Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00118)

Here is the third part of my book. Thanks.

 

Next, what about the concept of what a man sows, that shall he also reap? And the sound advice that follows from this: that is whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do ye even so unto them. It is the idea that whatever you do either helping or harming, will eventually come back upon you and be done to you. Is this true? Well, you are the source of whatever you do, and what you produce; and you can't get away from yourself easily; so that whatever you produce and do will always be nearby. So that sometimes a person receives what they produce. But sometimes it seems this is not the case. Sometimes it seems rich and powerful people can live off the sweat of others and even get away with murder without it coming back on them in their lifetime. If you think about it, this concept does not have to be true. If a force of destruction has a continued supply of material to destroy (produced by an adjacent force of good), it can keep on destroying indefinitely without being destroyed itself. So a force of destruction can do destruction to others AND as long as there's a continued supply of fresh 'others' (provided by a force of growth), then no destruction need come back on this force of destruction. But since the force of destruction destroys what can support it; destroys the key to crossing barriers, and boxes itself in; the force of destruction is thus not all powerful. Because of this, it is possible for a few to escape it. Even though an evil group may be more powerful than the individual, it is still possible for the occasional individual to escape it over time. And if a few escape and create an alternative group that is free of the force of destruction; and that becomes very powerful, (due to their freedom from destruction); then this powerful alternative group can come back and rescue the rest of us who don't want to be trapped as part of the evil group. So, with the force of growth that previously provided the people and materials for the evil group to destroy, now separate and escaped from the evil group; the evil group no longer has a continued supply of people and materials to destroy. It now becomes in the position of the force of evil alone. And this is non viable because the force of destruction is not self sufficient. Whereas the force of good alone, is, and is very much so. Now then, with the force of destruction without its continued supply of people and materials to destroy, it can no longer destroy without destroying itself. Even if it does destroy part or all of itself, it still comes to an end and this coming to an end, itself, is a destruction of the active workings of the force of destruction. So that the force of destruction here and all who ally with this force of destruction, feel the result of what it produces. So, when forces of good are able to escape any forces of evil when hold them captive, mainly through the help of a higher force of good of High Capability, then forces of destruction do reap what they sow, and do experience what they produce, because with no patsy to take their abuse, there is nobody else but the producers of abuse to take any abuse. However, when forces of good trapped by forces of destruction are unable to escape; then here, forces of destruction do not experience what they produce because they do have patsies to take what they produce. Without help from a fogoHC, escape by individual forces of good from evil groups, is a rare event. But that doesn't matter, as all it takes is one to succeed out of all who try, for there to be created a good alternative way, a fogoHC, who will grow in power and life, and who will be able to set free al who desire to be set free of evil. We have been through this discussion before at the beginning of this book where we see how escape eventually prevails absolutely. So, the writing that what a man sows he shall also reap, is just information to man that God or a fogoHC is or will be a factor in this equation. and that He hasn't forgotten us. and that we will be wasting our efforts if we think we can get away with being hurtful and harmful even though at the moment it looks like we can get away with it. An instruction is thus needed to tell us that we won't get away with being hurtful; and so one is given.

Note that every person has an area of them that we cannot see, feel, or be benefitted from helping it, (that they have yet to grow into). It is this void-space that our high capability seeks out to increase it without receiving benefit or pleasure in return, so as to keep actively alive, our force of good. -(our active force of good being threatened by our being at high capability thus less room for improvement in us). We always have this helping all people's low level (including our own), and this is our link and oneness with all people.

Note: when part of you is experiencing (much) pleasure, the low level (non beneficial, non pleasurable) part of yourself will be more difficult to find and more difficult to see than the low level areas of everyone else. But with the high capability your pleasure brings, you will be able to find it. Just remember to use your pleasure and high capability to do that and to seek it out, (of all people).

John 17, 20-21: Neither pray I for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.

"That they all may be one". We are progressing to be all together in one. This is cozy. What's wrong with the coziness and companionship of us all together in one? And how does the Lord's prayer end? "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

Another thing that brings people together, is the bonds of Holy matrimony. It is said God joins them together in one flesh. But only two individuals are joined together concerning monogamous marriage. Limitations are placed on human sexuality. Sexual desire is the result of many generations living with death; and thus it contains imperfection and destruction. Even though human sexuality joins individuals together (among other things); it cannot be used to join large numbers of people together without removing its inherent defects. Through the need to replace what death took away, evolution has wrapped pleasure upon pleasure around the act of reproduction. Pleasure which normally would go evenly to all other (interrelated) things, is removed from them and concentrated to this act. Evolution has selected for this.

There's a potential problem with concentrating pleasure on any one thing. -Actually, there are several problems (such as the unbalanced growth and unmatched supplies and needs of interrelated things). When pleasure and life are concentrated into a small place, things become more capable and of higher capability. There's a potential problem with high capability. When things get to be so capable in an area, no more improvements can be made. But the high capability and life of the situation, allows the force of good to cross barriers and find lower levels and areas where improvements can be made. Thus the force of growth need never cease. Yet, if the high capability, life, and pleasure of a pumped up area fails to reach out and find lower capability areas, increase their capability and deliver resources to them; then the force of growth WILL cease. This is the potential pitfall of high capability and feeling good in general; and of human sexuality. But pleasure accumulation from it, doesn't have to be a threat or problem. Yes, evolution has determined that we'll experience this pleasure concentration/accumulation and there isn't much we can do about that to prevent it. But it doesn't have to be a problem. This accumulation can be one part of a focus equilibrium. We can then provide the return part of the equilibrium by returning pleasure and resources from the high capability area to the other areas; if this area of focus needs to be brought to reduced capability for separation of the forces. But even if this area remains at high capability, it can use that high capability to seek out the other areas and increase their capability. Only if that high capability failed to get busy and seek out the lower levels, would the active force of good die here.

What I am content to accomplish is to allow people to experience a fuller sexuality within their own monogamous marriages. That's all that's needed. You see, I don't believe most experience that in their marriages. Human sexuality is defective. Why else would it be limited? What can be gained by limiting a truely good thing? (Where's the growth potential in that?) If you had a truely good thing, would you want to limit it and keep it from others? No. Instead we would want to spread it and share it and let everyone in on it and let it grow. The good news of God's love and the Gospel is not limited to Mary, but spreads to us all. We Christians are instructed to share what belongs to us, with those in need. So if we can fix what is wrong or defective in human sexuality where it is allowed, then we will have removed the reason for it being limited. And eventually, in time, it can become not limited the way it is today, but instead, balanced.

I'm not saying that what a couple has isn't good, or even for them, completely satisfying. What I am saying is that apparently, no couple has anything good enough to be shared with others. Hey, I didn't make the rules. Yet this goes against Christian traditions of rejoicing together and sharing each other's joys and sorrows (bear ye one another's burdens), and of being one with each other. How are we to be one with each other if we have (supposedly good) things we will not share with each other (not allowed to)? (Annanias and Saphira were struck down for keeping things from the church.) I just wish to point out the inconsistency of it. (And to say, there is nothing 'complete' about this situation.)

 

 

Coming to terms with my beef with religion.

(Note: you can't totally blame me for bringing up the subject of sex, because religion has already done that. To some extent, I am just responding to the religious structure already in place. You can't expect me to go along with some official dictate without having an opinion of my own, since this is an area concerning a quasi essential which has a large impact on most all of us.)

Religion, the Bible, picks out this one area (righteousness) and gives it the utmost importance -that we know who is born of God vs who is born of the devil, by who is righteous vs who is unrighteous. And the dictionary links righteousness to morality. So that we know who is born of God by whether or not they are moral. And this area of morality, is an important area. It deals with our reproductive drive. (But careful not to overshaddow the two greatest commands: Love God, and Love thy neighbor.) We as humans are born with a number of flaws or needs. We need to breath air. We need to drink water. We need to be warm. We need to eat and excrete. If we do not do these, we die. Another thing we're driven to or have hunger for, is reproduction. If some of us do not do this, our society dies. This area of our essentials is flawed and contains destruction as part of them. It is a noble goal to wish to overcome our essentials and not be slaves to them. And the quasi essential that we have the best chance of overcoming, is the reproductive drive. It may not be easy to overcome our reproductive drive, but try living without air, food, or water.

And because this drive is flawed; limiting it and putting it in reduced capability, as opposed to letting it run unhindered; is a good plan.

The Bible tells us we are saved by grace and not by works lest any man should boast. And this supports the idea that it is God who changes us inside to be new creatures who no longer sin. The Bible places utmost importance on doing righteousness (a word of obscure meaning)* as being the proof of whether we are of God or of the devil. Yet the Bible does not put up front that God will empower us to do this righteousness. The Bible says that we who have this hope, purify ourselves, even as He is pure. This seems to be a departure from God doing something in us; to us doing something in ourselves. It doesn't say that God purifies us, but that we purify ourselves. How much help, if any, does God give us in this task of purifying ourselves in this area of righteousness and morality? This is unclear. There is an indication that some help is given because the text says His commandments are not grevious, and that he who has God in him, overcomes the world. You see, for us to attempt to overcome a quasi essential like our reproductive drive, without help, WOULD be grevious. Still, for this very important area, it is unlear what help we recieve in this. There's one thing that is for sure: we are exhorted to be pure as God is pure irregardless of the help we recieve. It is easy for God to be pure because God has the power and high capability to be so. For us, in our situation and level of capabiity, it may not be so easy. It makes all the world of difference here how much help we recieve in this. And the Bible has made this an area of utmost importance: why is it not forthcomming with assurances of help from God? -That God will do this in us here? Why can't He just save us here? Some of us have already chosen to go with Christ/God and to accept His help in us. Why must we then do this additional thing? Isn't inviting God in, enough? -enough to make us 'of God' as opposed to 'of the devil'? What happened to God coming in and doing this in us? Apparently, inviting God to come into our lives in itself, is not suficient. We must additionally act to purify ourselves in this most important area of righteousness. According to the verse, our action is required. Why is our action needed? You may say it is a matter of free will. That our will and choice for this is needed. But I ask: Why: It was not our choice to be born with our drives, hungers, and biological needs. These were handed to us by our birth with no excersize of choice or free will on our part. So why would action on our part above and beyond accepting God's help and letting God into us and giving God permission to act in this area, be needed? Here in our essentials and quasi essentials is where we are trapped. When it comes time to perform the miricle and set us free of even the easiest of these (our reproductive drive); the miricle worker slips out of sight and leaves it to us to comlete the task. So why would action and choice on our part above and beyond accepting God's help and letting God into us, be needed? -unless we actually recieve little or no help from God here and are expected to perform this on our own out of our own stregnth and abilities.

Well, if our salvation (our future) is threatened, then this can be instrumental in motivating even the most stubborn of us to curb our reproductive drive, thus keeping it at reduced capability on a societal level, so that the forces will separate and the good of it be purified and this trap in essentials be overcome. So that God doesn't need to get involved here, because we can do it on our own: eventually. Things at reduced capability separate in their forces on their own; and what better way to bring someone to reduced capability than by taking away their born of God status and lowering them to being born of the devil. Because escaping traps (of essentials) at reduced capability is long and slow and only a few at a time make it; we most all will find ourselves lowered to devil status at some time. But this long slow way of escaping traps of evil isn't the only way. With the help of an almighty God, many more could be saved and set free.

