[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Jan 20, 2001 11:49 AM
by Blip Bland

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.






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.)


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.


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.





"The Beginning"



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.)




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.




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).


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.






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.





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.


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.




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.



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.




Note: I abbreviate 'unresponded-to-happening' as


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.



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.)






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.



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.


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'.



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 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.


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.






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.




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.



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).




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.



›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.›




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.



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.



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.



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.





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.



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).



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.



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.



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.


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.


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"



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.




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.




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.


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.



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.





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.


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.


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.


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 group down also to be at reduced capability.

A group that seeks to increase its power (and grow) by taking more and more from its (scapegoat) individuals; finds that it runs out of stuff to take. The individual position is the most vulnerable position as it is nearest to reduced capability. And a group that keeps taking from its individuals puts the individual more and more into reduced capability. And in reduced capability, growth does not occur, but instead, stagnation. And with the individual, -the source of the group's power, not growing; this group runs out of stuff to take and so ceases growing.

But if a group, instead of taking more and more; gives more and more, to its individuals, those individuals are removed further from reduced capability, thus they experience growth. If they then give some of that growth (out of their abundance) to the group, then the group can continue this cycle and be a growing group indefinitely. It won't run out of stuff to receive from its individuals.

So if you're going to compel welfare recipients to get off their lazies and devote their efforts for the good of the group (to get a job), then you better be sure you as rulers of the group, use the group power to give them a decent life, a decent house, a decent car, and decent cloths like you have! If you're just going to rip us off and make us slaves, peons, and scapegoats (the working poor); then screw you. Making welfare folks work in hard labor still won't solve your stagnation. Even if you put half the country in prison in forced labor camps. And that situation isn't stable. Kaboom! I hope it blows up in your face. You won't take me willingly. I'll be trying to nix your system of stagnation and create a group of good only; of nurture; where people care for each other and build each other up! instead of scapegoating and forcing people into reduced capability to live miserable lives so as to supply your growth!

Note that there is a connection against eastern (Communist) philosophy here, as well as against Hitler's philosophy of individual sacrifice to the all important living State (or national entity). ("How can you love God who you can't see, if you don't love your neighbor who you can see".)

In simplified terms, I've heard eastern philosophy condensed to: the smaller entity can be sacrificed for the good of the larger group. From this we can deduce that the individual must sacrifice for the good of the group. But the fallacy in this is that the larger and more powerful group doesn't need protecting and being sacrificed for, since it is larger and powerful and more out of reduced capability. Instead, it is the individual position that needs improving. And so, it is not for the individual to sacrifice to the group; but to give to the group out of their abundance (tax the rich). -This is the difference between a growing group vs a stagnant group.

Are you satisfied by how we treat the less fortunate? Some say the poor are lazy and should get a job or work harder: that they're doing more than enough to help these people and want no more increases in their taxes.

(But these rich folk aren't inherently more powerful than the lowest of the poor.) The rich man DEPENDS on others to produce his gourmet food; build, heat/cool, and clean his mansion; make his fancy cloths; and build his snazzy car and yacht: (-just as the rest of us depend upon others.) If the rich man were self sufficient and produced his things himself, then it would NOT seem right to tax him more than the rest of us. But the rich man depends on the group (other people's labors) for all his things. It is fitting that he pays more in taxes, which represents helping the group, since he receives more from the group than the rest of us. Don't tell me that the rich man does 10 to 100 times more work and thus earns 10 to 100 times more money than the working poor. That's physically, mentally impossible. And do you really think the welfare folks' not working is the cause of our nations' problems? (Don't we easily (over) produce enough food to feed us all: and what does it cost in tangible resources to let them live in a run down trailer?) Trailers get old. Someone's got to live in them.

The person on TV can tell you what he/she is satisfied with, but not what you're satisfied with. You must choose what system you're satisfied with. You must live with yourself all the time: no one else has to. We should be more helpful to one another. That way we all can enjoy the advances we make in our standards-of-living with a free heart enjoying the good things we produce, since we all share in the goodness. Our nerve impulses will be much more alive. Let's make a system worth preserving/keeping for everyone.

If you're thinking you can do what you're told, work hard, and someday God will change the world into a better place: well this is true: but it may be in spite of you, instead of because of your diligence and hard work. The system of good-and-evil can continue on forever if the people involved are all satisfied with it. If everybody did what they were told and supported the system of cruelty and kindness together, then good would produce life (even nerve impulse life), to be consumed and destroyed by evil, and we could continue in stagnation, without purpose or meaning forever; and no one, not even God would change it against our will. Stagnation is a precarious balance. It will require your diligence, concentration, and yes, even hard work to keep this balance. (It's quite a burden.) (The system of stagnation even has its supply of goods and services to reward its 'fatefull'.) But if you don't choose the system of good and evil together, why bother with this heavy burden? (Instead, we disrupt the balance of stagnation.) "Take my yolk upon you; for I am easy, and my burden is light" says J.C.

It doesn't matter if you're in the minority: if you're dissatisfied, the way to meaningful life is escape and resistance.

When you don't do what you're told (what authorities tell you), and don't work hard, then they make you feel like you've committed some offense and did some destructive act. But the thing is you've done nothing harmful by not doing what you're told and failing at your assignment. You've just not grown as fast as they'd like, (which isn't destructive). To them it's a crime. But it's victimless because you've hurt no one. Let's commit this victimless crime of being lazy and not doing our assignments when we aren't satisfied! Take a hard look: You've done no destruction in not obeying them; in not laboring for them or helping them. They won't help the poor. Why should they be helped? They're not poor.

Of course, authorities will do destruction to you as punishment for not producing. And it's this destruction that should be dealt with first before improvements on (our) growth are sought. But this external evil can be a minor consideration. -If there's an evil inside us we keep insisting on, we will constantly cast it out and it will constantly trouble us. (This is what they'd have us believe; that we're bad and evil for disobeying and not producing for them.) Well, our failure to grow is not a destructive act. So we needn't be constantly casting out an evil within us. This gives us peace of mind. We're more alive.

