updated goodvsevilandreproduction

[Guest guest]

In this introduction, we see that in contrast

to our stagnant universe that doesn't grow

well; that in an all-good universe with lots

of growth, no one is left behind, but are all

advanced to high levels, in good time.

(Note: FogoHC means Force of good of

High Capability. And force of good means

to generate positive growth)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When the joint venture of GROWTH and

gripping, does growth and gripping on

itself; there's a circular feedback created

that produces tremendous quantities of

growth. When forces of good are producing

capability (exhibiting growth); they can

either produce new forces-of-good; or new

neutral-capability.

Forces of good are made of capability. And

for one force of good to produce a second

force of good; is a force of good producing

a force of good. A force of good can also

be a force of good, by producing neutral

capabilities. There are great advantages for

forces of good to produce more forces of

good, as opposed to neutral capability. For

one thing, the newly created force of good

can in turn produce force of good of its

own; and an exponential increase in the

production of the force of good will result.

Whereas, with the increase of neutral

capability, only a flat rate of capability

increase is achieved, and no new force of

good is produced.

For another thing, the forces of good are

protected by the fogoHC, while neutral

capability is not (not absolutely). Thus

forces-of-good producing forces of good, is

more advantageous than forces of good

producing neutral capability.

However, before something can be a force

of good, it usually has to have some

minimum level of capability. Like, it might

help if something were alive, so it could

reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so

it could rise above random action, which

produces decrease(destruction) as well as

increase(growth). Thus even though the

forces of good may want to increase force

-of-good capability right away, they have to

go through an increase of neutral

capabilities to reach a minimum level,

before forces of good can start increasing

forces of good. (And, a neutral capability

cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it

is produced.) When a force of good that is

able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC),

comes in contact (together) with neutral

capability produced by forces of good; that

neutral-capability becomes a part of the

fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a

picture of the fogoHC going about gripping

forces of good and gripping the neutral

capability that all forces of good initially

produce. With more neutral capability

being produced; those forces of good who

can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC),

have more neutral capability to grip, and

thus turn into force of good capability. As

we can see, there is always more and more

neutral capability (to grip) that is being

produced. But where does the capability go

after it has been gripped and is a marginal

force of good? Well, there are 2

possibilities: A) it goes no further and

serves to produce neutral capability for the

fogoHC. it remains at about its original

level of capability and fails to advance:

being frozen at some level of advancement

so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it

advances no further. or possibility B.

it could advance in its abilities to first

become alive; then advance in intelligence;

and finally become a fogoHC. it continues

to advance and eventually becomes a

fogoHC itself. With possibility A, more

and more neutral capability is produced.

The amount of it increases exponentially.

But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There

is no growth in the fogoHC because no

lower capabilities are allowed to become

fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more

of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is

taking lower forces of good and advancing

them to be a fogoHC. This is example A

not example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do

this. It finds itself with an ever growing

supply of neutral capability to make contact

with. It might get swamped by the size of

it. It needs to grow in size to match the

growth of the neutral capability. It could try

and make itself more powerful and become

of higher capability within itself. But

whether it could do this or not is uncertain;

whereas the creation of itself has been

proven possible by its own existence. The

fogoHC must increase its own power at an

exponential rate just to keep up with the

neutral capability. But this is unlikely as

the fogoHC would be increasingly more

busy trying to handle the exponential

growth of the neutral capability, that it

would have less and less time to work on

its own advancement. Also, it is into

uncharted areas, as it has never been that

powerful before. It is a driven and

desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up

a growth output and is driven by growth

needs, if it can keep up at all. In this picture

of a universe, it is easy to see how a

fogoHC could become overextended and

how the marginal force of good and neutral

capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and

eventually become unmanageable. It could

cease contacting the neutral capability, but

that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus

the force of evil would step in and

stagnation would result after some point of

expansion.

Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe

where the basic forces of good produced,

do advance to finally become a fogoHC.

With possibility B, there would be more

and more fogoHC to keep up with the more

and more neutral capability being

produced. There would be no problem of

the fogoHC getting swamped.

Here, the contacting of the ever-growing

neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC

that is also growing exponentially.

Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in

uncharted areas; only in the replication of

more of itself, which by its existence, has

already been proven possible to do. So it's

very probable that not only does the

fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and

turn them into marginal force of good

capability; the fogoHC also advances these

marginal-good capabilities to be very

intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be

forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)

End introduction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A SHORT PREVIEW ON HUMAN

HUNGERS:

Often in the areas of human hungers, it is a

no win situation where if we do satisfaction

of the hunger, one area benefits while

another area suffers; and if we abstain, then

the one area suffers while another area

benefits.

I would argue then that in these situations

the best way to go, is to do a medium or

middle doing of the hunger satisfaction so

that neither directive of either doing, or

abstaining from, the hunger satisfaction is

favored over the other.

Now, this middle or medium level can be

achieved in different ways. One can

cycle about the medium level, by doing

full 'on' of the hunger satisfaction for a time

and then full 'off' for an equal time. And

the cycling frequency can be adjusted so

that one doesn't spend too long in either the

'on' or 'off' part of the cycle so that one is

not hindered excessively by the shortages

created in different areas due to the

unbalanced nature of this no win situation.

Another way to achieve the medium level,

is to do the hunger satisfaction at a constant

or non varying medium level that is mid

way between the full 'on' state and the full

'off' state. These two ways of achieving the

medium level each have their own

advantages and disadvantages. The cycling

on and off way allows one to go to higher

intensity in both 'on' and 'off' areas,

allowing more concentrated attention to

each individual area without being

hindered by the demands of the other areas.

But on the down side, one must work to

regulate this repeating on and off cycle, and

cannot rest or take one's attention off it.

Whereas with the non varying constant

medium level, one can just let it go and not

have to work at regulating it so much.

END PREVIEW.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

REPRODUCTION

Consider the concept of supply and

demand; as applied to human beings. If

there is a shortage of humans, then they

will have a higher value and will be treated

better. But if there is a surplus of humans,

then their value will be low, and they will

be treated poorly, according to their low

value according to supply and demand. So

that when women are considering how

many humans to produce in terms of how

large a family to have; collectively, they

have quite an impact on how we're all

treated by those economic forces that rule

over us. Xxxxxxxxxx In response to this,

someone wrote: " According to the law of

supply and demand, a shortage or surplus

of humans would not affect their treatment

but their 'price'. In some cases, a high price

might lead to worse (or better) treatment,

but there is no necessary connection. "

xxxxxxx And I responded: -A high price for

humans, means that they are paid a high

wage. A high wage means that they are not

in abject poverty.

Sometimes too much money leads people to

be unhappy. But a little money keeps them

out of the other unhappy extreme of abject

poverty. Another way to look at this, is to

look at Mexico. There the catholic

traditions against birth control and for big

families means that there are always a lot

of little Mexicans running around. And the

resources of the society must be divided up

again and again amongst them all so that

they mostly live lives of abject poverty.