If we are expected to purify ourselves in our own strength on our own, then there are problems. And this is the way it seems. Even from my own personal experience I have invited Christ in and I am open to His help in putting me above these traps of evil. Yet as of now, I still require air to breath and food to eat, and my reproductive drive remains. I have not yet been freed from these things. Yet I am asked to overcome one of these traps, that of my reproductive drive. I am either free, or trapped. If I am still trapped of something, no amount of commanding or threatening my salvation or condemning to Hell, is going to free me; since these things are not helpful, but are just more cruelty: cruelty and harm being what I am trapped of originaly in my reduced capability. What we need is targeted help, not more harm. When I ask Father God in heaven for help, I 'd be dissapointed to receive a serpent instead.

(Even so: also of my own personal experience, I feel there is something kind and loving out there, that is not cruel or harsh; and is unlike the bad reaction I have to some things I read.)

Even in my reduced capability situation I am trying to escape the traps of my essentials. Its just that in a reduced capability situation, I do not expect to succeed, but know that only a few will suceed out of all who try. Even so, I still try, for the sake of those few. Because I know that when they become powerful, they will come back for the rest of us who tried and wanted to succeed, but failed. So if I am expected to overcome the world in reduced capability of my own strength, then I would expect to fail most of the time, due to my reduced capability situation.

Let's take a look at the Way of following all those rules and commands: The Bible itself portrays an accurate picture of the result of striving at reduced capability: only a few will be saved and many will find destruction. Even if you sincerely try to follow all the rules and commands, only a few of these will be saved. Now if only a few are going to be saved, then this method seems less than effective. There certainly is room for (much) improvement. A method that is ineffective must stand alongside other methods that are equally as effective; and cannot claim to be the one infallible way. From what I see of struggling to overcome what traps us in a reduced capability situation, only a few will escape. The Bible lays down a bunch of commands and rules to follow but even here, the promised result is only a few will be saved. This method provides no improvement in the outcome. Following rules and commands is life-resource consuming. In my struggling at reduced capability; due to the difficulty of the task (in my situation), I cannot afford to waste my (scanty) life-resources. So if I am to obey a rule or command, it has to help me. Each command then will be evaluated on its merits. (The Bible evaluates me on my merits of how well I overcome my drive, and there's nothing unconditional about it: so what's the problem with my applying the same to these commands: even the command over the drive? (God's love is unconditional; this is not.))

If I have as much chance overcoming what traps me of this world whether I randomly try things vs if I follow the rules; then following the rules cannot be a one true infallible way, but instead is one of many possible ways.

The lack of production is bad with only a few being saved. I remember the story of the foolish man who hid his talent in the ground and was cast into outer darkness for his lack of production. Perhaps God will do the same with this method whereby only a few are saved; due to its lack of production.

If in my situation I find that obeying a command is harsh and contains self torture, then the command itself introduces destruction which is what I am trying to overcome by obeying the command. Either way I won't be able to say the job is done, even when I do obey the command. I HAVE made a choice. I HAVE excersized my free will. I have chosen to be against things that are destructive and to try to overcome them. If obeying a command is self torturing and contains destruction, then I will still have work to do in overcoming the destructiveness associated with the command and cannot say the situation is handled until I do. I'm sorry if my religious conviction of being against things that are destructive offends. But I will do this choice of mine (as I am able). So that if a command contains doing destructiveness, I give it no better priority than the other things containing destructiveness; and seek to overcome all destructiveness whether it be from obeying a command or from any other action.

The method of using reduced capability to purify things containing destruction, is one of the valid methods. But even here, as the forces separate and the good escapes; that good isn't returned to reduced capability, but is brought to high capability. In my reading of religion, there is a problem with being above reduced capability. The problem with reduced capability is that there is always too much of the inanimate and we're unable to pack it full of life. Yes, it has been good that religion has limited our reproductive drive which contains imperfection/destruction, as opposed to letting it run unhindered, when there was no other way. But now that there is another way to try out, don't be so sure of a singular infallible way of your tradition that you reject outright any new way. We now have ways not only for our reproductive drive, but for every other advance to high capability that allows us to be full of life without stalling the force of growth and good. Because our method eliminates the destruction, we can enjoy to high capability and fill 'it' full of life. Let's enjoy the full advantages of the force of good.

Let me be frank: I do not believe in a cruel, harsh, taskmaster God, but instead, a loving God. If God is not yet created, then the road to creating Him will be long and hard in reduced capability with few being saved. But once a loving God is created, He will come back and rescue all who want to, out of those who previously tried but failed. And once a loving God is able, He will free us from what traps us in our reduced capability, instead of rubbing our faces into what we're trapped of in our reduced capability.///

*However, in the verse just previous, are instructions for seed to remain in him; and what is more clear than that? -refers to use of the word 'righteousness' as having an obscure meaning.

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

Although I claim the Bible uses the valid method of purification by reduced capability; this method only works where we go contrary to the up-front exhortations.

A simple request really. All we ask is that your seed remain in you. Unfortunately for us trapped in this world, evolution by many generations of death and having to replace what death took away; has done things in our bodies to cause destruction upon us unless we DON'T keep our seed in us. This is our reproductive drive. What John is asking, is to go against/overcome our reproductive drive. And if He has not set us free from our reproductive drive, then that will bring destruction upon us as long as we obey. Since we do not die if we don't have sex, we are thus brought to reduced capability, and not total desolation, (by the destruction). *›(However, before, I said that the destruction from obeying brought us closer to desolation, as opposed to not obeying.)›

But reduced capability in itself has no value in separating forces if there is no good present to separate out. Note that if we go contrary to the command and have sex anyway, we are still at reduced capability as we haven't yet escaped this quasi essential; plus we will have the good of our body's reproductive drive present to separate out. Whereas when we obey, we only have reduced capability. Compare the two situations. In one we have reduced capability only. In the other we have reduced capability plus a good. (Of course, if we are able to free ourselves, then we won't have reduced capability, but then we won't need it either.) Note that when we obey, destruction within our bodies destroys in us and we are brought to reduced capability. Now, whatever other good there is in us, is then purified. But the material that our bodies destroyed in us in order to create the reduced capability, is not purified, because it is totally destroyed. Because things are interrelated and depend on each other; our purified material wouldn't be very capable (due to it missing an interrelated part), and reduced capability would spread to other areas that were originally at higher capability. Yet the main point isn't this, but is that we can switch from obeying the command to disobeying the command, so now different material is destroyed and we can now purify a material type that previously had been totally destroyed (when we were obeying the command). Thus we can overall (by switching around), purify a complete person, and not just parts of us. It is all reduced capability in either case (whether we obey or disobey) when we are caught of a quasi essential. (So we can use that reduced capability to purify all of us instead of just parts of us.) Of course, that of us which is able to be free of a quasi essential, can remain in complete and all time obedience, and because it is free of the quasi essential; that obedience won't put it in reduced capability (that is, destruction won't be able to do it any damage). So that if we're unable to avoid the destruction our bodies put us in if we obey (that is, if we're not able to be free of our reproductive drive); then we can use the guilt from religion to put us at reduced capability, and thus purify the good of it. (And if the guilt wears off, we can always use incomplete fragmentation.) (No, actually what I'm trying to explain, is that obedience gives us reduced capability(see*); and disobedience gives us the good: so when we switch around, we have some of both, which is what we need.) Once our goods are purified by being at reduced capability, then they'll become free from all destructions (and also rise to high capability) and will thus fulfill the commandments of God. But if we're not able to be free in our essentials and quasi essentials, then we must go contrary to the up front Biblical commands (at least part of the time), in order to be purified in all our parts. So do what you can to be free and not affected by all destruction. But where destruction catches you, go ahead and purify it by letting Christ help you along (By going contrary to the law part of the time, and recieving punishment from Christ for it). But do not defeat the purpose of this by expanding this and allowing what is free in you to become infected by destruction. This is where the "higher" methods I've been discussing come in. -They are techniques for being free of the destruction in the first place. -thus greatly reducing the material needing to participate in the reduced capability purification method involving intermittent breaking of religious commandments, (while not despising them). So now I've described a way by which we may purify ourselves completely, whereas if we try to obey the religious command all the time where we're trapped of the drive, we will self torture ourselves all our life. But that's not the far reaching consideration. When we obey the command all the time where we're trapped of the drive, we have acceptance by God in completeness and in high capability, and not in reduced capability, here while we are alive. But because we are also trapped of our drive here, (as God has not freed us of it while we live), we also have the force of destruction. The force of destruction has a high capability good to feed on. -You thus infect God with the destruction in your drive all the time you are alive, when you obey. And when you dissobey the command all the time, you also have a high capability good for the evil in your drive to feed on. For what purpose does someone want to keep an evil alive and fed: an evil from a drive we did not choose, but that was chosen for us to have through our birth? There is a choice to be made here. What I hope I've done, is illuminate just what we are choosing: so that we're not in the dark here. We have a choice between feeding a destruction (from our drive), and keeping it alive through our lifetime. Or we can choose to spoil all the food down to reduced capability so the evil is not fed, and is not carried with us, but separates and then dies. This is the choice I make; and it doesn't obey the commandment all the time, neither dissobeys it all the time. You may choose different, but I just want you to see what you're choosing if you choose different. And it is a choice to feed an evil and sustain it through your lifetime. And that's abhorent to me. I as life, am by nature, opposed to destruction because destruction produces voids of life, or the inanimate; which is the oppossite of life which is what I am.

Remember the saying 'it is your faith that saved you'? Well, it is your faith, or belief that God completely accepts you here, that will provide the nurturing high(er) capability food for the evil in your drive to feed on (if you choose different.)

Note: it is good 'righteousness' and 'morality' have obscure meanings, so that we can enjoy the good of our reproductive drive in parts that have escaped the destruction in the drive; while only those parts caught of the destruction are in the wrong (when also enjoying the good).

The attraction of religion was that by joining God we can purify ourselves faster than by struggling on our own. But in this case it looks like struggling on our own, frees us faster. Whatever. I go with what frees us

from destructiveness faster. Just because I am trapped at reduced capability, and am forced to do destruction some of the time (and am thus guilty of some destruction); is no reason for me to feed and sustain destruction through my lifetime. I can still be against destruction and act to free my higher parts from it, even if my lower area is guilty of it. Don't get me wrong. I Am still open to God's help in overcoming any evils in me. But I am not open to sustaining and feeding these evils through my lifetime, in the name of God or religion. It will not be me that rejects Christ, but Christ who rejects me, if any rejection is to be done (if I can help it)./// Note that the command concerning the drive, is against adultery. Christ defines adultery (in the major part) as the love breaking and putting assunder what God has joined together, by the act of divorce. And the Bible allowed multiple spouses. (King Solomon had many wives, and it wasn't spoken against.) So it is not clear to me that I'm breaking the command over the drive, when I do my method in its high parts. You may dissagree, but I still bet on my interpretation. So what I am against may be just a widely held missinterpretation of the Bible. I still must be true to my own directives to try to be free from destructiveness (which I believe the living Spirit of God has taught me in my life), whatever the case. This writing attempts to change those interpretations; and in so doing, make life fuller for all.

I guess I haven't made it quite clear: When we obey, destruction destroys material in us. The material the destruction destroyed, was completely destroyed. The loss of that interrelated material then puts the rest of our parts at reduced capability. But the destruction isn't in our other areas. Unfortunately, our other areas, which have no evil, are brought to reduced capability (due to their interrelatedness to the totally destroyed area). While the area containing the evil, is brought to total desolation. This is not our reduced capability purification method, and is unwise. No. The other areas (which don't have this destructive force), should be at high capability. While the area where the evil is destroying, needs to be at reduced capability instead of totally destroyed.

(Now, as we grow, our low levels keep creating new material of this type, and the destruction keeps destroying it.)