My pet rock; he sets round all day and does nothing, and no boss comes to holler at him. All this work is going to put you in an early grave so the end result of work will be that you're no more alive than my pet rock. So if the boss can't make my pet rock get off his lazies and work; (and you, being much smarter and more alive than my pet rock;) I don't see how the boss could make you work hard or to death either. So how bout a little moderation in this thing we know as 'work'? I mean, if my pet rock doesn't have to work at all, why should we have to work hard? -unless that is you prefer the inanimate over living human beings.


We need to grow and edify life, for us to be a growing force of good. But without a job, we aren't allowed to use other people's stuff or bother other people at work, because these are owned by someone else. The concept of property ownership shuts us out, if we don't have a job. So, in today's situation, we need to get a job, because only here have we access to things and people to build up life. Right?

A job does include greater access so we have more opportunity to help others and ourselves grow life. But a job also includes a boss, a 3rd party, who regulates us; rewards, praises and punishes us according to 3rd party rules; who threatens to fire us if we don't do well. (Also present with growth, is the force of destruction, -the forces of good and evil are together. We've already shown this isn't the answer.)

Isolation is a big problem. The point I make is that getting a job and joining the system isn't a solution. (It sure is an expensive way to get together in a group.)

Now, we don't work all alone when we're in a job, but work as a team. When we're trying to succeed outside the system, we should also try to work with others and not alone.

Our system of production should be concerned with improving all our lives. But as long as we're mean to each other, (this is destructive of life), we'll continue to be caught in the stagnation of the trap of evil.

There's no sense in acting collectively to become capable of overcoming the ravages of nature; only to replace them with our own man made system's brand of necessary evils, destitution and stagnation (the trap of evil). It accomplishes nothing and wastes our life efforts.

When away from systems of good and evil and 3rd parties; we still have natural meanings to satisfy our needs (unlike artificial (3rd party supported) meanings which disappear outside the scope of 3rd parties). So success, satisfaction, pleasure and fulfilling life, are possible outside our present job system. Let's get together and form a society of cooperation free from forced cooperation, based on equality and democratic representation in our jobs, not dictatorship.

What do our actions-in-production matter to the inanimate objects and the tools? It doesn't matter to the automobiles or radio sets we produce whether we've made our quota of them or not. Are we trying to impress them or something? They aren't alive to notice.

No, we don't slave away for the inanimate: we slave for a few who think they're better than we; who use us like tools and equipment to make life better for them. Our life is sacrificed: our head is cut off and discarded, so the remainder of ourself can function as a piece of equipment to help make life better for a chosen few. Forget about building robots and equipment. -The human being is a marvelous piece of equipment; and there are so many of them. All that's needed is to cut away and discard their mind, and their own ideas on how to do things. It is humans consuming other humans for their own benefit. Shouldn't we as life be more concerned with getting our life out of a system caught in the trap of destruction of life (before our life and ideas are destroyed to make us into a robot for someone)? Once we overcome the destruction of life, we will be alive to appreciate the good things that exist. There will be LIFE to make it all worth while.

Unfortunately, the just-described-system is as destructive to LIFE as it is good. It is therefore a stagnant system trapped in reduced capability, the trap of evil: where even those who benefit from human-robots will be swept down to reduced capability due to the infectious nature of evil. In such a system we all become little more than the inanimate products we produce. We (our LIFE) should therefore seek to escape from such a stagnant system and create a better system of good only; because our LIFE is much more valuable than the inanimate objects/robot remainders we become.

Only life PLUS materials, gives a winning combination. It makes no sense to accumulate inanimate materials in one place and prevent all but a few living individuals from having access to it.

Without life, the rearrangement of matter we do in production, is meaningless. What difference does it make if a quota of widgets is produced or if the raw materials remain in the ground, if there's no life to enjoy it)? Only those things associated with the increase/improvement of life, have value and pleasure. And the peon worker is just as much alive as the rich man who uses him for his own pleasure. Unpleasant memory records and the unkindness that caused them, are both destructive of life; and are thus evils to be cast out. ›Since we cast out unpleasant experiences; if learning is made to be an unpleasant experience, we will soon forget it (so why waste the time?)› Only that which supplies us with life (inside ourselves), remains with us. And you as a living being, should be gaining and growing in life from the production actions you do; otherwise it's a waste of time. YOU are the product that is ultimately being produced, not some inanimate product. And if that production system ruins the life that is you, then IT is faulty, and ought to be replaced.

Remember, filling your head with ways you don't understand from without; will choke out ways you do understand within you, from expressing themselves.

You have a choice to make. Either to join a present system, or to try and create an alternative system on your own. Since you can do more as part of a group, it's advantageous to join a group over doing things on your own. But if available group(s) are stagnant due to destructive forces, then it may be better to try to escape such systems and on your own create a better alternative system. The decider, is, how well does the system under consideration, treat its lower members. (ie does it help its needy?) As an entry level person, you may be in need of an opportunity to have a position in that system. You are thus a needy person in this aspect. How does the system treat you in this need? Does it welcome you in? Or does it threaten destruction upon you unless you perform for it? Well, if it uses destruction (punishment) to function (to motivate and direct), then right there is the proof that it is a stagnant system. In such a case, be assured that whatever little you can accomplish outside that system, is more than you could as part of a stagnant system.

When a system uses rewards and punishments to direct its people and operate, then it must at some time, deny reward or administer punishment to the number of people who don't measure up to its standard of what it wants done. This forces these people to live at reduced capability, . . . . . . and in stagnation. If the number who are denied or punished is large or even in the majority, then this system becomes a stagnant system as the price for having a way to direct and motivate its subjects to do what it wants. Can we find a better way? Lets try.


The means to gain/obtain power, are just the beginning. They are just the means to get your way. What is just as important if not more so, is the way itself and what it consists of (the defectiveness or soundness of ones way). It has been said that 'might makes (one's way) right'. But might and power are just the means of getting ones way over others. Once one gets their way, they have to live with their way. If their way is defective and causes pain and suffering, then they and everyone else will have to live with it, because there is no one mightier to overthrow it. And if the way contains a defect, we just have to live with the pain. But if some ruler's way causes too much pain and suffering, then the people may rebel and change the power balance and overcome the might that put the way in power in the first place, with their own might.