That's not to say one cannot be happy in

abject poverty, it's just that it is a challenge

to overcome. And in a world where there is

destructiveness around; a medium ability

environment is what is needed, not those of

abject poverty, nor richness. Note that

Bible prophecy predicts plagues and

famines for an apocalyptic end to the

world. And if people overpopulate the

world under religious direction, then the

plagues and famines will appear, as

predicted.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And then there is the

conservative, religious rules over our

sexuality. But first let us consider sexual

reproduction in itself. Sexual reproduction

produces offspring that are not exact copies

of their parents but are different from their

parents to some degree. So, sexual

reproduction generates differences between

each of us; it is a generator of differences.

But people who are different, do not hang

together. no, it is people who are alike, who

hang together. And E Harmony matches to

those who are alike, not to those who are

different.

Now, if we were all to have sex with each

other in unrestricted sexual reproduction,

then our genetics would be well mixed; and

those differences would be spread all back

among our population and we would not

build on or accentuate those differences.

But that's not the way sexual reproduction

works in our world. Sexual reproduction is

restricted to one man one woman and to

form a family grouping to raise the

offspring produced. People of like interests

and skills tend to hang around with each

other; and that is where they are likely to

meet a mate, where they will spend a

lifetime together with someone with

common interests. This leaves the people

that are different, as not reconnected

together. So that the genetic differences

generated by sexual reproduction are

preserved and compounded over each

successive generation. Being different

means that they are good in different areas.

So that different groups of people are

developed, each being good in one

particular area, while not so good in the

other areas (exploring the scope of genetic

differences that human genetics allow). So

that as individuals they cannot function

well, but only as a group can they work

together to combine their good areas to

make a complete and competent societal

whole. Thus the rulers of a society have at

their beck and call, all the humans of the

society to do their bidding, because as

individuals they are all unbalanced in their

skills, incapable of being self sufficient as

individuals, who can only survive and

excel by joining the societal group each to

contribute their best skill. So that what the

conservative rules over our sexual

reproduction do is to breed individuals who

are slaves who are easily molded by the

rulers of a society, who are incapable of

much independence as individuals, so that

we are more so a commodity to be used by

those who rule over us.

Human sexuality doesn't stop, but continues

to generate differences in the offspring; and

with the conservative rules remaining in

place, this results in ever increasing

specialization in an individual's best skill

area, while the rest of the individual's areas

lag further and further behind; so that

individuals become more and more

unbalanced so that eventually the

individual becomes a commodity (which is

their best skill), and is not so much alive

anymore in any of the other areas; as

generation after generation of sexual

reproduction under conservative protestant

rule progresses.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In a world where the

force of destruction is a problem, we shall

see that being at medium ability, not at

barren, neither rich ability; is the solution.

Concerning the unbalanced individual;

being at barren ability in all the other areas,

is not good; and the other areas, although

lagging behind, need to be advanced too,

eventually; otherwise it doesn't work out.

However, outside the considerations of

dealing with destruction; what is the best

configuration to have, concerning the

societal entity (which is made up of the

best skills of each individual); and also

concerning the individual entity?

The societal entity, and the individual

entity, are both areas (of value) that can be

grown into and improved. To leave a

vacuum in any one of these areas,

represents an improvement that can be

made and grown into. To act so that either

of these areas is to be sacrificed, is

destructive, and is against the directives of

growth/goodness and love, which God

purportedly is. The force of good-and

-growth needs/is able, to scale and cross

barriers to find raw materials separated by

barriers, so it can continue to grow. This

represents many individuals(representing

the individual position) trying out all the

many different possibilities until one is

found that works; not the elimination of

options(elimination of the individual

positions) and choosing just one (societal)

way; especially before one has found the

answer to the next challenge to growth.

Also there is the consideration of

coordination. As unbalance progresses in

the individual, the individual looses sight

of where its best skill fits into the other

societal areas, as its own 'other areas' are so

feeble. Eventually the societal entity

becomes the individual, as the individual

entity no longer exists. What was the

individual entity, is now like cells of the

body -incapable of any life or action

outside the body

-there is no longer any intelligent life at this

level. The result of all this, is the causation

of a rich area (the societal entity); and a

barren area (the individual entity); from

what used to be a medium ability situation.

What has occurred, is a polarization to

absolutes, by using sexual reproduction and

conservative rules over sexual

reproduction; over the generations. Note

that neither of these absolutes(barrenness

nor richness) is capable of dealing with the

problem and force of destruction; whereas

the medium ability environment is. And

since we live in a world still with the

problem of destruction, we will need to

bring back these medium ability

environments. And this means we at some

point need to interrupt this conservative

breeding program that has been cornering

the effects of human sexuality; and violate

it. Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note

that to actually obey the command to die to

yourself for Christ's sake; that when you

take into and part of yourself (so that it

becomes part of yourself), this action to die

to yourself; that you must also die to this

dying to yourself; so that an incomplete

dying to yourself actually results; which

provides the medium environment needed,

not these absolute polarizations.//) The

religious exhortations to be like a seed and

die to yourself so you can be part of the

great big religion in the sky; so that you

can be part of the body: an arm, a leg, an

eye or an ear or a hand maybe; so that you

can die to yourself and be one(in the

(societal)body): are all leading you down

the wrong path; it seems to me.

Because the appeal of Jesus Christ, and

need that He fulfills, as being part of

humanity; as being in between the

absolutes of highness and lowness,

representing humanity and the in between:

is not found here.

And the creation of a barren area in what

used to be the individual entity, is against

the directives of growth and love. Now, in

response to a totally evil environment, this

would be a good response. Like a case can

be made that the world of the Roman

Empire, needed to be brought to an end.

But life is no longer so much so. Yet the

controls are set on autopilot in this

direction, and need to be changed. A little

bit of this unbalance is OK, because it

causes the individual entity to also share

with the societal entity, so that both entities

can exist and grow. But too much

unbalance forces the individual entity to

death so that only the societal entity

remains. But then I am reminded of the

idea that if high good ways exist, we as

individuals should seek to give up our

individual ways, because individual ways

are fraught with more destruction and are

not as good as the higher ways (of a

societal entity). But wait a minute: this is

not that situation. The directive to bring the

individual entity to nothing as a means of

solving the imperfections of the individual

entity/position; is a different solution than

the solution of having a robust individual

entity lay aside its ways and let the societal

ways fill its needs (with the medium level

Jesus Christ entity as facilitator); because

in this solution, both the societal entity and

the individual entity EXIST and are well

grown into.