There is a non evil part of yourself your body totally destroys when you obey all the time. How can we condemn an innocent part of us that's done no destruction, just because it is caught by a destruction? I see no sense to allowing an innocent and non evil part of me to be totally destroyed when I can do something about it, even though it is caught and infected by a destructive force. What I believe to be sufficient so the evil in this area is not fed (so it doesn't spread), is to keep it at reduced capability (instead of total desolation). This way, some of the innocent material is saved and escapes the destruction, as well as having the destructive force be quarantined. If someone were in danger of destruction, you wouldn't just let them be completely destroyed if you could do something about it would you? I guess I'm put in the position of having to ask forgiveness for having compassion on this part of myself, -that is, allowing it to be not totally destroyed, but instead at reduced capability; even though it is caught by a destructive force. I hope I have turned on the lights so we see what's going on here.

By this standard (that is, assuming the evil in the drive does not spread to other areas: -And that's debatable: -Is reduced capability actually able to quarantine the evil, or is the total desolation (in the drive area) from always obeying, needed? In some situations it may be needed. Its debatable.) OK: By this standard then; since our faith that God totally accepts us when we always obey, is a different area than our drive: the destruction in the drive does not infect it, and the evil is not fed by it. So that Christianity, it might seem, does not sustain an evil from our drive through our lifetime (and I would gladly appologize for accusing of it -for I only seek the truth behind my feelings including those in my drive). Yet, this Way -of total desolation in the drive area (when we always obey), causes there to be reduced capability in all the other interrelated areas where there was no evil. And this reduced capability in the other areas strongly encourages necessary evils to be done in them. So that although the evil in the drive is assured to be gone; the presence of other evils in other areas, is encouraged. That's the thing about a reduced capability situation: that although this is where the forces of good which are present, escape from and become purified and go to higher capability; the force of destruction is also encouraged to be present. So that with the obeying all the time way; the other areas, including the higher capability (but now, not so high capability -due to failure (and destruction) in interrelated areas) faith-in-God area; is incouraged to be infected by destruction. But with my method of reduced capability in the drive area, the destruction in the drive is encouraged to remain there; and the other areas are encouraged to remain evil free. My method does not cause the other areas to be infected: it has what I believe to be an effective quarantine of the drive evil so it doesn't spread to other areas: and it allows for some good of the drive area to escape and be purified.

I've thrown around the terms of reduced capability and separation of the forces in reduced capability rather loosely. The idea of separation of the forces in reduced capability, was that the metal of these forces would be tested, and that the superior nature of the force of good would show itself (in the reduced capability environment) and allow the force of good to grow out and escape the evil.

But this idea is diametrically opposed to the idea of reduced capability being the trap of evil whereby reduced capability traps us and traps forces of good to supply material for the force of evil to destroy. We also have the concept that the force of evil cannot exist alone, but needs to bring along a harnessed force of good to supply it. -that it cannot exist in the total desolation that it produces. And also that the situation of total desolation although not in the force-of-evil's interest (because evil ceases to exist in it); is what evil produces. And in it situations near total desolation; the forces don't separate; (just as the forces don't separate in a high capability situation).

So which is it? Is reduced capability a trap which keeps forces of good harnessed as food for evil; or is it an environment which promotes purification and allows forces of good to obtain freedom (ie escape and separate) from forces of evil? We must go back to the detailed explanations at the beginning of this book. In the situation where there is not yet God, or that God is not helping; then reduced capability, the majority of the time; is a trap, which harnesses and keeps forces of good from escaping. But from my beginning writings we also realize that infrequently, a force of good will escape. (This is almost certain, given the reasons expounded upon in the beginning writings.) (Now, if God is helping, then reduced capability becomes more of a purification tool, and forces of good almost never fail to escape their evils.) -But getting back to the idea that God is not helping:

Note that escape from all evils by a force of good is usually a step by step process with many milestones to be achieved, in this infrequent escape by a force of good without God's help. But the direction of escape is always for a force of good to grow and become of higher and higher capability: not for that force of good to progress towards desolation and nothingness (If nothingness were the answer, then we should be following the force of destruction, because that's what it produces) (Recall Jesus' words belezebub does not cast out belezebub; and that a house divided against itself cannot stand.)

When we disobey, we feed the destructive force within our bodies, so it doesn't destroy (parts of) us. When we obey, and go up against our drive, the destructive force within our bodies then destroys in us and pulls us in the direction towards desolation. (This is the wrong direction.)

We are trapped of our essentials and quasi essentials. This puts us at reduced capability; not at high capability. And this reduced capability is a trap. It traps us. We are aware that we are trapped. And we are aware that we need help getting out. We also are motivated to try and escape and get out of our trap. Is it wrong for us to want to get out of our trap? To try and escape this trap, we do so by trying to move away from desolation and towards high capability. But obedience to religion in this area, requires that we do just the opposite and move towards desolation and away from high capability. Obedience to religion requires that we give up our escape attempt. (Why would God require that? That seems insensitive of Him. Why wouldn't He instead, work with our escape attempt? He realizes that we are trapped and want to try to get out. Why would He be against us trying to get out? How can I trust that a God who wants me to stop trying to escape; will Himself free me in the end? How would my attempting to escape prevent Him from freeing me? Isn't He powerful enough to get around this? "A house divided against itself will not stand". Aren't we supposed to be working in the same direction? ie escaping destructiveness unto high capability) Granted, my escape attempt will in all probability, fail; but I also know that someone will succeed out of all who try and that my trying is important for this purpose. -Especially since He hasn't made much of a visible splash and show of power to assure me that he will free me in the end. -Especially since He has basically left me to my own and my society's devices with the exception of a few words of command.

If God is against my trying to escape in this area, as it appears that He is; if that is his only action and response to me after seeing me in my trapped condition: -is to tell me (through His commands) that He is against me trying to escape (my destruction I am trapped of) and that if I quit trying to escape (and obey), that He will free me in the end: then I find this to be a mixed message. On one hand He wants me to quit trying to escape (the destructive force in my body) and on the other hand He promises to free me of this in my afterlife. -Especially when He won't free me now (from my reduced capability trap(s)). This tells me that God is unwilling to work with my escape attempts and is unwilling to work that into His plan. I also know that He is unwilling to free me now in my present life, from my traps of essentials. And I am supposed to trust that He will free me later? -with no other explanation for: His inaction -other than to tell me not to try to escape? Granted, my escape attempt is of little value and has only a small chance of succeeding. Yet together with all escape attempts by others; it is almost overwhelming in its chance to succeed.

To ask me to give that up is to ask me to destroy part of myself. And that part of myself is not a totally bad part and is even in the direction of the force of good. I am against the destruction of capability-and-life; because I am a life and because I value life (over the inanimate). I stand against the force of destruction (of life) by refusing to destroy my escape attempt. Normally I would not have such strong feelings about loosing such a small part of life, as I am forced to destroy small parts of life every day in necessary evils I do daily in my essentials I'm trapped in. But I take exception to this small loss of my life part because together with everyone elses' escape attempt; it (due to the specific type of life it is ie an escape attempt); it is very large even overwhelming. (unlike many of the other small losses of life I suffer). If I do not try, then I'm not a part of this Hope. How can a God who truly intends to free me, ask me to give up this hope? ie How can I hope in Jesus to free me if Jesus wants me to give up this hope for this same freedom?

It all started with Moses and the 10 commandments. Did God really give them to Moses, or is this just the collective wisdom of the Jewish society? Perhaps someone was aware of a strong noninterference directive in God, and decided to write a bunch of commands and put God's name on it, knowing God would not interfere. Let us assume that God really did give them to Moses. God has taken initiative against evils, and has acted by giving us commandments. With the commandment not to kill others, it doesn't hurt us to obey it. But if we include all living things, then we'd not be able to eat without killing some kind of life form; and our bodies would hurt us and consume us in starving to death, if we obeyed. So we spread the evil to other life forms when we eat them, in disobedience to not killing./ And with the commandment of the drive area, destruction can also be shown to be present, when we obey. Many generations of death have made their mark on us in our drive area. That mark states that we behave in a certain way, or our bodies do destruction to us. (This is our reproductive drive). This drive is not of our choosing or doing, but is from death having its way over many many of our generations. So that when we respond to it, our part is that of just trying to avoid being hurt. But even if we do respond to avoid harm; death eventually gets us in the end anyway. Even though we may respond to our drive, our part is not that of free will, but is that of being coerced. You'd think an almighty God would act to undo what death has done to us over the generations, and free us from our traps. But instead, God assumedly gives us commandments while leaving us still subject to our essentials and quasi essentials. Those commandments condemn us to Hell in the afterlife if we respond to our drive by trying to avoid its harm. Here, God assumedly responds to the evil in our world by making us accountable for it and to blame for it, when a large part of it is from death over the generations, and nothing we personally have initiated. And of course, our situation holds us accountable here on earth, as we die no matter what we do. So, with no difference in treatment by God towards we who avoid the harm of our drive; than our world's treatment of us; God need not expend any effort on our part. However, if we are to be held accountable and suffer in the afterlife, then there must be an afterlife. God must act and expend effort to resurrect us, even if only to eternally torture us. Otherwise we would be dead. And how could we feel anything in the nothingness of death where 'WE' no longer exist as an entity? But if God is powerful enough to resurrect us from the dead; why would not He use His power to free us from our traps that coerce us here while we live? -Instead of just giving us commandments -something that both man as well as God, is capable of? What would an all powerful God possibly want with having us torture ourselves while we live; have no compassion on a trapped part of us; and also bring low our other areas which did not originally contain harm; and thus encourage harm to be done in them which could have been free from harm (which we could have made free of harm ourselves)? To test us, to prove us* -But mainly to see who got lucky. -At the expense of instead of saving all who want to vs. only a few saved? There's no growth advantage in this: growth (and love) being what God is. *(But the "other areas" don't need to be "tested", as they're already evil-free.)

Note that religion depends on some sexual activity. Without some sexual activity, a society would not survive beyond its first generation, and so the religion would also cease (in this earthly situation). Religion takes what it needs from human sexuality, and then proceeds to trash out the rest. Is that a loving act? More like a ravening lioness making a kill. Religion may have good reason for limiting the sexual area; but it cannot claim to be free from destructiveness and bloodshed here in the sexual area.