Irregardless of whether a military-dictator-minority, or an overwhelming popular majority, puts a way in power, the merits and flaws of the actual way are still felt. So not only is it important to get your way into power; it is also important that your way be sound and non destructive ›and helpful›. Otherwise your way itself will be a constant reminder and motivator that something needs changing.

A person with less power won't get their way as often as those with more power. But even if a good way gets into power just once after a long wait; that once will be enough. Defective ways may get into power many times backed by powerful people; but because of the way's flaws, these will be a constant irritant and motivation for change. When a good way does infrequently get into place (power); it will be no irritant; there will be satisfaction; and the motivation will be to keep this way in power. (Of course, democratic principles provide the means for smooth change so as to try out many more ways than under a military dictatorship. But the soundness of the way is still the focal criterion.) Might is the means of getting a way into power; but the soundness of a way is the means of keeping the way in power over time, and providing satisfaction.

A good sound way is a growing, productive thing that produces enough growth, to have enough might to get into power at least infrequently. All the might in the world cannot keep an unsound, defective and destructive way in power forever (due to the inferiority of destructiveness and the force of evil itself, as previously expounded upon). But a good sound way once in power, can remain in power forever due to its inherent goodness, soundness, satisfaction, and production. It only takes one to escape the system of good-and-evil to grow more powerful to come back to rescue the rest of us.

If we don't wish to continue with a 'bad' way, there'll be some of us who will escape this 'bad' way: who if they find a better way, will be able to grow more powerful and set us all free (who want to be set free); who dislike the current way because of its inherent defects, (irregardless of what might holds it in power).



At this point I want to get back into the concept of property and ownership. The concept of property is an artificial concept, and isn't part of natural law. Without 3rd party recognition/support of property ownership, the restrictions of property ownership don't apply. I can say "that is my chair, and you can't use it", but there is nothing physically incompatible between you and the chair that would prevent you from using it outside the scope of my power. Property restrictions require living, intelligent, capable 3rd parties to enforce them; and outside of their scope, they don't exist. I could say that this is my world and nobody but I can use it; but outside the scope of my power, everyone can use this world. The concept of property ownership puts restriction on a thing so less people can use it, than would otherwise be able to.

Things and resources help people and increase their capability. If there exists a resource that could help people, but I deny them this resource because I own it, then I have caused these people to live at reduced capability. This is especially true if their use of the resources wouldn't have consumed or damaged it; such as borrowing a book from a library (›or swapping spouses. ayhow›). The concepts of property and ownership creates areas of reduced capability and lost opportunity, even when there's enough to go around. People who cannot communicate with each other to ask for and receive use of someone else's resource in a non destructive way; remain in reduced capability. But if we were allowed to share and borrow resources in a non destructive way, we'd have a process to learn communication and cooperation; and not only would we be out of reduced capability, we'd no longer be lonely.

We might not want to change our system of property ownership, but we should get together and create sharing centers where people can get together and share resources at minimal cost, unlike rental agencies (which make a huge profit). A system of passing around a piece of equipment where people could identify themselves positively over the phone through a set of one use transaction numbers, coordinated with their ID number, could be used.

This is because we Americans are so uncooperative, uncommunicative and lonely, that it behooves us to do this. Hey, if you like the loneliness and the snootiness, then let things continue status quo. But I have to say I'm not satisfied.

In today's society; having enough money to participate in all sorts of activities, is a big thing. Some might then think the most important thing is to pay the money; and then they can take it easy, expend no effort and enjoy the show. But the payment of money is only the beginning. Life is much more than the payment of money. Just think: after I pay the money; I as a living thing then have to actually do, experience, and participate in the activity. How can I enjoy the intensities of a thing if I've shut down my life activities and am taking it easy in an easy chair? (Going to the movies isn't the same as doing it for real.)

With the money system; one is the servant and the other is the master, in any given transaction. Wouldn't it be better to strike a chord of more cooperation, so that in a transaction, there's less of a master/servant relationship; with both partners on more equal footing? It is better for us as life, if we do. We need a better system based more on cooperation and love, than on servant/master dictatorship!


Each of us has a mind. And each of us has a body. Our mind is where our consciousness and life-essence reside. Our body has no consciousness apart from our mind. As a human person, our mind and body are together (with our mind directing our body). As individual human beings, our mind-body is physically separate from every other mind-body.

When someone starts trying to run our lives and tell us what to do; their-mind not only seeks to have say over their own body; they want say over our body too. When it's not enough for a mind to have say over its own body, but it also wants say over other's bodies; then I think its time to cooperate and work and do together so that all minds are satisfied, as all benefit from the group of bodies working together. Otherwise, I think a line has been crossed. A boss's mind not only has say over their own body, but also has some say over the servant's body. The servant's mind (which is together with his/her body) also wants to have say over this body; and will always and continually want this, due to the physical togetherness of the servant's mind with his/her body.

But when there are times when the boss wants the servant's body to do one thing while the servant's mind wants his/her body to do something else which is incompatible; then there's a conflict; and only one mind (either the boss's or the servant's) can have control over the servant's body in this decision. When the boss has say over the servant's body, then this bond of togetherness has been formed: the boss's mind is linked with the boss's body and also the worker's body. Unfortunately in this conflict, the servant's mind is cut off and left alone unjoined. When the servant's mind is alone and without the servant's body; it finds itself at reduced capability in this position. It's in this position (of the boss getting their way in a conflict), where the most intense situations of reduced capability are created (-that being in the servant's mind). No other position creates such reduced capability. -When no one is cooperating, each person's mind has at least their own body. -And when there's voluntary cooperation, that's the best as all minds have the power of the group of all bodies working together as a group.

This bossing thing is just an example of a group that scapegoats-and-takes from some to supply their growth. But those in reduced capability don't grow, so this group has to keep finding other scapegoats in order to keep growing.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I believe that reduced capability isn't a good thing to put anybody in. If the forces don't need separating, then there's no reason for this reduced capability. These reduced capability situations need to be dealt with, otherwise there'll be trouble. Fortunately, God delivers these people and us from this reduced capability.

