at achieving the goal of success, putting it behind you. -since you're always growing. (So why waste your life trying?). Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because the growth is evil-free at high capability (and we can enjoy the results of that). The unconditional love and acceptance of the fogoHC, nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil-free growth: eliminating the need for necessary evils: freeing you from the trap of evil. (Why spend your life wallowing around in something you don't have to be trapped in? -especially if you choose against the system of good and evil together, and the trap of evil.)

Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You've already succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now love!

Just what is life and the energy that is life? -Complex miracle of electrical discharges (plus even more).

Someone who makes us feel bad, destroys part of this elusive thing we call life.

If we do not succeed in our quest to enjoy life: -Without being truly alive, there's no way to enjoy what we produce. It's like dressing up a pet rock and treating it to the finest food, entertainment and accommodations. The rock draws no enjoyment from these activities. And bosses don't spend time threatening rocks they'll loose their job if they don't do better. The pinch point is ourselves and how alive we are. So let's work on improving the things that matter: improving life, and finding better alternatives to the pain balance, and the system of stagnation of good and evil.

When someone makes you feel inadequate in an area; they dispute the fogoHC has transformed you. -The capability that is you, is present without the fogoHC. Thus your existence here without a fogoHC makes you a freak event. You're out of place. I'm sure you'd love to fill all of these requirements you lack; do what you're told; and appease your mentor. But this would require you to stay and be part of this system. In this situation without a fogoHC, you need foremost to create the fogoHC. The situation is much worse than reported. Not only do you need to fill all what you lack; you need to create a fogoHC. But since this is such a long shot, a slow and difficult process, it doesn't mater if you take it easy or hard. You don't depend on yourself being successful (because that probably won't happen -due to the difficulty of the assignment); but you depend on the probability that someone will succeed out of all who try; mainly due to luck and randomness. Thus, if you have a good opportunity; seize it: otherwise don't let requirements interrupt your lifestyle. (Realize that outside of the trap of evil, with the fogoHC's HC/(evil-free) growth; that all these requirements are at your command, easily.) Focus on getting out of their trap of evil and creating a fogoHC, not on staying in their system and trying to fill their requirements; which will be life-resource consuming and difficult for you in your l.c. situation.

Attempts to fill what you lack (create a fogoHC) within the system won't work because of the stagnation from the togetherness of good and evil there. Only random, variable, do it yourself actions outside the system of good and evil, in these same areas have any chance. So don't bother with requirements (which are part of the system), in trying to create a fogoHC.

If a problem is so hard that nobody knows the answer, then a controlling approach, where everybody marches in line and tries the same or similar attempted solution, is a poor use of resources. Much better would be a random approach, where individuals in freedom tried many different attempted solutions. Here, the chances that one would succeed are much better; and all we need is for one to succeed to save the whole bunch, when it comes to creating a FogoHC. Well; the power of the group is stronger than that of the individual, so only as a group we might hope to succeed, right? Well, a group that empowers its individuals, is much stronger than a group that feeds off them in a stagnant operation: and the first step in creating such a good group, is for individuals to escape from stagnant grouping systems.

Now, if there is a fogoHC already, then the claims that you lack, are all lies. Because the fogoHC in his/her benevolence will have provided; especially since you have accepted what the fogoHC has to offer. Where man's will acts, the fogoHC does not interfere, and it appears there exists no fogoHC. Outside of man's will, is the fogoHC.

Because it is you that the world must come through to effect you; it is a matter of life contacting life. If your life is not contacted in a positive way, then what good are these programs? Life contacted in a positive way has priority. (These programs have no place as the central piece of your life.) Even if you succeed here, it won't get you life contacting life in a positive way. You won't be one inch closer to achieving that. Since you're a life, this involves you in a personal way. You'd be left unsatisfied. The work of accomplishing life-contacting-life-in-a-positive-way would be left undone. You might as well sit around and do nothing!

The question isn't whether we accept just any group (the only group available to us) -for the advantages of being in a group, vs, go it on our own: but what group should we join? -One that practices growth free from evil as much as possible, hopefully.

If we're all pretty much basically kind and generous; what's so terrible about letting us do what we want? Why must we most all be told what to do? (And the gentler we get, the more we are bossed around?) Just because everybody is bossed around doesn't make it good.

We have minds to think and things we want to do. We don't need a boss to tell us what to do to make us capable of doing something. We do need to get together to inform each other, communicate, and cooperate; but this isn't often possible when communication is reduced to order giving and order following and bitch bitch bitch. The only reason we'd need to do what we're told, is if doing what we wanted and understood; tormented and frustrated us, imbalanced us, destroyed us. If this is the case (if we're incapable of enjoying life), what's the sense of working hard, doing what you're told, obeying rules, or making a fortune? You'll never get to enjoy any of it. Why work on producing meaningless things while neglecting the work of improving life and our enjoyment of life, which would make these things meaningful?

In a quest to become self sufficient, there's one area I've been successful at. In the area of rules, I've been able to extract my own (from the existing natural, inherent laws made by no man), and haven't needed to depend on the rules of others.

LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INANIMATE.

We've been emphasizing that life's what's important. We know actions-of-production which do as much harm as good to LIFE; provide no net gain.