But cheer up. Its not as bad as it seems. We have shown, independent of the Bible, that God IS love, (benevolent), and growth. We have shown the need for a Christ to come and die for us, independent of the Bible. We have shown the truth of what you do to others will be done to you, and the golden rule, independent of the Bible. We have shown the truth of being against things that are destructive and being for things that are helpful; which is nearly the same as love your neighbor as yourself; all independently of the Bible. Also shown thusly, is that the sexual area is defective and contains some destruction. Only in how we deal with it, is how we differ. So that even if the Bible is shown to be a fake, most of it will still be true. Let's get back to the center of our faith: Jesus Christ: He did not say the sexual area was most important: No. He said Loving God and Loving your neighbor was most important. What I'm thinking, is this small area of discrepancy with my method, could just be a widely held misinterpretation of the Bible. You see, the Bible isn't clear when it comes to the sexual area. Words like righteousness, lust, and adultery, are not well defined. What is adultery? Statement 1a) It's something adults do. What do adults do? They commit adultery. What's adultery? Go to statement 1a). How does the Bible define adultery? Well, Jesus clearly says divorce is the perperator of adultery. And I'm in agreement on that score. But adultery isn't limited to just that. Jesus also defines it in the light of looking at a woman to lust after her. The term 'lust' can have subtle differences in definition that can mean a world of difference. (Just exactly what is meant by 'lust'?) And Jesus' answer about some eunuchs being born to it, and some eunuchs making themselves eunuchs, etc, is not clear. Although the one thing that is clear about this, is that it is an area where we all make our own way and discover how to be eunuchs as individuals and not through any one standardized dictate or procedure. And just what does the word righteousness mean? -Whatever is right? 1st John hints at its meaning in the verse just previous; but even with that verse, the meaning is hidden in a double interpretation. (and there is no commandment to be righteous -only that we are of God vs. of the devil). And if we must wait till we die to be completely born again, that would explain much also. And if what the commandments require of us change with changing meanings, then the help we receive may or may not be enough. And this thing about one spouse, is an American, European, etc. tradition; not Biblical. Essentially the Bible is unclear and leaves it to us to decide what it is, in the sexual area. So that what I may be arguing against, isn't the Bible, but is what religious leaders have decided what the Bible is in this area. There is much wiggle room for interpretation here. Perhaps the Bible intends for us to decide what it is to be in this area. In that case, I'd like these religious leaders to wiggle it the other way. They're going too overboard on stamping out anything sexual. I mean give me a break: -A religion based on circumcised vs. uncircumcised: -that is whether or not a male's penis has been cut and the foreskin removed. Although we can take a lesson from this: circumcision does not cut the whole penis cap off, but only part of it, which symbolizes for the sexual area being not totally destroyed, but instead at reduced capability: which is the method I propose. OK then. Whether or not it turns out that the Bible is for or against "my" method in the sexual area (which determines whether it gives wise or foolish advice in this area (according to me)); the other major precepts of the Bible remain true: -irregardless of whether or not the Bible speaks incorrectly in the sexual area. And this suits me. Hey, being kind and loving to each other is what I want to do (as best I can). So now we can enjoy the important and major precepts of the Bible, without having to be bothered by incorrect or unwise advice or commands in the sexual area. To the incorrect and unwise advice/commands in the sexual area (which I had shown to be incorrect); whether it turns out to be Biblical or not, I say "B Bye".

According to the dictionary, adultery is sex between a married person and someone not married to that person (And fornication is sex between people who are not married.). So, I don't see the problem. If two people love each other and want to include sex in that love, then they can just get married -even if they are already married to somebody else. Well, is there anything in the Bible that prohibits marriage between men and women who are already married to others? It is the American/European (legal) tradition that allows a person only one spouse, that turns these simple, common sense, Bible rules into something quite sexually restrictive. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me who I can and can't have sex in marriage with. It's none of their business. Here's where I would like to see a little more separation of Church and State. Never mind about keeping naitivity sceens off courthouse lawns.

The Bible requiring marriage in order to have sex, is something I could actually agree to. Marriage represents a oneness with each other where you share everything. I agree that you must love someone in all ways (emotionally, financially, etc). -That you can't just decide to love someone sexually, but refuse to love them in other ways. (All areas are interrelated, and growth of one above the others results in unmatched supplies and needs.) -I think it would be mean (and deceitful) to love someone sexually, but then when it came time to eat, throw them into the street to starve while you had steak. I'm not interested in not-loving people. All types of love are good, valuable and interrelated. This lifetime commitment to love a person in all ways (as best as you can); plus the not breaking this bond of togetherness by divorce; is what the Bible stands for with its commands against adultery, etc. This in itself isn't sexually restrictive. However, Jesus' comment on lusting after a woman being adultery (of the heart), does place Biblical restriction on sex and recognizes the defective nature of human sexuality. The dictionary defines lust as intense or unbridled sexual desire. Well, it makes a difference just what lust means. Orgasm is usually an intense experience so that even a man having good sex with his wife can be guilty of adultery of the heart if lust means intense desire. But if lust means unbridled sexual desire, then this can be in line with my method. My method recognizes that unlimited sexuality is not good; and instead, puts it in reduced capability (by using sex's own destructive force -via abstaining for a time); so that the bridled sexual desire of my method wouldnt be considered as lust and therefore would not be adulterous. So far so good. The Bible then need not be an impediment to our sexual enjoyment. Neither the destructive force born into our sexuality need not be an impediment to our sexual enjoyment, now that we have our new method. As for the Government's law against polygamy; they have no business regulating my sexuality and I'll write out my own marriage certificate of the heart before God, with the people I love.

Note that if we all loved each other in all ways, that the requirement of marriage would be unnecessary. This is the way it is in heaven -we all love each other completely; and there is no need to recognize differences between people who are married vs. people who are not, as everybody is all together in one with each other. Thus Jesus says there is no "Giving in marriage" in heaven.

The Bible (maybe) doesn't necessitate the limiting of human sexuality beyond -if you love someone sexually, you are also to love them in all ways (including financially) ie the marriage requirement. It is the State and its laws which turns this marriage requirement into a limiter of sexuality by imposing monogamy. The apostle Paul does impose the concept of ownership in that each spouse belongs to the other; but there is such a thing as joint ownership concerning the concept of ownership, and thus the option of being married to more than one. We CAN all belong to each other in the oneness of and marriage to Christ.

Unfortunately, nature isn't perfect when it comes to causing humans to be sexually attracted to other humans. Unfortunately, the Bible finds no place for those not heterosexual. But these people cannot help the sexuality they were born with; and it's unreasonable to expect them to totally desolate their sexual area, when we allow ours to exist at reduced capability. Because of this, we must overrule the Bible's condemnations in this area. However, I don't recall any specific command against this, at least not in the 10 commandments. (However, I think in some of the lesser old testament law, it is.) On the other hand though; when we go to heaven, God will presumably correct any sexual defect (probably by changing the person's sex), as well as free them from being trapped by sexual desire. So that when these people go to heaven, they will no longer be the way they are on earth. (I recall whoremongers being outside God's kingdom but no mention of homosexuals being there, in the Biblical description of the afterlife.) So, those not heterosexual, can overlook the condemnations as just the Bible spelling out that which is imperfect here on earth. So once again, the Bible (in the sexual area) is on again; -or has a chance at it. O well. Best of luck. Hope it pulls through.

So, now that we're allowed to: should we go around marrying everybody and consummate those marriages? Well what I think we've been missing, is to examine sex itself. Is it right? Is it wrong? Each action we do has inherent in it, a certain degree of growth/good, and often also a certain degree of destruction. I find it hard to understand how an action can be right in one situation, but wrong in another. Take for example the act of killing. Killing is destructive no matter how you look at it. So it's wrong to just go around killing people in the course of one's day as something productive to do. But there are those who will tell you that it's right to kill criminals on death row (who are murderers themselves); and the enemy in wartime; and animals to have food to eat. Yet in all cases and whether it be deemed right or wrong: the act of killing is always destructive in each of these cases. I have made a case, and I believe an airtight case, that it is destruction vs growth that should be synonymous with what is right vs wrong. Even if something is 'right'; if it contains much destruction, it should be avoided at all cost. And if something 'wrong' is not destructive, it's OK to do it.

Sometimes a destructive thing (like killing) is unavoidable (as in wartime, or to have food to eat): yet that fact doesn't undo the destruction done. This being said; There's no point dwelling on what we can't change. Still I feel we need to recognize any destructiveness and call it what it is, even if we're unable to avoid it; and then later, if we do become able to escape the destruction, we can then do so. In some cases at reduced capability, its conceivable that a destructive act can put an end to further destructions, or allow a good to escape from a trap of destruction. Whatever. At this point I wish to get back into examining sex itself.

We are commanded to love our neighbors our enemies, and God. Love is a beautiful thing. To love others is a beautiful thing. But the act of commanding someone to love: is that a loving act? To command and threaten eternal destruction in Hell if the commands are not obeyed, can hardly be called a loving act and contains some emotional destructiveness. So what. This just falls under the category of an act in reduced capability which contains some destruction but that acts to end further destruction. (Jesus was God in reduced capability in his situation.) -The destructiveness in the act of commanding us, brings us to reduced capability. -The love that we are commanded to do, and do do; is the good that separates out of this reduced capability.

Now, if we wish to be free of destructiveness of this world, including destructiveness of commands, we can just love. Let's love.

Now, I have found value in loving where it doesn't benefit me, in the low levels, where it does not please me or repay me back. (It keeps my active force of growth alive.) To me, the concept of marriage means to love a spouse not just sexually, but in all other ways (which I am able). Well, if I love all people as best I can, in the low levels (where I'm not benefited); it is the low levels where I can express the greatest improvement: the greatest help: and the greatest love. All other levels are lesser in the amount I am able to love in them, yet I include these too -(these are more pleasurable for me). All this represents to love people in the "other areas". Since I already love all in the "other areas" (and intend to do so throughout the rest of my life), I feel I have fulfilled my end of the marriage requirement. (Now don't forget that you are a person too and to love yourself equally as all others (in other words there is no requirement to over-give to the point of exhaustion on your part)).

I mean; if I already love all for no reward, then I certainly wouldn't stop loving someone in these "other" areas, who had given me sexual pleasure. It is inconceivable to me to deny someone who was so kind as to give me sexual pleasure; my love in these "other areas".

The act of sex is essentially the same act, whether it be between married people, or unmarried people. And whatever destructiveness and whatever good there is in this act; is present in both cases. (And because sex is a quasi essential, there is some destruction in it.) So that whether married or unmarried people have sex, they will both need to deal with the destruction inherent in it. This is where my method of reduced capability in this area comes in. And we need to deal with inherent evils (destructions) in sex before we spread it all around and marry all around. (This answers the question I posed at the beginning of this section.)

And dealing with the evil in sex, does not mean infecting all the "other areas" of love with its, or other, evils (destructions) because the love of other areas is required to be done together with sexual love (i.e. the marriage requirement).

Concerning unmarried people having sex: first I will say that I will neither command nor condemn; But I will warn: if you love sexually but refuse to love in other ways; this uneven unbalanced growth will give you pain and trouble. (However, the requirement to bring the loves of other areas together with sexual love (which contains an evil), seems unwise, as the pure good of other areas may feed the evil in the sexual area.

-No. If the sexual area is brought to reduced capability, the good will be able to grow out into this surrounding nurturing environment, while the evil won't and the forces will thus separate. So do bring the loves of other areas in. But do also keep the sexual area at reduced capability. -not high capability. -not total desolation.

Also: Note that the marriage requirement, (which requires love (as you are able) in the other areas, before sexual love is allowed), is the use of a commandment to label the act of 'not loving' as an offense; and threatens destruction upon those who violate it. Yet last time I checked, the act of refusing to love, although not a loving act, is also not a destructive act. Yet the commandment commences an active attack, and by labeling it a violation; thus accuses it of containing destruction, and then threatens return destruction against it. Well, if we are to be punished for not loving concerning the sexual area; why aren't the rich punished for not helping the poor (remember, they essentially did away with welfare)? Well, if religion wants to go after the non destructive act of not loving other areas concerning our sexuality, with its own destruction; that's fine by me; because I consider it a destructive act aimed at ending further destruction. You see, even though the act of not loving is a non destructive act, it creates an environment that encourages destruction with its unbalanced growth. So if religion wants to fight it out with non lovers (those who satisfy their sexual urges but refuse to love their partner(s) in other areas), I will step back and not interfere. As for myself however, I am too involved in loving, and getting out of destructive things; including the destruction of religious commands, and including the destructions encouraged by uneven growth.

Concerning my agreement with the Bible that divorce is a perpetrator of adultery: don't get me wrong. Some people take this too seriously. Whatever is destructive, I must speak against. And destroying the loving union that can exist between men and women, IS destructive. That being said, I must also agree that some destructions are unavoidable. Note that an abusive spouse has already destroyed much of the loving union between a man and woman, so that a person who divorces to get away from an abusive spouse, really has not done that much destruction themselves. Divorce is a one time thing. We don't divorce a spouse every morning when we get up. We can be forgiven for past sins. (All it means is we're not perfect; and who is? -Certainly not me). Much more worthy of our concern, is the evils we are trapped of in our essentials, which we are coerced to keep doing over and over, on a daily basis.