›The boss's mind is separated from the worker's body. They aren't well connected together. Thus the bossing system is like a chicken running round with its head cut off, as the head (which tells what to do) is pretty separate from the body that does the work. This fragmentation of things unto reduced capability may have application, as we'll see later. But if the bossing system causes us to be fragmented; as our worker minds are fragmented from our body, since our bodies can't do what our minds want, but instead must do what the boss's mind wants: then shouldn't this bossing job system also fragment itself? This bossing system fragments us: it should also fragment itself, as what goes round comes round. What the system sees fit to do to us, it should also see fit to do unto itself. What a system sows it should also reap. And if that be fragmentation, then so be it. The bossing system itself should fragment and not get its way all the time.›

A person came to me and asked: am I evil because I discipline my child and tell him what to do? And I would respond by saying that destruction and all destructiveness is evil, but that people are not evil. People may contain evil in them -we all do. We can't help it. The question I would ask, is not 'are you evil?', but 'are you perfect?' Nobody's perfect, and we're all forced to have some evil in us just because we're human and alive on this earth.

We're all doing the best we can with what we've got. At reduced capability, we may be forced to take some shortcuts and include some evil. Single mothers especially are forced to make do with less; so that if we want to make things better, we should help them out and give them more resources so they won't be trying to accomplish monumental feats at reduced capability, but instead, at higher capability.

Each person has a body and a mind. When one person tells another what to do, they are trying to coordinate the actions of a group (a grouping involving more than one person). But the person(s) being told what to do has much more of a mind than is required to receive and carry out orders. Thus a large chunk of the person's mind is left out of this group making process. The boss's mind and the worker's bodies are coordinated and brought together for group action. Why stop half way? Why not also try to also incorporate the rest of the worker's minds, with this grouping action? When people come together for group action, they can accomplish more than as individuals; and this is a positive thing. Why try to misrepresent the reality that coming together in a group is a positive thing, by using a grouping process that makes coming together in a group, costly and sacrificial, where the worker looses and strands a large chunk of their mind; -if we don't have to? And if we must; then lets use the power of the group to alleviate such a thing. Let us raise our children to view coming together in a group for group action and group cooperation, as a positive thing: by allowing the positives of joining together in a group, to shine through.

I've shown before that inanimate material wealth without life to enjoy it or make it worthwhile; makes a very poor showing. Only materials PLUS life give a winning combination. As we remove the materials from the majority of people; this detracts from their life. As we give those materials to a few rich folks; there isn't enough life there (not enough people either) to make good use of all the lifeless wealth.

If we allow a system that keeps giving the material wealth of this world to fewer and fewer, richer and richer people; then this makes quite a poor showing, as those few rich people have too much material to enjoy it all or make much good use of it. And all the rest of life is left barren and poor to accomplish this accumulation of almost lifeless wealth left to carry on almost by itself without much life there to make it worthwhile.

The servant/master system of transaction also contains this foolish arrangement of the resources and life in each transaction.

If you had a choice as to how to distribute the wealth, how would you do it? A) By placing most of the lifeless wealth in one pile, and most of the living human beings in another pile, and keep them separate? or B) By placing the wealth and living humans together?

Let me tell you that neither lifeless wealth and equipment, nor humans without equipment, produce well. But when you put them together, production jumps markedly. So why do we want to be in reduced capability and stagnation, with our present system of wealth distribution?

Everything is interrelated. To make a complete whole and keep us out of reduced capability; we need both living components, and equipment and wealth. Also; we need to be doing work good things; but not to the exclusion of other good things.



What can one person do? What can one person do when there are labs and scientists and a whole system that could do so much more? Unfortunately, the system of ours is flawed in one aspect. The flaw I speak of is in our free enterprise system of supply and demand. Supply and demand serves us well in distributing resources to where they are needed, to produce products that are in demand. The flip side to this is that nothing can be super abundant relative to other things in this system. If something is too abundant, supply will exceed demand, and its price will go down. Resources used to produce this product will be directed elsewhere, where they can make more money.

This system encourages a negative motivation of creating shortages where abundance existed before: If a commodity is abundant and bountiful, there is no way to make a profit on it (too much supply means prices go down). But if that resource can be destroyed through pollution or some other bad management, then it can be reduced to a limited supply, whereby it can be (monopolized and) sold for a profit. (Supply being reduced means prices, and profits, go up.) This is what I mean by 'the negative motivator of creating markets where none existed before'. There is the motivation to take things that were once abundant, and partially destroy them so the supply is more limited, and money can then be made on them. Our system will never achieve abundance because there will always be the temptation to destroy some of that abundance to make money.

Since our system doesn't work when things become too abundant and plentiful; this is why we have so many useless management positions and bureaucracies (where people make life difficult for each other). If we all worked on production lines, we'd produce too much and blow out our system with too many plentiful supplies.

Our economic system takes abundance and cuts it down to a more limited supply (for a better profit). So instead of being at high capability, our system brings us to mediocre capability. Thus our economic system works to keep us and our world at reduced capability, in the trap of evil. This sucks!

Another negative motivator that our supply and demand system creates, is it encourages unnecessary complexity over simplicity.

In the engineering of the products we use; these products are made overly complex. The purpose of this complexity is to prevent all but the big company from easily manufacturing them. If a product were too simply made, then small companies producing the product could spring up all over the place. This would mean a lot of unwanted competition, and also an over supply of the product. An oversupply of the product (due to its simplicity and ease of production) would drive the price down so that little money could be made from the product. There is no motivation for industry to make simple products that do the job just as well as the complex products. An example of the preference of complexity over simplicity is: The water-sugar-salt oral rehydration therapy that is a remedy discovered against infant diarrhea. This remedy is simple, inexpensive, and effective; and has saved many lives in developing countries where infant diarrhea is often life threatening. This remedy was overlooked by the medical community and was only recently discovered. There just isn't any money in such a simple remedy.

An automobile that is deliberately designed to be difficult to repair (so that the average owner (or even mechanic) cannot repair it); means that they must take it to a repair shop with specialized tools and expertise. This costs a lot of money. Thus the expensive option of buying a new car is made more favorable, because the alternative of repair is also made prohibitively expensive.