A question comes to mind: what does it matter? What difference does our life make? Whether we're treated like dogs and slaves, or live like kings with lots of influence; what difference does it make (in this stagnant system)? It may be uncomfortable, or pleasant for us (as life), but what difference does it make in the overall scheme of things? What difference does our life make in a stagnant system? Pain and being treated like a slave, is the destruction of our life. (We are alive.) What difference does life make over the inanimate?

(In a stagnant system of good and evil together, evil destroys the life good produces; and life stagnates, and remains at the same level.) Well, life has the ability to be aware: -to have purpose and meaning. But inanimate things can't; thus there's no purpose without life. -Where there is life, are many purposes and meanings (from that life); but with no-life, is purposelessness. In a stagnant system, the life exists as a constant amount that doesn't grow. This system will always have to bear the same degree of purposelessness, due to the constant presence of the inanimate (where there should be life); -due to lack of overall growth. The life (which stays at a (constant) level above the inanimate and doesn't grow); never accomplishes much, and never has much meaning beyond that it exists. (It destroys what growth it produces.) (That which is destroyed, is inanimate, and has no intelligence or purpose.) We may have advanced in technology, but we have also advanced in the technology to destroy ourselves. Even with all this technology, we haven't learned to cooperate well or be kind to each other. Until we learn to be kind to each other, our future will always be in doubt between annihilation and paradise; and the path we take in learning to cooperate, will determine our fate. Only a system which seeks to advance its least and lowest members will hold together and advance together as a group. Any system which scorns its underachievers, is a waste of your time and mine. (All the concerns are for lifeless inanimate objects, in this system that does both good and evil to life.)

But in a system free from evil (where there is sustained/overall growth); life can advance and grow, and replace the inanimate, with life, and thus develop meaning much beyond its existence. So if you're looking for meaning and purpose to life, it is found outside these stagnant systems of cruelty and kindness together and reduced capability.

So if we're in a stagnant system of togetherness of good and evil; it doesn't matter if we get the job, pass the test, or succeed or fail in the system. All that matters is our attempts to create a system of good only.

THE JOB SYSTEM IS OVEREXTENDED.

What do our actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the tools? Are we trying to impress them or something? They aren't alive to notice or care one way or the other. Only we are alive. What does it matter to the automobiles or TV sets we produce whether we have made our quota of them or not? Because the inanimate is all that's left after our life is gone.

Let's get it through our minds that only life produces growth. Thus instead of demanding more from existing life as the means of producing increased growth; that we do an indirect method: and first build up life, as a means of producing increased growth. If we are first good to each other as life; then life will be increased; and increased growth will naturally follow (because life IS the ability to produce a certain amount of growth (comfortably)). being good to each other is the growth of growth; and is preferred to the overextension of the job world which neglects the building up of its living components (in favor of inanimate (project) components), and thus neglects growth of growth, to its overextension of too much growth of project.

THE JOB SYSTEM IS IN THE TRAP OF EVIL, REDUCED CAPABILITY.

With the growing intolerance in this country; it's amazing we can actually get together in our jobs, and work to produce things. Unfortunately, we still don't cooperate well even in our jobs. We instead get by with shabby fare: the minimum needed to function.

A pattern I've noticed, is that we don't share the hardships evenly, but instead, shove them off onto a few scapegoats. We need 'slaves' to stick with the dirty jobs. Get a job! The thing is, 'a job' can mean very different things. A job can be a cushy management position, or one of those scapegoat peon positions; (or in between). When people yell at the welfare folks to get off their lazy behinds and get a job; the response I like best is "I'm holding out for a management position". Peons and scapegoats are hard to find, and they have to be actively recruited (from the welfare roles and unemployment line). Now, in a system where the hardships were evenly born; people would be more willing to join that type of system. But if all other alternatives are eliminated with only this scapegoat way available; then there will be kicking and screaming.

However, an individual can do very little. If we try to survive and make a living as an individual, we do poorly because we're at reduced capability (compared to the group). So we need to join some kind of a group and put aside thoughts for ourself, and instead mainly think of the betterment of the group. And we do this because the group's power is above reduced capability, and can get us all ahead due to its being out of reduced capability, the trap of evil.

So it is the individual's place to put away most thought for themselves and instead be devoted mostly to the group. But once an individual has done this, then What is the place of the group? Let's say the group then thinks of the individuals which comprise it. Then it can use its power of being out of reduced capability to advance and improve life for them all; much better than if they were all acting on their own. ("The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".) (There are many things a group of workers can do that an individual worker can't; even if the individual worker is given that much more time.)

But if the group thinks only of itself, then it also thinks of its individuals, because the only thing the group is made of, IS individuals - that's all there is. It will still be thinking of individuals. So it's the place of the group to help and advance individuals once the individual has devoted themself to the group. But if a group doesn't think of individuals with its power but instead scapegoats some and leaves them hardly better than if they scavenged on their own (so others in the group can have even more); then this defeats the purpose of joining a group in the first place (for those scapegoats). The advantage of joining a group was that it can get us all out of reduced capability. But these people are still in reduced capability. And a group that scapegoats and leaves people at reduced capability will be brought down to reduced capability itself; because reduced capability makes a home for destruction, and destruction by its infectiousness, will bring this