A society that spends so much effort to stamp out and limit two people feeling good together; worries me. If the object is to prevent people from feeling good; then I feel a direct assault has been launched against me and all people, right from the start. I didn't realize I could offend and/or threaten so many people just by feeling good. That wasn't my intention at all. My intention was to feel good, and spread good feeling, as life bids me to do -being a life form and alive myself. But the thing is, this type of feeling good, is odd. Its not like going to the movies. From the female's point of view, this type of fun, for a few minutes of fun, links to it, and engages, years of care and expense not only to the mother, but the whole of the society. Now neither women nor society may in their wildest dreams wish to take on such burdens, but evolution has known that if they don't, that society will die; and so has linked our well being and feeling good to these burdens. (Its much more difficult for a woman to escape nature's requirement that links her well being to these burdens of chilren; than it is for people to escape the marriage requirement that links this 'fun' to marriage.) But a society that attacks those for having fun, takes on a cannibalistic self destructive spirit, and just may help perpetuate the situation where our having fun is forced to be linked to these burdens. (Both are stagnations from the togetherness of destruction and growth.)

Recently, the Baptists have defined marriage in an amendment to their constitution, as being between one man and one woman. (But why prevent the GROWTH of an Holy estate (a good thing) (by limiting it to just one man and one woman)?) And they also reaffirmed the Biblical assertion that a wife should submit to her husband in the lord. (But the Bible also says that bossing around will be gone in heaven -that the way the 'gentiles' lord it over each other in their leadership, isn't how it is in heaven -that anyone who wishes to be leader in heaven must serve all. And also that this marriage we know on earth does not exist in heaven.)

I've also found the Biblical reference to the one man - one woman assertion. But the background to it is more important. It's clear from the reading that the apostle Paul expects us to die to the flesh and its desires. He exhorts us to try to be virgins, but that if we can't 'contain', it's OK to marry. It's clear he wants us to eliminate the flesh or come as close to that as we can; and this is not in line with having many wives. Paul asserts that by believing in Christ, we are freed from the flesh, and that we then have a free, uncoerced choice between the flesh and the spirit (and are thus accountable for our free choices). However, I assert that we've not yet been freed from the flesh and its desires; that we do not yet have a free noncoerced choice; and that we thus cannot be held accountable for something we've been tortured into. Or even if it's the right thing to do to try to completely eliminate fleshly actions, as opposed to allowing them and letting their forces separate in reduced capability. -If we're incapable of doing anything but fleshly actions, do we stop doing anything because we cannot do it perfect (or spiritually); or do we keep doing what we can -our imperfect fleshly actions in hopes some of the good in it will separate from the evil in them, in reduced capability, and become pure? (I like to think of the second option.) (Romans 9, 30-32 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, . . .)

The Bible verses that support Paul's assertion that we have (or that we will have) a free choice: Romans 6: 2-3, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 18. and Romans 8: 2-3, 11-12. I tend to agree with the interpretation that we WILL have that free choice. But that leaves now and our lives now. How will we live them free of the flesh? In addition to help from Others, I offer my methods.

At some point Paul says it is sin's fault: Romans 7: 17. Then it's our free choice. (see above references).

Then even after receiving Christ, we are still 'bestet'. Romans 8: 22-27 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Now the verses about one man one woman: 1 Corinthians 7: 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The concept of ownership is invoked, and wife and husband are singular (not plural). Yet this verse does not eliminate the possibility of every man having his own wives and every woman having her own husbands. You see, Paul invokes the concept of ownership to explain how it is between men and woman (at least in his eyes): 1 Corinthians 7: 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power his own body, but the wife.

Still, the concept of ownership can be conceived as eliminating the possibility that a woman shares ownership of a husband with others, or a man shares ownership of a wife with others. So depending on how you define the concept of ownership (as in 'own' husband/wife), shared ownership may or may not be possible. (Actually, a better way to avoid fornication, I feel, is to marry all you have sex with. Although this does bring in a whole bunch of concubines; and Paul doesn't think much of concupiscence.) In another verse, Paul confronts the situation of a man with more than one wife. He does not condemn the man as an adulterer, but only says that he cannot be a leader in the church. (Well, how about a church with no leaders, where each individual has equal rights and participation? Jesus did say the bossing around that the gentiles lord it over each other would not exist in heaven.)

In yet another verse, Paul is more clear on the subject. Romans 7: 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This pretty well nails it down and eliminates shared ownership. Although we can question what Paul means by "shall be called" (an adulteress). Is he referring to the law calling her an adulteress, or that society would call her an adulteress? I would assume it would be the law he is referring to, yet he does not make it definite by saying that she IS an adulteress, but only that others call her an adulteress (assumedly by the law). What is clearer is Jesus' definition of adultery whereby he says 'do not put asunder what God has joined together'. -Now, if a person shared ownership of a spouse, they would not be putting asunder what God had joined together, but just adding to that togetherness. Our salvation is based on being a friend to Jesus, not the apostle Paul; and doing everything Jesus says, not necessarily the apostle Paul. (And you don't have to be a practicing orthodox Baptist to be a Christian.)

Paul in the 1 Corinthians 7:4 verse (but not the Romans 7:3 verse), makes distinction between what is his command and what is Jesus', as well as what is not a command: 1 Corinthians 7: 6,11 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband . . .

And finally: since God joins those who are married in one flesh, they are one. So that the only way a woman could have a husband and be married to another man would be if she severed the bond between herself and her husband. If she did not sever that bond, but had them both all together: then what looked like two (or more) men, and what used to be two men before the second man married in, would in reality be just one man and one husband. (The concept of husband vs wife being established by Paul's conceptual dissection of the married whole, to explain the workings of husbands having power over the wife's body and the wife having power over the husband's body.)

Ownership denies access to those who don't own but allows access to those who do own. Perhaps the concept of ownership is applied to keep out those who are not married vs those who are married(ie, those who love each other in all ways) /-that is, to disallow partial-loves(ie, to love sexually but not in other areas)/: and not to limit to just one spouse.

Once again we have made it possible for the Bible to come along and be with us. We wish it the best of luck. But in the end, it is up to the Bible itself. We have our lives to live and lead, and must mainly concentrate on that and our flesh -which gives us trouble of itself even without any Bible sayings.

Revival of the 'temporary abstinence' method; at least on an occasional basis:

Here we go again: Paul says that the body is not for fornication, but for the lord; and that we are not our own, but are the lord's, as we have been ransomed with a great price.

Now, after we've done what our boss, our parents, and our family wants, then we have a few moments to ourselves to do what we want. But what if we gave up voluntarily our say over our own body and left those resources to the lord to do what He wants. The reason for this, is that by joining a group and a whole, we can accomplish much more than as individuals. Perhaps the resources that I would use to enjoy my sexuality, prevent the lord from using me in his Christian whole. And perhaps the lord's timetable for using me is different than my own in that I might have to wait (a long time) to be used.

Because I agree with the concept of joining a group as opposed to struggling as an individual, I have tried this out, for a time anyway, (a short time). There are three possibilities: There is the wondrous and great production we can do acting in unison as a group; there is the meager production we can produce as an individual; and there is the absolute desolation of no production that can happen if we give up our individual activities and resources with the thought that they will be used by the group, but when the group fails to use them. We wish to try for the first possibility, but if that fails and goes to the third possibility, then we revert to the second possibility. You see, we have needs and are trapped in our essentials and quasi essentials. The reason we join our resources to a group instead of using them individually, is because the group can do better for all than we can individually. But if after we devote our resources to the group and not ourselves: if our desires and needs are not alleviated/satisfied (and better than individually), (either due to a union that doesn't exist yet, or one that squanders our resources without thinking of its individuals); then the reason we devote ourselves to the group has not been realized. Actually, we have already covered this. The way to make a good and growing group, is to build up and strengthen the individual, and then the individual out of his/her abundance, shares with the group. And who is to say the lord doesn't want for us to build up in our individual pursuits in some situations. We can test this out by giving the resources to the lord (mainly in our mind), and if our individual needs are not well satisfied, then we know the lord wants us to build up our individual activities and do this individually. What is wrong with the lord building us up as individuals, until we become powerful enough to join together as one? Who's to say that's not His way? -Especially since we have discovered that logically, that is the best way to be a growing group and whole -by building up the individual positions.

So I'm going to have to say, that we are our own in many cases, thanks to the benevolence of the lord. When there is available, a group opportunity (that will better satisfy us all), then we should give up our individual resources for that group opportunity: that group opportunity then building up our individual positions better than we could individually (as individuals). But if no group opportunity is available, (or no group opportunity that when joined builds up its individual components available), then we revert to our individual actions we can do until a good group opportunity becomes available. To say that the body is not for fornication, is not because we are the lord's, but because of the imperfect and destruction infected nature of sexuality itself: is why we should be cautious in allowing the body to be sexually active. -Cautious yes, but definitely not celibate, unless there is something available to replace it and do so in a better way. -Until that time, we have our imperfect, individual, sexuality to work with: and we will do so in a cautious way. (Now, in a roundabout way, since God is all things good; and therefore not anything evil; the body is for the lord.)

It may be necessary in some situations, in order to jump start the situation, and create a good group, that we may have to give up our individual resources without receiving satisfaction of our individual needs. Yet the lack of satisfaction of individual needs, is a signal and proof that the group way isn't working/isn't available, and that it is best to do the individual way, lest we find the third possibility of desolation and no production at all. So, doing this sacrificial thing may be OK for short periods, or for longer periods if you are sure in your mind and see clearly how this particular sacrifice will create the good group. But if you don't see this, then its definitely not the way to go. Also, if we continue on in the individual way; randomness will cause some to do better than others, and the good group will be created randomly from individual interactions, eventually. So, do not make a big sacrifice unless you have some special insight; as the standing insight, is against it. -There is no need to risk total desolation and no-production (that would come from giving up your individual production for a group (or attempt at creating a good group) that then failed the individual.)

Let's say you were a man with a mission. Lets say you talked to God every day (and He talked back); and knew for an absolute certainty that He existed. Lets say God had chosen you to be a leader amongst all peoples and in order to make a statement and get people's attention, He wanted YOU to sacrifice and give up your life for these people (while they were yet sinners). Now then, the act of giving up your resources and life force, is a destructive act. -And since the good group you are attempting to create, doesn't exist yet, you receive nothing in return for the resources you give up. When the act of sacrifice is done, the result is nothingness (of what was removed and given up). But since you have taken this sacrifice action in and made it part of yourself, you must also give up the resources that make this action function, as this action is now part of 'you'. (This is a voluntary thing you do to yourself, and isn't something somebody else does to you.) When you sacrifice the part of you that is doing the sacrificing, after a certain point, this action ceases to function and only partial or incomplete sacrifice is actually achieved. Even if you are diligent, and do not give up the resources that make this sacrifice action function, until last, you are still left with this part of you (the sacrifice action -and your being and intelligence needed to perform that action), with resources present with it, and not sacrificed and not given up. So that 'you' will have only done incomplete sacrifice of yourself. Even if this sacrifice action then turns on itself, after a certain point, it ceases to function, and leaves material behind, unsacrificed. From this remnant material of a God, can then regrow a new society, a new start, a new person, a resurrected new person that is free from the essentials of the flesh. This is incomplete fragmentation at its finest. (Were not you at your lowest point before you were born again?) Note that we also do inc. fragmentation regularly in our method.