There's no motivation for industry to make products more simply. In fact there's a motivation for them to make products unnecessarily complex. Such a system that encourages this manufacture of complex devices whose manufacture is out of the grasp of the individual or small group; creates a technological advantage whereby a small number of government leaders can rule over the masses with a technological iron hand. This favors dictatorship over democracy. If industry isn't going to make uncomplicated products, then who will? The average citizen spends their time producing in industry. Do not expect the individual, after a long days work, to develop a simple technology. But let us be aware that there is a simpler technology to be developed that has so far been untapped. This is what one person can do.

If we were able to place the manufacture of our essentials into the hands of the individual, by designing small machines instead of the large centralized production we have today, this would result in greater economic freedom. Many smaller machines vs one big one may not be as efficient, but the freedom it would create so that the individual wouldn't be so much at the mercy of the boss and the system, would be worth it. This would give the greater bargaining power to the individual, as the individual could then afford to turn down those menial low paying service sector jobs, because they produced their living needs from their small machines.


Sunshine, water and sometimes fish are commodities that can be plentiful without human help. When they are abundant, no money can be made from them because supply so greatly exceeds demand. Yet we all benefit greatly from them (and for free too). But if someone ere to come in and destroy or pollute these resources so there was a more limited supply, then money could be made selling the remaining supply./ We will never make things abundant in our economic system, because the temptation is always to make things less abundant so as to get rich.

Supply and Demand supposedly helps us distribute resources where they're needed. When there's a shortage of something, people will pay more for it, and the price goes up. Those who produce the product make more money doing so. Others see the opportunity to make good money and join in the production. More product is produced, and the shortage is alleviated. This is how supply and demand is proposed to work for our benefit. But it doesn't always.

There's a fault in supply and demand: If people don't have enough money in their pockets for the (prices of) the products out there, then supply and demand won't work (to alleviate shortages). The core idea was that people can make more money when there is a shortage of a product everybody's got to have. But higher prices for a product don't necessarily mean more money will be made. If there's a lack of money in people's pockets, they'll just be forced to buy less. It's not that starving people don't want to buy food; it's just that if they have no money, a demand for food won't show up in economic terms.

Let's say businesses raise their prices way above wages. Money will flow in because of the high prices, but won't flow back out (into the spendable economy), because only low wages are paid. With a large money inflow but no corresponding outflow; money accumulates in these businesses and makes a few quite rich. But once most of the money is taken from the spendable economy (by this process), high prices no longer take in more money because there's no more money left to take in; and people are just forced to buy less.

If people buy less, that will neutralize the effect of higher prices; and no more money will be made selling that product. If there's no more money to be made, then there's no room for additional people to come in and start producing that product. With no additional people making the product, the shortage, or economic slowdown, remains.

It's when businesses pay low wages to their workers but charge high prices for what worker's produce so that the workers overall can't buy much of what they produce. This practice in itself sets up the situation where people don't have enough money in their pockets for the prices of the available products. (if businesses pay low wages then they should charge low prices so people can buy what they produce.) But when businesses overall charge much more for their product than they pay their workers, then overall there will be a lot left unsold after the workers buy what they can. The rich don't buy that much -they invest instead. So there's a lot left unsold. With all this 'oversupply', businesses cut production instead of lowering prices (in attempt to make more profit). Now, workers overall receive less money due to layoffs and plant closings. They buy even less product. Still more product is thus left unsold. Production is cut again, meaning more layoffs and plant closings. This keeps on until the company shrinks to almost nothing. This is not a viable system.

Note: in the situation where there are always left-over-products and cutting back-on-production and plant closings; there are never quite enough jobs to go around; which perpetuates the condition of low wages and frantic competition for limited jobs.

(These businesses have 'made it' for a few men, making them very rich, but the businesses no longer supply the economic activity needed for the rest of us to survive.)

The previous is the reasoning Carl Marx used to criticize and reject capitalism and predict its self destruction and imminent collapse. Marx's alternative system -(violent overthrow of the govt, and dictatorship of the proletariat), didn't work so well either. But Marx's prediction of the imminent collapse of capitalism has not come true (except for the 30's), and will not come true, due to the factor of competition.

What is a viable system, but not a desirable system out of this, is the spirit of competition. Since labor costs are low, a business could afford to sell their product at low price. Thus some businesses do this, and undercut the high priced businesses trying to get rich. Since the products are sold at low prices, people can afford them with their low wages; and economic activity thus increases (enough to provide survival for the masses). And these low prices make our products competitive against foreign imports. So with competition, capitalism can go on indefinitely; and it is a viable system (just as good together with evil is viable).

But if monopoly is allowed to come in (from a period of high interest rates which eliminated the variability-of-the business cycle), the system becomes non viable as prices go way above wages. The process of removing money from the spendable economy (from the average man), via high prices and low wages; creates a few rich men and concentrates the wealth. Once there is little money left in the spendable economy, workers no longer have enough money and they just buy less and do without; and continued high prices will no longer make producers of products rich. And there's no more money left to be made producing products, and shortages/slowdowns become the norm.

The reason I say competition under pure capitalism is undesirable, is because competition is severely hampered and doesn't function well in this system. It is under the control of the rich and is only used to prevent total collapse. When competition comes in with low prices, in response to shrinking economic activity under high prices; there's a lot of money out there in the hands of the rich. The rich (who want to keep their position of dominance), use their money to easily thwart low-price-competition, so that it's no real threat to them. -In the means-of-production of producing an item, there are many things that must come together to produce the item. And labor costs aren't the only costs. All the rich have to do is pick one thing (except labor) that is at a focal point of a production; and buy it out and shut down its supply. Doing so, they can sabotage low price production of the item. The rich can manipulate things to be in short supply or plentiful; and all they need do is buy out a few central means-of-production to put a monkey wrench in low price competition, by charging outrageously high prices for these key focal, central items. (They would never buy out labor and put labor in short supply because that would mean higher wages.) With competition under control, the rich can maintain their position of power, with controlled competition providing the vehicle keeping the system running indefinitely. Total economic collapse is avoided, and the majority of us exist with our knees bowed to the rich to be their servants ad infinitum. This system is a bad system because nearly everybody lives meager reduced capability lives (in the trap of evil) with low wages and fierce competition, brown nosing, etc, for limited jobs. Freedom is gone. People are only allowed enough products to barely get by, even when a product is easily produced and is abundant.