(Not all of the individual's actions are

defective; some are wholly good and evil

free.) Now then, not all evils are based on

need. The ones that are, are eliminated by

both these solutions, dealing with the

neediness of the individual position. But

other evils that pop up, well, if there is no

individual position, then they must be dealt

with by the only remaining position -the

high and rich societal position. And as we

shall see, when an evil is put into a rich

environment, a firestorm results and the

whole thing is burnt down. Better to let

evils be worked out in the individual

position, so that the societal position,

(which is made of the best parts of the

individuals collectively and is very rich)

can know how to avoid these evils, having

learned from its individuals. Once again, I

reiterate: we are screwing ourselves if we

continue down this path to death of the

individual entity through conservative

running of our sexual reproduction! Get off

your ass and fuck different people (while

trying to avoid a venereal disease, which is

the weakness of this directive). And have

some, but not too many kids from this.

Otherwise, if you insist on being good and

morally, sexually conservative; you along

with the rest of your kind will be the cause

of the end of the world scenarios that

religious fundamentalists predict.

Because when hatreds are worked out on

the individual levels, it is with guns and

knives and clubs. But when there is no

more individual level, and there are still

hatreds to be worked out; the societal

entities work these out with atom bombs.

And who wants to be responsible for

blowing up the whole world? Who is the

biggest terrorist now? Why it is the

conservative fundamentalists. So, in the

war on terror, we ask you to loosen your

morals a little. Or if you insist on one man

one women, then find a mate who is out of

your class and social group, who is

different from you, to marry and have kids

with. (Stop catering to 'the MAN'(so much

/so absolutely).)

Ending up with a burnt out cinder for a

world after we have committed armagedon

against each other, is really not an

acceptable direction to seek to produce. I

mean, there is certainly no harm in trying

to do better than this. Xxxxxxxxx

Note that we have been handed a legacy

from many generations of mammalian

reproduction; which is that human infants

are very helpless. This is a result of that

good societies are superior to cruel

societies. You see, if a society is cruel, it

won't care for its infants well and they will

die due to their helplessness and put an end

to that cruel society. But good and kind

societies will thrive because the helpless

infant will thrive. This is a legacy we have

from many generations of cave men before

there was organized religion. But now with

our women, (and men) insisting on people

not cheating; a family structure is enforced.

With a family structure where the parents

are made responsible for raising their

offspring; the helpless infant is raised till

they are of age and are no longer helpless;

where they can be fodder for their society

that can be as evil and cruel as it wants,

because the infant is no longer an infant

and is no longer helpless. In this society, if

there is something that is supporting evil

and allowing evil; we usually take action

and stamp it out. What we can do then is to

stamp out this enforcement against

cheating because it is what prevents us

from using our legacy of our helpless

infants to make our societies good. And

we are forced to reprove over and over

again that good societies are superior to all

the evil/cruel societies that we now allow,

that before would have been eliminated. xxxxxxxxxxx

In this insert, let us consider the racial

purity philosophy of Hitler and the Ku

Klux Klan and others. The idea is that one

race is superior and that the other inferior

races need to be exterminated. To

exterminate the differences brought to the

global societal entity by other 'inferior'

races, does curtail and handicap the societal

entity; thus providing some favor to the

individual entity (of the surviving race).

This stops the perpetual advancement of

the societal entity at the expense of the

individual entity under conservative

sexuality. And when genetics under

conservative sexuality causes some

individuals in the master race to be too

different from the standard of the master

race, these individuals too can be

exterminated or sterilized.

Thus the ultra specialization brought by

continued conservative sexuality is

stopped, as individuals who are too

specialized are exterminated. So this

seems to work, theoretically. But getting to

this point is the problem. Not all races are

willing to lay down and be exterminated

without a fight like the Jews in ww2. And

now the Jews of today in Israel are

certainly not going down without a fight.

So that the end of the world will be

achieved by trying to exterminate the other

races in the world war this would cause.

Much better to loose the conservative

sexuality to achieve the same result,

without all the destruction and end to the

world. But perhaps having the different

races intensely prejudice of each other will

keep them from joining together into a

greater societal entity, thus limiting the

societal entity, which is what is needed in

systems of continued conservative

sexuality. Perhaps this may explain why

prejudice exists today, and what function it

serves. However, this is not the best

system that can be. As a better system is

one that puts together the differences of the

races (not all the time), but periodically;

and this would replace systems of eternal

prejudice; and it would not be a system of

eternal conservative sexuality.

End insert.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now, with the Amish, individual expression

is stamped out, and everything is plain. So

that when a woman is looking for a mate,

she has a harder time finding someone just

like her, due to them all looking pretty

much the plain same. Thus the Amish may

not have so much of an accentuation of

differences as their generations pass. And

with the Mexicans, the man has a few kids

with one woman and then moves onto the

next woman to do the same, and the next

and the next etc. Thus there is good mixing

of the genetic material, and differences are

put together again. The same is true of the

African American male/ also the gang

banger, who does a bit of philandering and

doesn't spend much time in the home; thus

providing the needed genetic mixing. And

with the Arabs, (and the Mormons) the

harem provides a genetic mixing and

melting pot. And with the Americans, a

melting pot where different types

intermarry, brings genetic differences back

together. But with the conservative

Protestants, no such getting the genetic

differences back together occurs. They may

not overpopulate the world like the

Catholics, but they instead create ever more

unbalanced offspring eventually no longer

capable of any individual existence but

only of a societal existence, resulting in

societal conflicts that will annihilate the

world (as predicted). This is unfortunate for

them (and everybody else). Now, if you go

with the free love of the communes, the

hippies, and the 60's, and Disco 70's, you

can have individual expression as well as

good genetic mixing.

(But what about inbreeders? Since they are

of the same family, there is much similar

genetic material. Here again, it is people

who are the same getting together, but

these people are so much the same

genetically, that weaknesses in genetics are

not complimented by a different partners

genes, and these people often have serious

physical problems due to genetic deficits.

However, the differences generated by

sexual reproduction are put back together.

So that if a well balanced well rounded,

self sufficient group of individuals does

this, they preserve themselves. But if an

unbalanced group does this, that is where

the trouble is.)

Of all these things I have spoken against

religion, you might think I am against

Christ. Well, I am not against a Christ who

values both advancing the individual entity

as well as the societal or body-of-Christ

entity. But I am against a Christ who

sacrifices the individual entity completely

and absolutely to the societal entity; who

does not advance the individual entity

along with the societal/christ body entity.

-Because that is extremely

destructive/wasteful as it brings about the

end of human life on earth. And also

hinders the force of good from finding

solutions to barriers to new growth, which

it needs to do to be able to live in a rich

environment without the force of evil. And

I will replace this 'bad' Christ, with the

'good' Christ, who is more fit at being

savior of the world, unlike the 'bad' Christ,

who is unfit to be our savior, but serves

only to be our destructor.