Note that we do helping-the-low-levels when at high capability, but not 100% so, as we include rotations, -(as a necessary part of maintaining long term growth -(that is, to avoid stagnation)).

At this time I want to explain my final methods for doing essentials. This next section contains that, but also contains my journey there, including several errors. I have highlighted the writing most directly explaining my method along with some background, by enclosing it between these two symbols: X(X -and- X)X. The other material has some good parts, but other parts may be difficult to understand: -and with these, just skip over them. Note that for all the writing, the mental method is fairly simple, and not overly cumbersome. (Go to the end of the section for the finished method.) I continue this train of thought here from where I left off much earlier in the book:

Perhaps we can simplify our technique to rotation only:- the sexual area can also be brought to reduced capability by overharnessing it to help the low levels; and the good to be separated from the reduced capability, comes from the part of the rotation that increases to high capability. Then again, perhaps we need something additional to bring the sexual area to reduced capability: (abstinence, inc. fragmentation). One might just forget to do these methods of abstinence-from-the-action, or doing a rotation (involves much helping the low levels), or inc. fragmentation; and just go out and have a good time. This has an appeal to it, because if an area contains no destruction, or is able to be OK without rotation; then these methods are just a hindrance and just get in the way of a good action. But if the action is trapped of a destruction, then this course causes the area to be brought to high capability: where the evil is fed well and the forces don't separate and the evil doesn't die. (So, the morning after, you have a hangover that just won't go away.) So how do you bring the area back down to reduced capability? One might be tempted to pull the safety valve of inc. fragmentation, (and that would work) yet that would make you the doer of a destructive act.

Its not a problem. You see, the force of evil consumes what the force of good produces in both cases (high capability and reduced capability) -(its just that at reduced capability, the forces separate and the good is able to escape). At high capability, the force of good produces more. Thus the force of evil is also larger and consumes more. -(It soon coerces you into another round of whatever party-action you've chosen.) Thus the force of good is required to put out more of the material that at the start made you feel good, but now is barely enough. The time for abstinence (and cold turkey) has not been lost: its time is now (in order to bring you down from high capability to reduced capability in this area). When you do so: the larger force of evil (not fed) quickly consumes you down to reduced capability and you're all set. (But don't let the destructive force go too far and bring you to near desolation.)

Helping the low levels is good at all times, but don't overdo it in order to bring to reduced capability -that is, make sure you have adequate rotation; as that would make you a doer of a destructive act -unless you choose to use this method to bring down to reduced capability instead of abstinence.

For example: Every person no matter whether we can see them or not; or are attracted to them or not, even ourselves; each contains an area whereby we can increase them in such a way we do not benefit or have feelings from that action. -So that even an attractive person has an area that we are not attracted to. Note that we love all people equally; and devote our increase to all people irregardless of their attractiveness to us. So we devote our resources of increase and growth to everyone even though such increase isn't rewarding to us personally. Sometimes actions of punishment or guilt or an internal destructive force may attempt to bring us to complete desolation. We do not want total desolation, only reduced capability. When our essential doing puts us at too high capability, we can give to others in this area that doesn't benefit us, to bring us back to reduced capability. But here, we can receive from the non beneficial area to bring us up from desolation to reduced capability. -the non beneficial area of ourselves and others (or all).

This "abstinence" is also an attitude: Before, when you were partying, you were avoiding the destruction within you. Now at hangover time; no longer try to avoid the destruction within you, but stand and face it, and allow it to destroy its area back down to reduced capability. Note, you are not the doer of a destructive act in this abstinence -the evil that was born into you is the perpetrator. Note: our method uses temporary abstinence. X(X Note we also do helping-the-low-levels-(plus rotation -(rotation adds the self indulgent directive)), with our areas that are at high capability. But with our areas at reduced capability, we needn't do this, (as they have no shortage of improvements-to-make). When the sexual area temporarily nears high capability; it does this. As it drifts back into reduced capability when in abstinence mode; it no longer has to do this. (Actually the sexual area must remain at reduced capability. I guess it is the good-and-evil within the sexual area that I am referring to. As the good of the sexual area escapes and goes to high capability, it does this helping the low levels plus rotation.)

The "other areas", which are at high capability; do the helping the low levels plus rotation. (The rotation part allows areas to enjoy/increase themselves without the burden of helping the low levels.) This rotation can sweep the whole high capability area; and/or smaller areas of high capability. In sweeping the whole area, this represents a rotation with a touch of the other directive found in helping the low levels. That directive generates an abundance of material needing a leader or protector (otherwise evil destroys and there is stagnation). (This is how we can miss something we never had, where without a 'protector' we may have never had, we stagnate.) Thus enters the need for additional rotations to sweep smaller areas, thus providing that leadership/protection (and represents the pure directive of the rotation part of our method). As we do these additional (limited) rotations, we fill this leadership need, but then go farther. Once we go farther, we eject this material back into the overall rotation, and start anew with other material from the overall rotation for this limited rotation. We keep cycling on like this till we complete our essential; or other, not essential task. X)X Now, if one is unaware of our method, and does not abstain at all, then the essential or quasi essential area goes to high capability. Then the evil/destructiveness within it gets out into all the other areas and infects them. The evil then brings everything to reduced capability after awhile, and the forces finally then separate. To avoid this long drawn out hangover complication; do our method. (Then again the lack of 'leadership' unto stagnation may be the cause of a 'hangover' feeling). I will finish this discussion at the end of the paper.›

Now I wish to continue where I left off where I refered before. There is the concern about being the doer of a destructive act vs not being a doer; concerning the methods of incomplete fragmentation, abstinence, and helping the low levels plus rotation. But another concern is setting up an environment that will allow separation of the forces, irregardless who is to blame for destructions. Now, when a good has separated from evil out of reduced capability and has gone to high capability, here it is important for this good not to be a doer of destruction, as this helps maintain its high capability evil free-separate from evil, status. But in the arena of reduced capability, already infected by destructiveness, it has much lesser value. So the main concern is first setting up an environment compatible with separation of the forces. In the arena of reduced capability, we can be open to all possibilities. We can do some inc. fragmentation if that helps. We can do some helping the low levels plus rotation if that helps. We can do no inc. fragmentation or helping the low levels, if that helps. But if we include the option of torment, we do not continue this for any extended period. We then turn it around so that it is no longer at higher capability and we cause it to come back down to reduced capability, via abstinence of the violating (evil containing) action. This abstinence allows us to bring a tormenting situation back down to reduced capability after the fact; even when considering that God replaces what evil destroys with high capability material (oops). Plus, it does not make us a doer of destruction, which is important when the good of the essential separates from the evil and goes to high capability.

Note, It is here at high capability and evil free, where we can then benefit most from doing helping the low levels plus rotation (which here, is an evil free action).

X(X A substantial error correction: Oops, I've discovered a flaw with the temporary abstinence method. When the hand of God is not active to replace in high capability, what destruction took away; then the abstinence part of temporary abstinence, does work to cause the area infected with evil, to come back down to reduced capability (as the evil here destroys and what it destroys isn't replaced). So that the method of temporary abstinence would work here and would be the method of choice, due to its simplicity, and that it doesn't make us a doer of any destruction. But when the hand of God, society, or just our own body's homeostatic systems; act to replace what destruction in an infected area destroys, (and replaces it unto high capability); then the abstinence part of temporary abstinence will not have caused the area to go to reduced capability (due to the replacement of what was destroyed). (Still, the material regenerated from the abstinence part, will be safe in God -(Yet the directive of separation wouldn't be supported).)

-So that when we do the non abstinence part of temporary abstinence; we will be at high capability and thus in the torment of the togetherness of good and evil. This isn't something we wish to sustain for any length of time. (It's not good to burn.) So, the method fails here. We then need to supplement or replace it, with our working method of inc. fragmentation, discussed previously. This method is slightly more complex, and makes us a doer of some destruction (although if we're already caught by destruction (of an essential); it doesn't matter; and this is just an act by us to end further destruction). X)X

So, our new technique is: first we do the essential, (with helping the low levels plus rotation if at high capability). If the material separates from evil and goes to high capability, then that's all that's needed. (We don't inc. fragment evil-free material -at reduced or high capability.) But if the essential area infected by evil is at too high capability, and the good is unable to separate from the evil, and torment is found; then abstinence (temporary) can be tried, and soon after, if it doesn't work, inc. fragmentation. -The inc. fragmentation, is fragmentation of the area, plus fragmentation of the fragmentation action. Even if God replaces what's destroyed (or fragmented): since the fragmentation action was also fragmented, -if brought to high capability, it will fragment even more, and reduced capability will still be the result. If God separates what's destructive from what's good, then the fragmentation action won't be with the other actions. But then we'll thus also be freed from the evil that beset us in the essential as that would also be separated away by God here. Only if God decides to separate away our fragmentation action, but not the evil that beset us in our essential, would we suffer torment, and the inc. fragmentation method be ineffective. But why would God be so mean? We're just trying to live/survive.

I'm also beginning to doubt the effectiveness of 'halving', in a world with God, (at least for causing reduced capability). -It still may be useful for separation of the forces; then again maybe not, -(thus leaving a much simpler working inc. fragmentation). -In cases of external evil attacking, halving may still help separation. But concerning an internal evil we are trapped of in an essential, it is of little value. You see, at reduced capability, the material that is present, separates in its forces. It is this separation and escape by the forces of good present, that IS the action of separation. If inherent action by the forces in reduced capability produces separation, then a second 'halving' action to do the same, is unnecessary.

Another wrinkle in our technique is as follows: There are times when we need to focus and produce specialized growths; and there are times when we need to relax away from focused growth and do overall growth. How do we do this? There are two directives that form a backdrop to this focused vs relaxed. -There is the directive to help the needy and others; and there is the directive to build up higher, that thing itself (i.e. building up the high capability); and these directives are balanced against each other. There is a certain proportion of the self-indulgent-building-up-higher directive (vs the other directive); that gives the best overall growth (called 'the growth sanctioned proportion'). In the relaxed state, that proportion is divided up over all the areas so each individual area has less than in the focused state. In the focused state, all other areas are blocked out while the area of focus has all the allowed proportion of this directive. (We do the focused state when we've generated an overproduction in the relaxed state that needs to be managed. We get out of the focused state and back into the relaxed state when there is enough or even too much high-capability-manager-material, and not enough lesser-capability 'worker' material that needs managing.) To get out of the focused state, we need to include more areas and not so much of the single area we had focused on. How do we do this? What we do, is to diminish the self-indulgent directive down from the focused state, to that of the relaxed state in our area of focus (we diminish the self-indulgent directive and increase the helping-the-needy directive of that area). So that even though we're unable to get anything in our mind but the area of focus, it now doesn't contain enough of the self-indulgent directive to match the growth sanctioned proportion, and this one area no longer satisfies us. Thus we seek out and get into other areas for their (relaxed) portion of self-indulgent directive. This is how we snap out of the focused state and into the relaxed state. Now, when we need to go from the relaxed state and into the focused state; we already know how to do that.

(Of course, when a new area is first created, it goes through reduced capability in its creation/ increase. Then, it is all self indulgent directive; but when it then gets to high capability, it goes to relaxed configuration; then later possibly to focused configuration.)