(Note that many service sector jobs don't have many key-focal-items in their production, and mainly depend on manpower or labor alone. Low price competition will win out here, and all involved in these businesses1 will be subservient to the businesses2 having key-focal-items, to the extent they1 depend on what the businesses with key focal items produce.)

A better alternative, (if people don't have enough money in their pockets, because of the high prices/low wages of business); is to give money to the average person. Government can print up money and distribute it to them; or tax the rich and give it to them. This will put money in people's pockets even if businesses charge high prices and pay low wages. Inflation will surely result (that is with the print up money action). This will devalue the rich's money so they won't so easily control competition. (This won't help our trade deficit as foreign goods look cheap though, but this can be handled with a creative trade policy. What is more important? -Your freedom and everyone enjoying a higher standard of living; or some numbers game about economic measurements?)

Government is one of the few ways money can be returned from the rich back to the common man, so that the rich do not suck all the money out of the spendable economy and leave it completely dry; or so that competition is more of a force in our system. (The idea of the rich returning money back into the spendable economy through investment: is invalid.) Instead, our government collects taxes from the common man with tax breaks for the rich, and gives this money to the rich through interest on the national debt; which just speeds the process of sucking the spendable economy dry. (High interest rates also remove money to the rich.)

Instead of receiving govt. money, welfare 'bums' must now work for their living. Now they produce products, which contributes even more to the oversupply of unsold products, speeding layoffs and plant closings. Worst of all, we loose their govt. income which they would have surely spent into the spendable economy. Without this source of income, the spendable economy is drained faster. (Now their income must come out of the spendable economy instead of from the govt. which can tax the rich.) And when the spendable economy is dry, people have no money and can't buy; and economic activity grinds to a halt in recession and depression. And the rich's money is so powerful, that low price competition does not become much of a factor to restart the economy or produce enough economic activity to get us out of reduced capability living. You people have cut off those on welfare so the rich can have their position of power.

I want to step out for a second and note that our economy is (was) doing real well. That's because Clinton taxed the rich. But when he cut the welfare, that's going to reverse the process, as it essentially is a tax on the poor. But it won't take effect until after he's out of office.

I want to step out again, and say that all of this economics discussion is superseded by the retirement of the baby boomers and the aging of America. As Americans get older and retire, there will be a shortage of workers to do the work needed to supply the economic demands of these non working retirees. Every able bodied person will be needed to work. And there'll be no problem finding a job. (Thus doing away with welfare was needed since America can no longer afford to let people sit idle.) But after the baby-boomers die, these recession factors I speak of will return, and with no safety net in place. But for now, the presence of all these retirees consuming goods and services, but not working; makes the workers who do work, a valuable commodity, and able to make demands and not be pushed around by employers. Those in power, in business, may be unwilling to put up with that. They may want our govt. to provoke the Arabs into bringing biological weapons to the US to weed out the older folk. Starting a war and sending people to be killed won't work for the population reduction desired here, as that kills off only the young, as the old aren't drafted into war.

Back to the discussion: Welfare is needed to put money into the common man's pockets so as to cause some economic activity. But since our wicked leaders insist on borrowing from the rich (and paying respect to the rich) to finance this welfare/medical care/nursing home care; the situation continues to worsen as interest payments balloon and drain the economy at an ever faster rate. No, we either have to tax the rich, or print money and spend it (thus eroding the buying power of the rich), to finance our govt. That big Reagan defense buildup and tax cuts to the rich that gave us a huge national debt weren't caused by welfare bums sapping our economy. And the money paid for that defense buildup (that has to have interest paid to the rich); went to the rich defense contractors. (And the money for expensive medical care goes mainly to rich hospital and nursing home and insurance company owners.) But the recession it may create and the following increased dependence on welfare, will continue the downward cycle if the leaders continue to borrow from the rich. So don't blame it on those on welfare. I won't hear it. (Do you really think our country is so weak it is unable to feed, cloth, house the poor; and that these folks are putting a real burden on our economy? Remember that most of us don't work on a farm or building houses or in clothing factories or power plants (to produce our essentials that is); and that our farmers grow such a surplus the govt. has to pay them to stop growing. Even though we work at a job, only a small percentage have to work to supply the essentials for all the rest of us. The work the rest of us do is above and beyond; it's cream. We already deny the welfare folks the cream. Must we also deny them essentials? Do you really think making the welfare folks work will solve this country's problems? Do you really think we'll depend on what they'll produce to save us from starvation or economic collapse? (Well we need someone to do the dirty work.) Won't they compete for already scarce jobs? Do you think it's OK to force welfare people to work (at low paying hard menial tasks)? If so, what's the difference between you and a stick up man who threatens your life if you don't do what he says? A young boy may entertain himself by torturing a frog or cat; but does this really do him any good?) No, vote out those rich country club politicians. Otherwise you can fight with me over the last scrap of meat in the bowl, where neither one cares anymore what the other thinks: -just what happens to that last piece of meat.

High interest rates (paid on the money the rich invest) are a means by which the rich do 'tax' the rest of us, and take away what we produce, for themselves.

When high interest rates are in place, obviously, the rich get more (than at low interest rates), as the businessmen pay the rich INTEREST for borrowing their money. (If you have a credit card, then you also as a small businessman or laborer, are supporting the rich.) But there's more than just this initial payment to the rich; that effects even those who have no debt at all.

Note that when you borrow money, you have to pay more back than you borrowed in the end (that's the interest).

When they borrowed the money, they spent it into the buy/sell economy. But now they not only must return the money they borrowed, but also the additional money (the interest). This money has nowhere else to come from but the buy/sell economy. (What other way does the honest businessman have to acquire money but to sell their wares?) More money must come out of the buy/sell economy than was put in by the borrower (to pay the interest). But where will this extra money come from? The rich do not spend but save and invest most of their money. There's not enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to pay back what they borrowed with interest, when all the money in the buy/sell economy was put there by people borrowing from the rich and spending it into the economy. (The rich don't spend much of their money but instead save and invest it so others can spend it for a price.)