Obviously there is only 1 Jesus Christ, and

reportedly He is still alive, having survived

the crucifixion. But He is now at the right

hand of God, so that we may all have His

Holy Spirit; so that He is not easily

accessible to settle which interpretation of

" die to yourself for Christ's sake " did He

mean. -Did He mean to completely and

absolutely sacrifice the individual entity for

the societal body of Christ? or did He mean

to partially sacrifice the individual entity so

that both the individual and the societal

entities would prosper? Depending on His

answer, is my answer of either support, or a

true need to find a better savior; not only to

save us but also Him. xxx Obviously there

is only one Jesus Christ, but there may be

two answers. Some may claim the Holy

Spirit has led them to one interpretation,

while others, to the other interpretation. I

claim the Holy Spirit, through logic, has

led me to the interpretation that causes both

the advancement of the societal body of

Christ entity, as well as also the

advancement of each individual entity;

(and by doing so, also claim to be a

Christian); albeit a non traditional one:

mainly because of Christ's stand that we

love and be kind to one another. If you

can't stomach that, then I think we need to

be separate from one another.

xxxxxxxx Maybe I just don't get it. I'm still

not going to restrict my sexual lifestyle

according to the conservative Christian

way, which as I have explained is part of

the fallacy of sacrificing the individual

entity absolutely and entirely for the

societal entity. It won't be me who throws

Christ out, but perhaps Christ will throw

me out if it turns out that He is for the

interpretation of absolutely sacrificing the

individual entity for the societal, body of

Christ entity. In that case, there still exists

inside me, a christ like part which functions

to intercede between my absolute, high

good parts and my human parts; which will

continue to act, and will be thrilled to join

with a Christ like savior who is of similar

make up, who actually can function as a

savior. But I have faith, that Christ will

come through for me, and for us all. xxxxx

There is a concern about anybody who is

against Christ, is an anti Christ, and who

could be the big anti Christ who will bring

about the end of the world as predicted in

the Bible. So that we must all be careful to

be just like Christ in our beliefs and actions

to avoid this. Kind of like 'simon says',

except it is 'Jesus says'. So that our

thoughts and beliefs are under societal

control and anything outside of what Jesus

says, is to be eliminated. Thinking for

ourselves is more difficult as anything that

is outside of what Jesus says, must be

disposed of. This may work out if Jesus

always has the correct answer as to how to

think and how to be; but even so, and

irregardless of that; we always have the

enactment of having to compare our

thoughts and actions to that of the current

view of Jesus, and eliminating that which is

not in line with that. The action to

eliminate involves the use of destruction,

(self destruction). That may work well

when what we destroy in ourselves, is also

destructive; but when we make a mistake

and are destructive to that which is not

destructive, then we have become the

perpetrators of destruction. When we use

destruction as a tool, it requires us to know

all and get it right all the time. And that is

a difficult tightrope act that few can follow.

But that is not what this anti Christ idea is

all about in reality, although it is what it

has become-that is Christianity patrolling

and policing your thoughts and dictating

how you are to think, lest you be labeled

and anti-Christ, and be disposed of.

Just what does it mean to be against Christ,

which is to be anti-Christ? When Christ

was alive, they condemned him and

persecuted him and his followers. That is

what it means to be an anti-Christ: that is to

condemn and do harm (to Christ and his

followers). If I discuss the pros and cons,

mainly cons of some of the sexual

regulations; that doesn't mean I have

condemned Christ.

Now there are those who condemn and do

harm to Christ and his followers, and there

are also religious people who condemn and

do harm to those who they may say are

anti-Christ or who they may say are

heathen or blasphemers (recall the

inquisition). And I guess we could call

these people anti anti-Christs. What I

would like to point out is where does Christ

fit into this picture? Christ never

condemned anyone. That is a line that can

be drawn. All these people, the anti

-Christs, and the anti anti-Christs all

condemned someone. But there is another

position outside of both of these; and that is

to not condemn and not to be destructive to

another, which by the way is the side of the

line Christ is on. Any of these (either the

anti-Christs or the anti anti-Christs) could

be the big anti-Christ. But by choosing to

not condemn or be destructive to others,

including any 'bad Christ', I put myself

outside this anti-Christ, and anti anti-Christ

destructiveness.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

One can find Biblical condemnations of

how God condemns homosexuals, and

fornicators and adulterers, and how any

lustful feelings are guilty of adultery. So I

could say it seems God condemns all forms

of human sexuality. And if we look at it

from this angle, there may be some truth in

it. You see, in order for a part of us to

become a high part and to join God, it

would have to outgrow and escape the

imperfect human sex drive. So that

perhaps what is being said here is that God

condemns these forms of sexuality from

Himself: -that anyone who would claim to

be God, or a high part in God would be

required to have gotten beyond the

imperfect human sex drive. And this is

true, that imperfect human activities are to

be kept separate from perfect high parts.

But if a person is willing to come out and

admit that they are not God; that they are

less than God, that they are not perfect, and

that they are instead human; then I think it

might be possible that these condemnations

do not apply to them, as they were only

meant for those who would be God, or part

of the high God. Yes, it is not totally

inaccurate to say that a God who condemns

forms of sexuality in just the Godly area, is

a God who has condemned these forms of

sexuality (without mentioning it is just over

the Godly area, and does not include the

human area). Because if one says that God

condemns forms of sexuality in the human

area, then it draws God into being part of

the imperfect human area by this need to

police the human area; and that just doesn't

happen. And it is instead the Jesus entity

who acts to keep the human stuff away

from the high parts, and also casts off all

bad parts off of the human stuff in a 3

dimensional sorting. For the Jesus entity to

condemn human sexuality in humans as all

bad, is just inaccurate because human

sexuality from the human sex drive, is one

of those human things that is neither all

destructive nor all good. -That even we

weak and imperfect humans can see that

the sexuality that comes from within us

imperfect humans, is neither all destructive

nor all good. And that to label it as such, is

just inaccurate, and is part of the 2

dimensional sorting that is flawed. So that

when some religious humans claim these

things about God condemning human

sexuality in humans; even we weak and

imperfect humans know this is inaccurate,

and if we believe it were true then we

thereby believe that God is also inaccurate

and flawed, giving us a queezy feeling, and

an aversion to these religious people. So

that my interpretation of these

condemnations of sexuality in the Bible, is

that it is for marking off a separation

between that which is high Godly area, and

that which is human area; and that this part

of the human area is to stay away from the

high Godly area; and that is all it is for.

And that within the human area, these

sexual things are in their place and are as

all human things are -neither all bad nor all

good; and are certainly not absolutely

condemned. -that this Biblical

condemnation does not apply here and was

not meant to apply here. And to those who

would insist that it does apply to us as

humans; just shows me how 2 dimensional

they are and how I do not go along with

that, because if I did, that would just

degrade and defile God, the persona and

attributes of the most high God. Because

God does not act 2 dimensionally as these

do. Xxxxxxx

At first we start with a kind and gentle man,

Jesus Christ, who reportedly healed many

of sickness, and overcame death.