X(X I currently fear an error in my logic here. But it is mainly that I do not see clearly here yet. What I mean, is that this focus vs. relaxed state idea, does not have a direct connection to the helping low levels vs. the self indulgent directive. The problem is the focus/relaxed state idea may interfere with the idea of rotation. Note that we cannot do a constant proportion of the two directives (that is, helping low levels vs. self indulgence). At first when there does not yet exist low level life, there's no need for higher life to protect it. So here we do a greater proportion of helping-low-levels-directive. After a time of this producing low level life, there now exists low level life that then needs protecting; therefore now the proportion shifts to needing more self indulgent directive and less helping the low levels directive. We do a cycling in these directives irregardless of whether we're focusing on something, or relaxing to include more things. It's just that at the point where we shift away from helping the low levels, and back to the self indulgent directive; we have an opportunity to make that new self indulgent directive, less focused, and inclusive of more things. The helping of the low levels isn't focused, but helps all low levels so as to generate the greatest increase in capability. So when it reverts to self indulgence for a time, let it be what it is (relaxed and unfocused) unless you have a specific need to focus for some other reason.

I want to examine more closely the idea that 'we cannot do a constant proportion of the two directives'. Actually, after an initial period, we might be able to; but it's undesirable. We could segregate the increase of high capability, from increasing-the-low-levels, (into two different areas). This would work as long as the components held together as a whole. But if there was disagreement between the areas, or the areas or part of an area became separated from the rest (perhaps to enact a separation to overcome an evil); then these separate areas would need to incorporate both helping the low levels plus self indulgent directive. -This is the idea of cycling. -At one time, a thing or area is doing self indulgent directive: at a later time, it is doing helping the low levels -of itself and all others: and then back again; and again. But the question comes, at what cycling frequency do we switch back and forth? Well, if we wait too long in the helping-low-levels-state: when we switch to the self indulgent directive, that directive will be cold and at reduced capability and will take more time in reduced capability self indulgent directive before it starts to fulfill its allotted time in high capability self indulgent directive. Another factor, is the new items and things we create, and their durations, -the inherent durations of both the new and old things/actions we work with. So we switch frequently enough to give actions(some of short duration) a taste of both helping the low levels; and self indulgent directive. Now then, is there any danger in switching too frequently? Well, there is the increased resources used in switching more frequently. And when we're in helping the low levels mode, there is a connection to all low levels. If there is an evil in the low levels and we're trying to enact separation, then we need enough time away from the low levels to let the evil die. So, in this case we'd have to lower our frequency to accommodate this. Also; our time in helping low levels directive, resets us to a relaxed position (away from focus), as all low levels are included: -so that when we switch to self indulgent directive, it will also be in relaxed position. This is another possible upper boundary to, and possible director of, our cycling frequency; (depending on whether we want to focus or relax from a focus). This still leaves a wide range of frequencies and so I leave it up to you to experiment and see what suits you best in a given situation.

Sometimes a thing needs to be in self indulgent directive long enough to complete its action (in that the interuption to help low levels interferes with its action). The helping the low levels directive is much more important, but if we can slow the switching long enough to accommodate this other action without detriment, then we can do that. However, what's most likely going on here is that we're trying to cycle with a reduced capability part (where we shouldn't be cycling at all); or our brand of helping the low levels is too harsh, in that we've been using it to bring high capability infected with evil to reduced capability. -(Note that using harsh harnessing to help low levels, in order to bring to reduced capability, is an unstable method and only buys time -inc. fragmentation is more stable.)

A new concept greatly simplifies things. We now needn't be concerned with a cycle of focusing and relaxing, but only with a cycle of rotation where we switch between helping all low levels vs. improving the higher capabilities (I call the self indulgent directive). And remember, things at reduced capability do not this cycling, but are all self indulgent directive until they attain high capability. The 'cycle' (of focusing and relaxing) is eliminated because it requires material be split to contain both directives (of helping low levels, and, self indulgence) at the same time: whereas the new concept is to do only one directive at a time (concerning the material that cycles).

The new concept also conflicts with our previous idea of doing multiple rotations that include different areas of focus, as well as an overall rotation./ Although reduced capability parts needn't do rotations; they aren't always able to realize this or that they are reduced capability parts. And if they attempt these multiple rotations they'll find them too complex unto their burdening. Since the multiple rotation method is so complex, we may be unable to switch fast with it. This prevents us from enjoying some things of short duration, resulting in an undesirable quality of life. This is one (but not the only) reason for finding another simpler way. There was no strong reason to include these multiple rotations other than they were one of the possibilities and that they represented a hybridization of the two directives. Actually, the idea of multiple rotations was a feeble attempt to provide what cycling now provides -that is, producing the strongest protector / The problem with multiple rotations, is that they fragment us and break us into parts. (This may be a way to produce reduced capability where there's evil; but we have other, better ways, to do that: and where there is no evil, we don't want (this) fragmentation. There is a problem with us being fragmented, -with parts of us in helping the low levels while other parts of us are in self indulgence directive. The purpose of the self indulgent directive, was to build up high capability so there'd be a protector and parent to existing low level life (and/or that the low level life would become higher and able to protect/parent itself). To involve all the existing life in this directive; all of it must be doing this directive at the same time, all together. The highest capability is obtained when all of us is working on this directive, as opposed to only part of us. So, to obtain the purpose of this directive -to create the highest capability protector: all of us (our parts) do this directive in unison. This eliminates the idea of multiple rotations and opts for a single rotation. -It's not even a rotation at all, but a cycling. And there exists a certain proportion of the two directives that works; so that a single rotation, no, a cycle, will be adequate in supplying this. One may say that different areas grow at different rates, and some areas need a protector more than others due to their greater growth (and so the protector will be busier with some areas than others); but this doesn't change the need for the protector to be of as high capability as possible so as to be best able to protect. -And this determines that there should be only one rotation as opposed to multiple ones. (We cycle at the fastest rate needed to give our busiest area a taste of both directives. The other areas do not need to cycle that fast, but it doesn't hurt them to cycle that fast and faster than they need themselves.) Note that our newest method of doing a singular cycle, (with the background reduced capability material not doing any cycling (where that material is in total self indulgent directive)); is simpler than multiple rotations. Also note that even though the reduced capability material doesn't participate in the cycling; that it does join in helping, along with the high capability material -(when the high capability material is in the self indulgent part of its cycle) -all helping to produce the highest capability protector (which is the purpose of the self indulgent directive).

In a quasi essential: this would remain at reduced capability (with no cycling). It is the surrounding areas brought to high capability by the quasi essential, that would cycle.

In the practice of this new method, we find a connection with focusing and relaxing. How do we be self indulgent vs. helping the low levels? Do we expend resources to eliminate all helping of low levels even that which occurs naturally, when in self indulgent mode? What I've come up with is this: The helping the low levels is an important empowerment for us in that it keeps our force of good alive -the force of good and growth being what life is. We are alive. It is not surprising that we (life) could be pro life. This helping the low levels is like gogr and the gogr concept. The act of helping the low levels so outshines most other actions in its importance, that we can apply a gogr like concept to it. We may focus on other things without much benefit from our act of focusing. But if we focus on gogr (in this case, the helping of the low levels (to the exclusion of helping other levels)), there is benefit in this even though it is an act of focus that raids other areas (thus spoiling interrelatedness) so that it will be the only area produced. Even so, the helping the low levels, although of highest importance, is not the only action of importance, and cannot do better than stagnation without being balanced against the other directive -that of building up higher than low level, to as high capability as possible.

We now have a better picture of how to do this self indulgent directive: Since helping the low levels is an act of focus (that is a burden on all but the low levels); the act of self indulgence is then an act of relaxing and unfocusing, so that the material in self indulgence is not burdened with helping other areas (specifically, the low levels). (Note: this is confusing because previously I had said helping low levels was an act of unfocusing. What I mean is that helping low levels is an act of unfocusing, concerning its outlook, in that it has us working with all areas (of low level); whereas, concerning its appropriation of other area's resources for its own; helping low levels is an act of focus, (but self indulgence isn't). (It's this appropriation-of-resources focus we're discussing now.) The act of helping low levels, puts a material in contact with all low levels to help them. The act of self indulgence severs that connection, and puts that material more by itself and in separation, so that it increases and grows itself instead (of the low levels). So to enact self indulgence, we just let a material be itself and leave it alone and not try to burden it or harness it to help any low levels. -Any help of any low levels by this material must come from the material itself, and not be imposed by us from outside it. Just let it be. But we also must balance this self indulgent directive with the directive to help the low levels: and we help the low levels by imposing upon all high material to be harnessed to help just the low level material. (If a previously low level material is increased above the low level, then we drop it in search of helping other low material.) So in our method, we alternate (or cycle) back and forth between this focus to help all low levels, and relaxing from this focus -just letting be and not imposing any burden (this is the self indulgent directive). And we do such cycling only with our high capability. With our reduced capability we let it be all the time with never any imposition of burden to help low levels. If material from the reduced capability area both goes to high capability and also has evil present: we must in this case do a round of inc. fragmentation here. Material can separate out of the reduced capability area and go to high capability; and if it has escaped the evil of the red cap area, we do not inc. fragmentation it. Note that if material is at reduced capability with evil present; it doesn't hang around to do inc. fragmentation (since the material is already at reduced capability); but instead tries to escape and get away from the evil. X)X

X(X There is an intricate detail in this method: the regulator of the cycling: ie: the act of imposing on other areas to help low levels, is itself a reduced capability area that doesn't cycle. X)X That's because in the self-indulgent-part of the cycle when this regulator area (if at high capability) is separated from other areas, it is unable to be itself at all -unless it acts on itself (to help low levels). And if it acts in high power on itself to help low levels; that will drain it to reduced capability. -Not because the draining is harsh; but because the actual helping of low levels is a separate, different action than regulating-to-cause something else (to help low levels). And if this regulatory-area helps low levels (because it acted on itself to do so), then that action to help low levels is no longer a regulatory action, thus this regulatory action converts itself a good degree into helping action, so there's not much regulatory action and the regulatory action is thus brought to reduced capability. At reduced capability, the cycling does not apply to the regulatory action. So the regulatory action is a non-cycling-reduced-capability-member (and is thus always in self indulgent directive).

Again: Concerning the regulator of the cycling being at reduced capability: when in the helping low levels part of the cycle; both high capability regulator of the cycling, and, other high capabilities, don't grow well as they are all busy helping the low levels. -In the self indulgent part of the cycle, other high capabilities grow, but not high capability regulator of the cycling, because growth of it depends on it getting into and regulating other areas, which the other areas prohibit by the nature of self indulgence.

Again: X(X The regulatory action, is material used to cause other material to help the low levels. When any (high capability) material/area is commandeered to turn from its own action, to devote-all to helping the low levels; it no longer does its previous action, but now only helps low levels (in its new growth). -After a time, the new growth would overshadow/overgrow the old growth, so that the old growth would no longer be at high capability by comparison, but the new growth would. If the regulatory action/area reaches high capability, and commandeers itself to help low levels (in its self indulgent mode); (then at this point, what it did to others, it now does to itself.) As its action upon itself takes effect, it ceases to do regulatory action (in new growth), and now does helping the low levels. As the regulatory action begins to be overgrown -(not only by the new growth in this regulatory area, but also by growth in the other areas -that the non growing regulatory area is unable to keep up with), the regulatory area falls into reduced capability. Now at reduced capability, it no longer does itself unto itself, according to its regulation. X)X

Note that as we cycle with high capability material (especially in the indulgent part of the cycle), we often generate new things. These things at first go through reduced capability before they get to high capability and also cycle. But the presence of the new material might cause us to change our cycling frequency in the existing high material even before the new material becomes of high capability. But this is incorrect as X(Xonly the high material needs cycling, and the presence of new not-high material, doesn't change the degree of need. So, our regulation action should not allow new not-high material to change the cycling frequency at all until it becomes high capability material.