Investment by the rich, at first, puts money into the buy/sell economy: But in the long run, this investment not only recalls (to the rich) all the money it put in, but also much additional money (the interest). So that over the long run, investment actually sucks money out of the economy to the rich, who don't spend it but just keep investing it (both of which that is 'don't spend', and also 'investing' both of which, keep the rich's money from the buy/sell economy). Now then. Now, if one were to kill a rich family, then their money would revert to the government, who love to spend money. But this is a sad and evil way to run an economy. (Just ask A. Hitler.) -There's got to be a better way to make an economy run. May I suggest that taxing the rich instead of killing them, is so much more humane.

These high interest rates remove money from the buy/sell economy. With less money available (in the buy/sell economy), the businessmen are forced to sell their goods for less, because there's less money available. (This puts a stop to inflation where businessmen and labor keep raising their prices.)

So when people and businesses have a lot of debt, and interest rates are high; there won't be enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to pay back their debt plus interest. This results in businesses cutting back and going bankrupt; in other words, recession and even depression. In this atmosphere (of not enough money available in the economy); it is the rich who get the profits from the businessman's hard work. The rich own the material wealth of this world via the situation where they have nearly all the money and a lot of money, and the price of everything is low. -When they spend a small fraction of their money, they just get it back from the high interest on the larger fraction that they invest. The rich can come to own everything through spending a small fraction of their income, while investing the larger fraction of their money in investments. -The interest paid to them more than replaces what they spend, and removes money from the buy/sell economy thus keeping prices low. By owning everything, as in a depression, they deny others access to things, even things they need to live, thus making the lives of others miserable. In a depression, people are forced to accept the high interest rates, because they're in desperate need and must borrow to live. High interest rates are thus in place for good.

(Just as the smaller businessman (the laborer) has their production taken from them by their bosses; the larger businessmen have that production taken from them by the rich. And ownership trickles up to the rich.) In a world where only a few can make it rich (because there isn't enough money in the buy/sell economy for everyone to even get by); the process of the rest of us competing for that limited reward, makes life hell for the rest of us. Large businessmen exploit workers to get ahead of other businesses. Workers backstab each other to get ahead: all seeking to be the few ones who are rich. Wouldn't it be better if we all shared in the wealth? Then tiny Tim could get that operation he needs. Which system would you choose if you had a choice?

The 'present' system is run by the rich who use high interest rates (well, high interest rates were in the past), to take most everything away from the rest of us. The government sets the interest rates through its monetary policy and its central banks. We don't even elect those federal reserve board officers who have so much power over our economy. (I understand now that the president appoints them; I'm not sure whether the senate gets an approval vote.)

In today's politics, you have to be very rich to get elected to government high office. So, the government is run by the rich. Do you really expect them to do right by the poor or the common man?

If I were a Democrat running for political office: I wouldn't have much to do with raising taxes (except on the rich. I would raise taxes there.). Instead, I would concentrate on monetary policy with low interest rates, combined with a less open foreign trade policy and COLA's for those on fixed income. As for those large deficits and the national debt: the government can just print money and borrow from itself. -No need to pay out interest on the national debt to the rich. Inflation would surely result. But it wouldn't be harmful except to the rich), and it wouldn't take away jobs. An even better way than just printing money, would be a two money system. Here every individual would be allowed to convert annually say, 50 thousand green dollars into 'red' dollars. Government would collect taxes in both red and green dollars, but would only be allowed to spend in green dollars. Government spending would devalue the green dollar, but would leave the red dollar (the currency of the common individual) unaffected. Thus congress wouldn't have to borrow from the rich to limit its spending, and would have unlimited budget, but would have to put up with its own inflation/devaluation from overspending, without it bothering the common individual. We'd all become more 'rich' instead of just a few. We'd all have a higher standard of living. And I really don't think you can feel right about enjoying a higher standard of living unless everyone else is sharing in it too. So vote these rich guys out.

Oh, don't feel sorry for the rich loosing out to inflation. All they have to do is invest in the stock market or own their own business to hedge against inflation, when interest rates are low.

For the sake of argument: try out a system that doesn't allow private sector jobs. This system would allow private property and free enterprise buying and selling. But if laborers could not be owned (9 to 5), then it would be almost impossible for any rich-tycoon-wanna-be to own hundreds of times greater wealth than their neighbor, -(without being able to usurp for themselves, what the power of the group working together, produces). People would be forced to cooperate more with one another, instead of overpowering one another. Be realistic: It's believable that one person may work harder than another; but not 10 times harder. Why then are some paid (or receive from investments) 10 times the wage of others: and the people who work hardest get paid the least (making it bad in all ways).

This plan however, would cause resentment from government meddling. The power of the group would be threatened because businesses would refuse to exist under such a deal where they don't have the upper hand. (Business itself would go on strike.)

A better way to do this, would be by the already proposed free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is proposed to work via the spirit of competition. If you don't like the deal one company gives you, then you can go to their competitor. But the competition in our present system doesn't seem to be working in the job world. Employers don't compete for limited workers. Workers compete for limited jobs. (Well, this was in the past before the boomers begin to retire.)

Only a small fraction of our total work force is needed to provide everyone's essentials. We (as a society) have succeeded so well at producing our essentials that we workers are no longer needed so much. But even though we produce our essentials so easily and food sits abundantly in warehouses; most of us as workers are denied our essentials by our system unless we work our butts off, under these artificial conditions. Because our essentials are threatened, because of the unequal bargaining position our system sets most of us up at. Then some are just used as examples to scare the rest of us into submission so we'll do the bidding of the boss without question.

If government encourages the creation of many businesses, then there will be enough competition. Running a business takes the skills of many people. What a better place to find such talent than at our colleges. Instead of all those graduates trying to find those nonexistent high paying jobs in industry (that are being eliminated by down sizing and replaced with low paying service jobs); they could form groups together and become their own business right in college, and with government sponsorship to get them started, many new businesses could be created with the help of government; if government were to provide this option and alternative to getting a job in established business. This would provide enough competition to keep prices low, thus returning control to the common man and away from the few rich.