How then does that translate into this end

where we end up with a controlling

influence over us all whereby if we don't

do and think the way Jesus says, then we

are condemned? Now this forces Jesus to

get it right every time. -(And apparently,

the right response is to remove oneself and

become separate from the evils in worship

and religion; and to contact one's followers

through one's spirit; outside the evils of

worship and religion: and that is where

love, God's love is.) -(This is an example of

how God does not condemn these

imperfect human things in the human area

and allows them to exist in the human area,

while still keeping them out and away from

the Godly area.)

Because of this

threat of condemnation over our head all

the time, a destructive factor is placed upon

us to eliminate all that is outside of what

Jesus says. Because destructiveness is used

against that which is bad (ie, that which is

outside of Jesus), this forces Jesus to get it

right all the time, otherwise destruction is

done to us. And when there comes up

issues about what Jesus wants for our

sexuality where on one hand some say

Jesus condemns human sexuality, but

others say, no, Jesus just keeps human

sexuality away from entering into the

kingdom of heaven. Well, the idea is that

when the Bible says the adulterers,

fornicators, homosexuals, idolaters, etc

won't enter the kingdom of heaven; some

people react to that to think that these

people will be condemned because

everybody wants to get into heaven, and if

you don't make it to heaven then you are

then going to hell where you will be

tortured and tormented for eternity -a fate

worse than death. But on the other hand;

this same denial of fornicators, adulterers,

etc, from entering heaven, can just be a

separation of that which is godly, from that

which is imperfectly human (and of course,

fornication, adultery, etc, represents the

imperfect human sex drive, which is part of

human things). Some people apply a 2

dimensional sorting to this, but with a 3

dimensional sorting of this, things work out

very differently. The fact that imperfect

human things are sorted away from perfect

heaven and God, does not condemn them,

but helps them. So that in one way of

thinking, one may think Jesus wants us to

eliminate these imperfect human activities

of the human sex drive; while in another

way of thinking, one may think it is best to

allow a medium amount of these imperfect

human sexual things, as the best way for

these things to escape their imperfect

humanity and pass to perfect heaven and

God; and think that this is the way Jesus

wants it. So that if we don't know exactly

what Jesus wants here, then we are always

in risk of being condemned according to

this condemning paradigm that has grown

up around Jesus for not aligning yourself

completely with Jesus.

What I say is a problem, is this

condemning paradigm about aligning

yourself completely with Jesus, itself. The

problem is due to the destructiveness it

holds near to us all. It is destructiveness

itself that is the enemy and the problem;

and this condemning paradigm contains a

heavy use of destructiveness, and is

therefore part of the problem. Remember,

Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who had

nothing to do with terrorizing people with

destructiveness if they didn't do what he

wanted. Now, on the contrary, roman

emperors WERE people who would cause

excessive destructivenesses to be done to

those who didn't do exactly what they said.

It appears that a roman influence has

overtaken the worship of this kind, gentle

and loving man, Jesus Christ, has taken

place. And if I were a follower of Jesus

Christ, (and I'm not saying I'm not), I

would be kind of upset, and would act to

remove (as non destructively as possible)

this destructive thing that surrounds

my(and perhaps your) fellowship/oneness

with this kind and gentle, loving man/God. xx

When the Bible says fornicators, adulterers,

homosexuals, etc won't enter the kingdom

of heaven; that is one action of sorting (into

two tiers or dimensions). The imperfect

human sex drive is kept separate from the

perfect Godly material, presumably by the

perfect human, Jesus. In a two dimensional

sorting, this leaves the imperfect human

material (that has both goodness and

destruction intertwined), to be together

with/tormented by the all-destructive

material. But if we go a step further and do

a 3 dimensional sorting, Jesus can do

another sorting action to sort the all

destructive material away from the

imperfect human material(which is partly

good and partly destructive), into a third

pile or tier. In this 3 dimensional sorting,

the human material isn't tormented, and I

say, generates material that escapes the

human area, finds perfection, and joins

God; a small percentage of that material

coming back down and joining Jesus. Xx

Some of us discover that we are humans

and not Gods and that we have imperfect

sexual things from our imperfect sex drive

in us that we were born with. We then think

and fear that we won't make it into heaven

(because of them); so try to hide and

eliminate this very human part of

ourselves; and this reflects the two

dimensional sorting mentality where that

which doesn't make it into heaven is

tormented and eternally burned in hell. But

with a 3 dimensional sorting mentality; if

one happens to be an imperfect human, one

needn't fear what and who they are, but can

allow the 3 dimensional sorting actions to

act positively and beneficially upon them;

and not suffer blame and torment for who

they are; and not to be scapegoated as the

cause of the entire human condition as a

response to that condition(their only crime

being born into it as an imperfect human);

-scapegoating, which does nothing to fix or

improve that condition; as opposed to

fixing and improving that condition (which

is what 3 dimensional sorting does)!

Shame on you two dimensional religious

people. Xxx

And then it is these same two dimensional

people who think you are a lower life form

than they are because you appear not to

have left your imperfect human things,

while they are therefore above you;

themselves being more Godly. And they

then try to treat you lower on an economic

scale by suggesting that you have had your

fun and now its their turn for you to serve

them and be their servant so that they can

have their fun, (as we are all allocated

equal shares of fun), in an economic

system.

They further emphasize that they are a

superior being over you by pointing out

how since you haven't left your human

things, that you are devoid of godly things

and are thus a burden and a freeloader on

the rest of godly society, and how much

you owe and are indebted to them.

Well, speaking of voids; we humans use

those human things to partially fill those

voids; and when they try to point out that

we have voids in the godly area, because

we have been sorted out of the godly area

due to our mild use of human things; we

just realize the inaccuracy of that thinking

by realizing that not only can we enjoy life

on the human plane, because our Jesus

representation has cast off any all-evils that

would attack us in our mild use of human

things; that we also generate a robust

amount of material into the godly plane

from the material that naturally escapes to

there from our mild doing of human things;

which also delivers its small percentage to

our Jesus representation which then keeps

our human plane safe from attacks from

all-evils. So that it is actually these poor

sorry saps who are into holier than thou 2

dimensional sorting, that find themselves

wanting, who are now NOT able to turn that

lack of satisfaction into an advantage by

trying to convince us it is their turn over us

because they have refrained from enjoying

any human things. We realize now that

what they need to do, is just help

themselves and indulge in a mild doing of

human things also, and quit trying to

achieve this holier than thou status through

as humans, eliminating of all doing of

human things from the human area.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have been told there is a soul mate, one

spouse who is just for me. -Now, when

people are being generated who are ever

more different and ever more unbalanced;

it is true that there are fewer and fewer

people who are similar to me, so that it can

be said that there is just one person who is

best compatible with me, having the same

like interests as me. But for me to marry

this person and enjoy our lives together,

and have (many) children with, just

perpetuates this tendency towards

unbalance and elimination of the individual

entity for the sake of the societal entity.