Given that an action takes a certain time to complete (that it cannot be produced in incremental amounts in any time frame); or that an action is inseparably interrelated with other actions in producing some desired overall action:

-at times it may look like this action is at high capability (or that parts of it are at high capability):

but in reality, it is previous to that; it is still at reduced capability (due to the time constraint or interrelation): and thus does not bear the responsibility of being a high part -(thus does not participate in helping the low levels; the cycling between the two directives; nor the determining of the cycling frequency). Only when these actions are completed (in self indulgent directive) do they then become high capability and then do this cycling. -Includes periods where this action personally devotes all to helping only the low levels. X)X

But don't stagnate your growth in order to have an almost-high-capability part in total self indulgence, as you already have this. -As a given type of action grows and generates new growth; that new growth is this way (before it advances to high capability). -While the established part of the same action type, does the high capability cycling.

With the regulator-of-the-cycling being at reduced capability ('a child shall lead them'); and also the new growth of actions also passing through reduced capability: you might think they would thus both be close knit together. But the indulgent directive doesn't allow for this. -Reduced capability new-growth action doesn't have time/resources to do regulation of other things, as it is busy with its own action and building itself up. These two CAN be loosely aware of each other, yet not closely connected, even though both are reduced-capability. (By loosely connected, I mean they both have their own sources of growth; neither appropriates resources from the other except in an emergency; and neither regulates or bosses the other.) When the new growth is completed (fulfilling any time constraint), and becomes high capability; then the eternally-at-reduced-capability-regulator-of-the-cycling, which previously was only loosely connected, now grabs hold of this new high capability and now closely regulates it (and also now for the first time, includes this new high material in determining the cycling frequency). For a moment, this regulator of the cycling is the only thing in reduced capability, and it goes it alone. But soon new growth comes and there is then again a loosely connected dual structure in the reduced capability.

Now, I said that new growth in reduced capability is not regulated by the also reduced capability regulator of the cycling: but if the regulator of the cycling strongly regulates this new growth to be only in self indulgent directive, then that is the same as not regulating it at all because the self indulgent directive means to let something be itself. (But just remember when doing this, that although the new growth is 'close in' with the regulator of the cycling: we don't let that new growth have any effect on the regulator of the cycling's cycling frequency (as that is determined only by existing high capability).) So our regulatory action can get close in with the new growth this way, so that when the new growth becomes of high capability, it is right there to change over and cycle with the new high capability; (and also include it in determining the cycling frequency).

Note: sometimes when destruction comes, our bodies and/or God acts to replace what was destroyed. Here, the material is finished (even if no replacement occurs) and is thus at high capability if a time constraint was the only thing keeping it from high capability. This high material we must thus then act on and regulate with our regulator of the cycling, while other material of the same type not effected by the destruction, we let unregulated until it fills its time constraint in its undestroyed way. When we are denied things we feel we should have, we actually have these things in high capability, due to the body's mechanisms of replacing what these things mean in the body and God's action of the same. We thus populate our internal world with many of these things we want, and when the real thing comes along, it is just one of many, and just joins the crowd. We just have to deal with, act on in close knit fasion, and regulate all this high material generated in conjunction with the destruction that we have such an abundance of up to and including the time the 'real thing' joins this crowd.

On second thought, if no replacement occurs when destruction acts; then the remnant material is usually not at high capability, but at reduced capability. And a time constraint means that it takes a certain time to accomplish some special overall action: so with the time cut short by destruction, and thus no overall action produced; reduced capability best describes the result. When destruction acts on material, the result is usually reduced capability if not total desolation. Thus this material we do not cycle with, but mainly let remain in self indulgence.

X(X In a more complex way: a precursor action can be in abundance and be high capability-like, but unable to accomplish its overall interrelated action that it was precursor to. In this case, growth stops not because of a lack of improvements to be made, but because of a barrier to getting out of and beyond the precursor action. (Since helping the low levels also involves the precursor action getting beyond itself, that may not be possible:) but even if it is, we no longer have a directive to do this cycling to help low levels, as the directive of the barrier takes over. Remember, the way to cross a barrier is to build up existing capability as high as possible. The situation of a precursor action (where we know there can be a greater overall action) stopped by a barrier; is not a situation of high capability, but is one of reduced capability at this level. In any case, the directive of crossing a barrier takes precedence: so that our method of cycling is not done here. To cross a barrier, we build up existing capability as high as possible, and then we make greater quantities of that (-involves some helping the low levels). So in crossing a barrier, we are mainly in self indulgent mode; as is reduced capability material. Still, at odd intervals, this barrier material(1) needs to come off of indulgent mode and do a little of helping its own low levels. If the cycling frequency of the other, cycling material(2) is too slow, it(1) may spur it(2) to do a cycle in helping low levels. Note that this barrier material and the reduced capability material being in indulgent mode, ie non cycling, doesn't hurt the directive of the indulgent mode to act in unison to produce the highest capability protector, (as when the cycling high material is in the indulgent part of its cycle, then everything is indulgent in unison). But the change of the barrier material to help its low levels, would interrupt this directive, unless it coordinates its helping low levels with the helping low levels part of a cycle done by the cycling material. When the barrier material is finished helping its low levels, it can go back to indulgent mode even before the cycling material does, as there's no need for acting altogether in unison concerning the directive to help low levels. X)X

This bridging of barriers has application in healing the destruction of growth capabilities. Such as when someone had loved us before, but now breaks off the relationship; they do no destruction unto us by not loving us, except that in this case, a growth capability has been destroyed. This is different from other destructions, in that with other destructions, we can inc fragment and seek to escape (with our able, higher parts); as a means of dealing with the destruction, using the fact that the force of good separates and escapes evil at reduced capability. But in the destruction of a growth capability, escape seems meaningless. (Although, we can do inc fragmentation in this area, and seek to mentally escape the pain in our head which is tied to this our physical body and its limitations: and this helps to an extent) Here, bridging the barrier between the access we have to this person through helping the low levels (where we help all -friends, enemies, those we don't see, those we do see, all, equally, with little to no reward); and this person in their higher levels (where we do see them and are rewarded more); is the thing to heal our growth capabilities.

Note that when we're in the helping low levels part of our cycle; our reduced capability areas (includes the regulatory action), should feel some of this help in their lower, less developed parts. -The high capability that is doing the helping (of the low levels), does not feel this help. But of course when we switch to self indulgent directive in our cycle, this is no longer felt. And when we're cycling frequently, this is also reflected in what we feel in our reduced capability area(s).

X(X Getting back to the previous paragraph: This dual structure of low levels and high capability, brings out some interesting concerns. I've said that our helping the low levels is our bridge to all people. But this is only so far as our high capability is able. What one real strength helping-the-low-levels has, is that it is balanced -in that all areas are increased evenly so that interrelated needs and supplies mesh. This is so because there is little to no reward associated with increasing the low levels. As we're first getting into high capability, rewards can be quite intense and overwhelming and they can cause us to favor one area over another sometimes in an unbalanced way. (And since new advances mostly come from high capability in the self indulgent directive, there is just no balanced growth at first.) But with helping-the-low-level's lack of overwhelming reward, we can grow here with a clear head -evenly and in a balanced way. Yet helping the low levels is not balanced without that special balance with growing the high capability. And it is the newest and highest capability's nature to be unbalanced to a degree (-also due to randomness of breakthroughs and nature's placement of barriers in the growth's way). Note that being slightly unbalanced; -that is, being focused; is not necessarily harmful. It is a paradox that our newest highest capability is at reduced capability concerning the area of being balanced. But that's worked out over time. (Of course by that time, we've developed even newer and higher capability.) X)X

Note that there is the directive to love God with all we are. Since God is love and love is multiplying and blessing (or growth); this translates into obtaining the most growth with all that we are. And growth of life (which is what we are), is not such a bad idea; irregardless of Biblical commands for it. Hey; life is good. The more good life, the better. (You didn't expect the Bible to get it wrong all the time did you? The law of probability would be against that. And it was written by people with some intelligence.) X(X So we've segregated our growth into helping low levels (as there's greater growth potential/improvements to be made here (and this helps keep the force of growth alive)), vs, helping grow higher capability. And we've discovered that we need more of a balance with growing high capability (ie self indulgence) in order to protect/manage the lower levels against evil/destruction; and also for the bridging of barriers (which also helps keep the force of growth alive). Now, being balanced in our newest highest capabilities would be preferable from a growth standpoint. But since we're unable to do that and are in reduced capability about that, at first: it would be best to just go with what we have and are able, and then to let that balance out over time. From a growth standpoint, this IS the best; whereas halting all growth in high areas (for long periods) until it could be done balanced; would be pretty bad, from a growth standpoint. X)X

This idea of eternal growth or growing growth with all you are (as translated from loving God with all you are -the first commandment, as stated by Jesus); is the answer to an argument posed to me by a fellow thinker. He argued that you cannot define a true difference between what is life vs what is inanimate. -That everything is in equilibrium. That the atoms that make us up are being constantly arranged and rearranged, and that given an eternity, we all, along with all the inanimate, will have our place, over and over again. My first reaction to this, was that the reaction is not very reversible: that it is very easy for even low capability beings to kill (that is to rearrange matter so that a 'living' organism dies); but that it is much harder to reverse the process and bring that specific being or animal back to life, once killed. -That it takes a very high capability being to bring this about; so that we as low capability beings cannot jump easily back and forth between being alive and being dead, as in a reversible equilibrium.

But what I finally settled on was a definition for life itself: -life is that which grows eternally, and does not come to a permanent end. This stems from the force of good being able to exist forever, because what it produces (life), is the key to crossing barriers (barriers to finding more improvements to make, and to making those improvements). -Whereas the force of destruction, which produces the inanimate (from life), is unable to continue forever, and comes to an end, because what it produces (the inanimate and/or nothingness), is unable to help it cross barriers, (which would have kept its action going). Now, with a definition of life in hand (based on the first commandment); we can make a distinction between life vs the inanimate; and this forms a basis for my core philosophical arguments at the beginning of this book; -giving them a solid foundation, a rock to stand upon. -That life is preferable to and valued way over the inanimate. And that a one sided equilibrium where we turn everything we can into life, while not returning it to the inanimate; is the way to go.

X(X The final method for doing essentials:

When we feel a hunger for one of our essentials; quasi essentials, we then want to do that essential. In the smaller component parts, separation of the forces (ie escape by the force of good) is quite a force of nature. And it is even more of a powerful force of nature due to God and/or society rescuing forces of good that have temporarily separated from (an) evil. Because smaller forces of good readily escape; I propose that we are unable to complete our essential because of this. But if we could delay the escape by these forces of good for just a little bit, we could complete our essential. It is not a good thing to go against separation of the forces and slow the escape of forces of good. And if we don't have to, we shouldn't do so. But in the case of our essential, this is a necessary evil that we can't avoid. But the moment our essential has been satisfied, we should cease doing this. ›We are then in a refrain from repetitive inc fragmentation mode, now, even though material for satisfying the essential still remains, titillating us. Now it is different, because we've had our fill (for now).› The way we accomplish this slowing the escape of small forces of good, is to do repetitive inc fragmentation in their escape path. Note that this repetitive inc fragmentation is not done in the area of our action of satisfying our essential; but is instead done on the small escaping forces of good. (Note that if the essential area needs to be brought to reduced capability, then we can do a single episode of inc fragmentation in it; but this isn't the repetitive inc fragmentation we do here.) Because inc fragmentation also fragments itself and thus soon self terminates; we must keep reinitiating it to keep a continued presence so as to continue to slow the small forces of good from their escape.

We can regulate the degree that we slow the small forces of good from escaping, by the frequency and strength that we do the repetitive inc fragmentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roy S. writes:

MODIFIED:

Through the Eyes of a Child

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

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

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

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

What have we done to ourselves?

 

 

 

 

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.