Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00119)

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets look at this again from the viewpoint of need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, this train of thought was lost. Sorry.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now then, let me give you the overview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for being offended because someone is attracted to you:

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

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

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

 

Continuing with essential methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing the traditional method vs my method:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me review and restate this material:

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

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

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

But now then, Getting back on track.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

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