Seeing that this isn't what we need at this

point; I thus avoid doing this. Xx

In the relationship with my spouse, I cater

only to her, and vice versa; and we seem to

indicate by this that we are the only people

who matter. But reality check: we are but

two of many people, all of more or less

equal value. And the denial of the worth of

all these other people is a false reality, one

that is not true. One that is also unbalanced.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let me rehash this stuff a little bit.

When people get married and have kids,

they have to spend a lifetime or a long time

together. It helps if they have common

interests (ie, they are pretty much the same)

so that they can enjoy their time together.

This puts quite a persuasive incentive to

find someone who is similar. So that when

similar or the same people hook up, this

leaves dissimilar people Not hooked up. So

that differences fester and grow so that

eventually in a population, different groups

of people are generated, each being good in

different areas, to the extent the genetics

allow. From this, a societal entity forms

whereby a person who is good in one area

but deficient in other areas, is not weeded

out, but can survive by joining the societal

entity. People can specialize and develop

their good area extensively while letting

their other areas slide; and together with

everyone else, who also specialize in each

respective area, can make a competent

societal whole. But resulting from this is

that no one person is competent to satisfy

their mate; that there are 2 sources of need

satisfying; that compete. If someone isn't

the best at their good area, then where they

plug into the societal entity is at less pay

and less of a good lifestyle. So that they

may seek a mate based on complimenting

skills that are not the same so that they may

improve satisfaction of their needs from the

societal angle, but at the same time, give up

compatibility and enjoy their time together

less. ie, when one marries for money. This

allows for some putting back together of

the different specialized areas, (done by

those less competent in their societal good

areas). and also, when people get together

for a short while and then divorce, who are

not necessarily compatible but just

attracted, this also allows for more mixing

and putting back together of the different

areas. So that the absolute directive to take

away from the individual area and give to

the societal area, certainly is slowed; and

perhaps would be enough to prevent the

absolute/complete raiding of the individual

entity for the benefit of the societal entity.

but there is certainly room for the relaxing

of moral directives and for the allowing for

divorce. Xxxxxxxx

Let me go over this again in a bit more

depth of analysis: One is required to spend

their whole life with their mate in sexual

exclusivity if one follows through with the

conservative way. When people are young,

sexual attraction occurs and boys and girls

pair up. Most of the time they are not

compatible; that is they don't share the

same interests and are not the same. These

then break up and soon after, move on to

another partner. Eventually partners find

themselves with people of similar interests,

who are pretty much the same (ie

compatible); and these people then take the

plunge and get married. (In this insert,

some say that opposites attract. But perhaps

what is going on instead, is that there is a

sexual attraction between most men and

women, and that when they pair up, most

of the time they are different, or

'opposite', while only occasionally do pairs

contain similar people. Xxxxxxxxxx

Because the requirements of sexual morality

require us to at least make an attempt to

live with a partner for a long time in sexual

exclusivity; this favors people who are

alike to come together, so that they may

enjoy their long time together pursuing

common interests; thus leaving people not

alike, ie, different, as being left apart and

not connected sexually/genetically. As a

society specializes and its individuals

become unbalanced -that is they are good

in one area, -maximized in tune with one

area; but deficient in all the other areas: this

provides another need/need satisfaction

source (in addition to the reproductive

drive need and need satisfaction source).

That is, an individual needs to participate in

their society, giving of their good area so

that they may receive their small shares of

the Many(more than 2) other good areas

supplied by Many other unbalanced

individuals (who are also maximized in

their own respective and different good

areas); and thereby satisfy each others

needs (other than sexual) as a societally

competent whole. As a society continues to

specialize, the number of different areas

(manned by individuals who are good in

each particular area) grows well beyond 2.

So that if a person was thinking of giving

up similarity in a mate in order to join a

mate with complimentary skills; this would

not work out well because 2 skill areas

does not a society make. And the society

way would do a much better job at

supplying needs through combining the

skills of a multitude of skill areas (supplied

by individuals) much greater than 2. No,

better a person find someone of like skills

for a mate, and they can both work on

improving their performance in their one

good skill area and thus get better

recognition and pay from their job (joining

with the societal entity and through their

societal connection). And at the same time

they can enjoy each other's like interests.

But what if a person is at the top of the

heap in their good skill area, and already

has good pay? Well, with those needs

satisfied, the only need left is the

reproductive drive. Here, finding someone

of like mind/ability/interests allows this

couple to enjoy their greater command of

resources (from society) together. So, we

see an uninterrupted directive to ever

increase specialization and sacrifice the

individual entity to benefit the societal

entity, so far. However, in some ideas

about good vs evil; life vs destruction, we

will see that meanness and cruelty doesn't

get along with itself. They are the same,

yes, but two mean people, being mean to

each other, do not get along and are not

compatible. Perhaps if they can direct their

meanness to others, they can get along, but

this can be tentative at best, as mean,

competitive people often go after each

other to establish who is dominant. So that

pairing of like people who are

mean/competitive, does not provide

satisfaction in the traditional morality

concerning satisfaction of the sex drive.

These dominant ones find submissive ones

to dominate, and they are not the same, do

not share the same mind, and once the

sexual need is satisfied, they have a lot of

time on their hands with little in common

to do. And there is no harmony here

concerning the traditional way. The societal

way of satisfying other needs, is the only

way that does work for these people. They

are often at the top of their heap and make

good money. It is in the marital area where

things are problematic. Since the traditional

way in the sexual area doesn't work for

these people, they are tempted to model

this area after the way that does work for

them -the societal way. They are thus

tempted to add the sexual area and treat it

the same way other needs are handled by

the societal area. -That is to have the input

of many different people each contributing

their best skill, not just 2 people. This

means multiple partners, maybe a girl in

every port; divorce, bigamy, going from

one mate to another in rapid succession,

etc. It is these kinds of behaviors that mix

the genes, and prevent absolute sacrifice of

the individual entity to the societal entity,

thus saving our ass!

It is odd how a religion based on love and

kindness depends on meanness and mean

and competitive people to save its ass/ our

ass.

xxxxxxxx

(In this insert, I consider that jealousy is

from a fear of loosing one's significant

other absolutely due to the absolute nature

of the traditional morality. Because the

traditional morality is unlike the societal

way of need satisfying, in that it totally and

absolutely shuts out others from sharing in

one's mate's sexuality; one fears any

advances on one's mate by others may

cause one's mate to switch partners, and

thus exchange places so that one is now

absolutely shut out from one's former

mate. It is the absolute shutting out action

that brings this about. If sexuality were not

so absolute, the tensions would be eased,

and sharing could occur without jealousy,

overpowering jealousy. When we deliver

goods and services in our job, we don't

service just one person, but deliver/share

our goods/services to many people. If

sexuality were not so absolute, multiple

partners, and shared relationships would

occur; so that the loss of one lover would

not be as hard to take as in the absolute

world where one has only one lover, whose

loss results in the loss of all the love that

one has. Plus, does anyone person really

have the right to all of another person's

attentions?