If you think of starting your own business; why do it alone? At a job in somebody else's business, you don't work alone. So in your own business, also get together in groups and share the ownership and the work. Note: in your own business, you only have to make enough to pay you and your fellow workers: compared to working for a company, where a worker must make enough to pay themself, the supervisor, management, and the owner or stockholders. This makes one's own business very competitive.//

You may have heard that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Well, I agree. When we're forced to obtain a certain quota of food on a regular basis else we die; we're certainly not free; but are enslaved to that essential. Our condition is that of bondage, not freedom!

With our Nonessentials, we can go without them and grow into them at our leisure without dying from not having them. But we're forced to produce a certain quota (a baseline) of food, shelter, heat/cooling; otherwise we die. Unscrupulous people can then use this fact to create a system whereby we are denied access to these essentials unless we become their slave and do what they say. They thus have control over us.

Gravity forces us to stick to this earth. So that we have to have a place to stay on the earth. We have a system that denies people to be on the earth in places that don't belong to them (such as other people's property). Because of this, we must be a slave and work to make enough money to pay for the privilege of having a place to stick on this earth (housing costs).

Now, If we live in a society that hasn't solved the problem of making essentials; then here, everyone should work if they want to eat. (And if we pollute most of the water, we can charge to drink what's left.) But if we live in a society that can easily produce their essentials, then to deny people essentials when the society has plenty, is just a means of control to control them and be their master. In our society, we have the technology to produce our essentials well. The amount of work for a person to produce their essentials in our technologically advanced society would only be a few hours a day. So the requirement to work in exchange for welfare (a person's essentials) should only be a few hours a day. More than this, is exploitation.

This is why I make a distinction between essentials vs non essentials. It would be nice for individuals to have the choice to be able to work to produce only their essentials, or if they wanted more, to work a little harder for some non essential recreational things. But although a person may work two jobs just to have their essentials with no frills; their work is used to produce not only essentials, but a lot of non-essential/recreational things -not for them, but for a bunch of other, rich folks. It would be nice if a person didn't have to do all the extra work to supply the rich folk's recreation, but instead, had a choice to do the extra work in exchange for a cut of the extra stuff (above a person's essentials).

How can a society seriously condemn thugs and robbers which use coercion and threats to life to get their way, while the societal system, practices it wholesale? -(If you deny someone their essentials unless they do what you say (the dirty work); you are threatening their life you know: because without their essentials, people die. Duh!) A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. (Oh sure, a government may impose its laws upon its people, but if they have no basis in truth, and the population sees this, then the laws will not have the support of the people -an important foundation for maintaining the laws over time.)

On an unrelated note, let me point out that communism is a sham. Lenin promised that the land and wealth would be taken from the wealthy landowners and be given to the common worker. Well, Lenin took the land and wealth away from the few wealthy landowners all right, but he never gave that land and wealth to the common worker; but instead kept it for his few crony communist leaders. All he did was replace one set of royalty with another. I mean, what difference did it make to have a wealthy landowner hire workers at a pittance to work on the land where the workers did according to what the landowner wanted; or to have communist leadership dictate how the land was to be worked? In neither case did the common worker 'own' or have any say over the land and how things were done with it. Lenin didn't make good on his promise to distribute the wealth to the common worker, but instead just replaced one boss with another. Communism hasn't made good on its appeal to redistribute wealth.

›On another unrelated note, let me explore some concepts. Slavery of old, is the ownership of people. Then there is the concept of owning part of people (as from 9-5), or certain aspects of people. In communism, property can be owned, but one is not allowed to buy and sell in it, at least not in a free market. Our concept of marriage is a combination of partial slavery and communism. The spouses 'own' each other in this aspect (He's my man and nobody but I can have him. She's my woman, and you better not look at her.) And the ownership of this aspect is not allowed to be bought or sold.›

So much of what goes on seems like a gimmick -detached from the reality of what needs to be done. From the pyramid schemes to get rich quick, and Amway, and chain letters (including this one), to all the fluffy management positions and benefits of ownership and lending money and the stock and commodities markets; and then there's all the religious cults absorbing member's life savings; and payments for religious activities. While on the other hand there is the reality of life whereby a few of us (who are left out of the easy positions) have to do the actual hard work of producing and providing all the goods and services we consume. Now if we all bore the burden evenly, it wouldn't be so bad. So you're one of the people that does the hard work who thinks they are one of the few connected to reality, that without you, all the rest would collapse. Actually, the hard work that you're forced to do, is not reality. it's a result of everybody else shirking. The demand they make that you work so hard, is unrealistic. It's not the way it should be, or needs to be to get us by. No one should be coerced to work so hard. What I say, is, let it collapse. And then we'll all have to share the burden evenly (plus the savings from eliminating the busywork needed to maintain each person's gimmick, will be enormous). Of course with nobody doing the work, the system will collapse. But that's what we want. -Then all will be forced to do a little real work -SO THAT NOBODY WILL BE FORCED TO WORK HARD.

Note that: who decides how hard you are to work? It is what the system, and businessmen (or the government), decide. And that's not necessarily based on reality or what needs to be done to live sensibly. Economic systems, businessmen, and communist governments, often 'get it wrong' and screw up. These economic systems should be "collapsed" more often. The Federal reserve chairman; the leaders of the international monetary fund; and all the big CEO's and major stockholders are not directly or with some, even remotely elected by the people. Their systems should be collapsed more often.

So, please help colapse this unrealistic economic system based on shoving the hard work onto a few; in favor or one where the hard work is shared evenly: -in a more peaceful, less violent way. You may see less service but: The alternative is violence. -As the hard work gets shoved onto fewer and fewer; the conditions become worse, thus motivating the few left, to get away: and if not allowed to get away -to fight back. With the welfare gimmick gone, we now continue where we left off with the riots of the 60s.

It would be nice if jobs were opened up so one had a 'share/trade' option -of working a short time producing a product they wanted, where they received a fraction of the product they produced: and could then quit when they had enough. This way, the poor wouldn't be cut out of our economic system, as to deciding what is produced.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application