Note that the sexual attraction one person

feels for another, causes them to value the

object of their feeling above all other

people; when in actuality, people are of

equal value; and we do treat them equally

when we are not under a sexual attraction

towards one of them. But when we are

under a sexual attraction to one of them,

this focuses our attention and valuation all

to that one person.

Now if we have sexual feelings for more

than one person, one might think this is

expressing more sexuality. But the most

sexuality one can express is being attracted

to just one person, because the nature of

sexual feeling, is to remove importance

from everyone else, and concentrate it to

this one person. If one removes importance

from everyone else, and concentrates it to a

group of people, that isn't as much of a

concentration. So the person who has

multiple partners, although they may think

they are being more sexual, in actuality,

they are being less sexual, due to the

concentrating nature of sexuality itself.

When a man and woman share their

affection with each other, they may think

that they enjoy that. What do you think?

Don't you think that men and women

sharing affection is an enjoyable thing? But

then they take a good thing that they enjoy

and limit it and put it under a box and

prevent it from expanding and keep it to

themselves. Now if one were to take the

good news of the gospel and hide it under a

basket and try to limit it, then religion

would be up in arms about that. But more

to the point, when women(men) refuse to

service all mankind's(womankind's) sex

drives except one partner, then there are a

lot of unsatisfied customers out there.

Women(men) may be attractive to

men(women) and some very much so, but

it is all just a tease unless one does submit

to the conservative breeding program that

could very well result in the apocalyptic

end of the world. I would ask the people

attracted here to realize that the

conservative way is a mostly all destructive

entity that does prey upon the imperfect

human area of sexual expression; and that

the sogp/jesus representation (explained

later) can and should (as non destructively

as possible), cast this mostly all evil out of/

off of, the human sexual area; so that our

sexual area tends towards medium ability,

out of barrenness and low ability. End insert.)

Concerning the dual need satisfaction

system: sometimes it all gets sucked into

one mess. Sometimes there is separation

between church and business, but

sometimes a person is called out on not

being morally up to standards, so that the

same absolute polarizations of all or

nothing that occur in the moral area, are

also applied to this person's other areas of

need satisfaction, so that they are

ostracized completely in all need

satisfaction systems, so that their business

connection is polarized to barrenness for

them and richness to those who extract

from them. And when people's whole lives

are dragged down into these religious

polarizations, things can get out of hand

with burning down the rich areas in

firestorms. And this is just a waste of

resources, leaving all in barrenness. Better

to follow the separation of church and state

with also having separation of church and

business (concerning how a person satisfies

their reproductive needs vs how they

satisfy their other needs). As the

satisfaction of the sexual need is such a

limited thing, compared to the good one

can do by helping needy people and fill

their needs in other things other than

sexual. Unless one is prevented from doing

so due to some religious or societal

shunning that has labeled them as heathen

or infidels and that one is not allowed to

help them/they are not allowed to help

others. Thus one's force of good is not

only prevented from helping in the sexual

area (which is limited at best) but also

every other area, in a now all encompassing

societoreligious polarization. Xxxx

Note that although the people of Jesus' day

condemned the adulterous woman; note

that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous

woman.

Now, when people of today work in their

jobs (so they can get paid so they can buy

things to satisfy their other needs (other

than sexual)), they are not absolute in their

action. They do not service just one

customer and deny all the other customers

their service. Instead, they give each

customer a little bit of their time and do

service many customers. But in the

satisfaction of the sexual area, this is NOT

how things are done. Instead, each person

satisfies only one customer, and leaves the

rest unsatisfied.

These two different ways of need

satisfaction are incompatible. For example,

if each worker were to pick one customer

and service only them, then most of the

work would not get done, and this system

would collapse and be unworkable.

But way back in the past, in little house on

the prairie days, when individuals were

more self sufficient, this actually would

work out. Each person would take care of

themselves and their spouse and their

family grouping, and leave the rest of the

world to fend for itself, just like they

fended for themselves. And when the

nearest neighbor was miles away, one man

one woman was how the sexual area was

done also. So that there was no dual or

conflicting ways of need satisfaction. It

was all the absolute way, the all or nothing

way, and each person did not service many

other people, but only their own family

grouping.

But not only is this way less efficient and

can be replaced by a way of societal entity

and individual entity balanced with each

other; that as I have explained; many

generations of one man one woman does

generate ever more unbalanced, and thus

less self sufficient individuals.

Yes, to start, a group of self sufficient

individuals or family units could choose to

isolate themselves from each other; and this

would favor one man one woman in the

sexual area.

But one man one woman generates ever

more unbalanced individuals. So that out of

necessity (due to the loss of self

sufficiency), a societal entity formed and

lessened the individual entity.

And from that group of self sufficient

individuals who chose to live in quasi

isolation from each other, and who did not

allow the sexual area to mix it up; they are

now forced to be a part of a societal entity

because they are no longer self sufficient,

but are now unbalanced. In this societal

entity there is no longer isolation, but many

people working together and intermixing.

From those interactions, more sexual

intermixing should follow, which thus halts

the ever advancing trend towards

unbalanced individuals. However,

sometimes a society clings to the one man

one woman theme due to religious

directives.

So that today, the only thing left of the self

sufficient/absolute way of need

satisfaction, is the sexual area; whereas all

the other need satisfactions are done with

the societal entity and no longer with the

self sufficient individual entity. But if the

societal way were applied to the sexual

area, then people would service many

others instead of just one other, and would

be called 'whores' and 'creepers' and

'rappers'.

Now when there is a balance between the

individual entity and the societal entity;

that is the best and most powerful system.

But as the one man one woman, absolute

self sufficient way persists in the

satisfaction of the sexual area; we continue

generating ever more unbalance, and

overshoot balance and end up with all

societal entity and no individual entity; and

that is a lesser state.

And when young women cling to this last

expression of the self sufficient individual/

absolute way in the sexual area, they thus

thereby eliminate completely any

individuality or individual expression

leaving only societal expression. Eve, put

down the apple(of religious rules).

Note how imperfect the area of human

mating/dating is. And that absolute

directives have no place in such an

imperfect human area. When the spouse

strays, note that imperfection. But also

note the imperfection of the other spouse

who stays true. Yes, following an

imperfect rule over the mating area, even if

one does so perfectly, does not make one

perfect, but just emulates the imperfection

within the rule itself. And when a rule

causes a society to overshoot the balance

between individuality and the societal

entity, to eliminate the individual entity;

and also, causes those following it to

become sources for evil; that is an

imperfect rule. Xxxxxx

In today's society, everyone is unbalanced

and not self sufficient. So that when a man

and woman love each other, they generate

an incomplete or unbalanced love. Now, if

one were to generate a complete love for a

complete spouse, that person would not

exist because self sufficient

spouses/individuals do not exist. But if one

generated this complete love anyway, and

then distributed the part that matched their

unbalanced spouse, then that would work

out well to bring multiple unbalanced loves

together into one complete love. And one

may go even further back and generate a

complete entity containing both male and

female essences, which then splits off the

needed parts for one's unbalanced love,

leaving the remnant for balance. And if

one is going to join multiple loves, one

needs to adjust the complete entity one

generates to contain much more of their

core or common self that will then become

multiple copies each copy distributed to be

part of each unbalanced love.

As people become more unbalanced, they

need to get together and each contribute

their best skills to form a competent and

balanced societal whole. We can think of

this like each person represents a part of the

societal body; like one person is an arm and

another is a hand and yet another is a foot,

etc. Now in the dating game, when a hand

gets together with a foot, they don't have

much in common and are thus incompatible

for a long term relationship. But when a

hand gets together with a hand, they do

share common interests and skills, and they

are compatible. However, all the

compatible pairs are of unbalanced

individuals; and the loves that they

generate for each other are all unbalanced.

And since they are acting as a couple, they

don't include others in to provide a

complete, balanced (societal) whole, (since

this is lovemaking/romance between the

couple, and the rest of society is not

allowed into this area). So that we end up

with hand love and foot love and arm love

etc, which are all unbalanced and

incomplete loves, each generating growths

in excess of what they need, and

experiencing shortages of raw materials

that they themselves cannot supply; -the

result of unbalanced growths.(in this area

of romance/love between the couple).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxx

GOOD VS EVIL:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider that

goodness, growth, and being kind to one

another, is a superior force over the force

of destruction, death, decay, and being

mean to each other.

(To do this, we consider all possibilities)

-Considering what'd happen if in a universe

with only the force of goodness-and

-growth:

-If in a universe where only the force of

death/destruction existed:

-Or if we were in a universe with both

forces. Here on earth we're in the situation

where both forces exist. But that doesn't

mean this is the only way, -that other

situations aren't possible.

Let's consider a universe of only the force

of destruction and death. As death

/destruction progress, they take whatever is

alive, and kill it, so that where life once

was, now exists (is produced) nothing and

nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to

dust. Pretty soon, life becomes in scarce

supply, while a whole lot of empty space

and inanimate material is left behind. After

awhile, all the life is killed, and then what?

With no life left to kill, the force of

destruction comes to a stop (no more

destroying can be done), because from

nothing, this force can go no further from

there. Here is a definite bottom to the

universe. The force of destructiveness

comes to a stop and cannot continue.

Now consider the force of good-and

-growth as being the only force around. As

this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless

matter (dust), and creates life in its place.

Soon everything starts to come alive. Pretty

soon we begin to run out of improvements

to make. Emptiness and undeveloped raw

material (dust) starts to come into short

supply. If everything is alive, then no more

growth/goodness can be done, and thus the

force of good is stopped, right? Well,

there's not so much an absolute ceiling, as

there is an absolute bottom. You see, life

forms can advance/be advanced and

become ever more capable and alive; and

this thus continues the force of good. And,

a universe that is alive (full of life), is very

capable -able to do lots of things, (unlike a

barren universe consisting of nothingness).

And with that life/capability, it can bridge

barriers and reach raw material (dust) that

had previously been separated from it by a

barrier.

Hence, the force of goodness and growth

can survive by itself much better than the

force of destruction/death can. This is an

advantage: -When the force of destruction

can be escaped from; (the good separated

from the destructive); that which is

destructive, when alone, burns itself out,

finds itself boxed in by barriers, and ceases

to exist; Whereas the good alone, survives,

bridges barriers, and continues to grow. Of

course when both forces are around, the

force of good generates life for the force of

destruction to feed on and destroy as it

survives. (and the force of death/decay

generates voids, which the force of good

uses as its starting material.) This is the

way things are here on earth. And both the

forces of; good, and destruction, have an

easy time finding material to work with

(compared to if they were alone). /(insert)

when the force of good is advanced to be

free of destruction, it is under more

pressure to cross barriers and find new raw

material for growth. Thus it needs the

individual entity even more so, and cannot

totally sacrifice the individual entity for the

societal entity here in the end, in perfection

anyway.(as the individual entities are

needed to try out all the possibilities to find

the solution to the next challenge to

growth)(end insert)/ xxxxxxxxxx

ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or

be either 'the force of good-and-growth', or

'the force of destruction'. The lack of life

can't do/be either force. Since what the

force of good produces is life, such life can

continue to do forces. But since what the

force of destruction produces is death and

nothingness and voids in life; since this

cannot do or support either force, then the

force of destruction alone is destined to a

quick end while the force of good and

growth alone is destined to continue.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

ALSO, since only life can do-be either

force: When destruction experiences what

it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't

grow, but instead shrinks to nothing. But

when goodness experiences what it

produces, (when goodness is good to itself)

it does not die, but instead, grows. So, the

force of destruction needs something other

than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force),

while the force of good does not and is self

sufficient with just itself. So that when

alone, good survives while destruction self

eliminates and vanishes. From this we can

see that good and growth, is a superior

force to the force of death and destruction.

Xxxxxxxxxx

Let us consider some situations, while

keeping in mind these truths:

-that it takes life and ability to do/be either

goodness, or destruction (and that lack-of

-life is unable to cause either of these

forces);

Inputs and outputs:

-that the force of destruction takes in that

which is alive as its input/raw material; and

produces voids-in-life / inanimate material

as its output, as what it produces.

-That the force of goodness/growth takes in

voids-in-life and inanimate material, as its

input/raw material; and produces -life- as

its output and what it produces.

With these concepts in mind let's consider

the situation of the force of destruction in a

rich environment. Not only does this force

have plenty of its raw material or input

(life), present here in the rich environment;

-destruction also has what supports what

either force is made of (which is also, life).

Thus here the force of death-and

-destruction can grow rapidly and become

quite large here, in a rich environment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

(In this tangent, please consider that since

enforcing rules over the gray areas of living

life causes a patchwork of rich and barren

environments(rules structure and FIX

WHERE the good, and destruction,

respectively, of a gray action, are done):

my question is, why do we scrape together

these rich environments where there is the

force of destruction nearby -(as destruction

is inescapably a part of all gray actions at

our level of ability)?

This will just result in successive firestorms

where the gray actions' destructiveness

burns down the rich parts of the patchwork.

All this does is feed evil/destructiveness.

As for myself, I do not wish to succor and

feed the force of destructiveness. End tangent.)

(2ndinsert: When a man and woman share

their affection with each other, they may

think that they enjoy that.

What do you think? Do you think that men

and women sharing affection is an

enjoyable thing? -a force of good?

In the imperfect area of human sexuality,

some good and also some destruction are

generated. Why is this imperfect good

forced to live in a RICH area, where it has

a hard time finding its input

-voids/improvements to make, when there

is right next door, areas of barrenness that

it needs to make its goodness force active?

Why does one torture their imperfect good

this way? End 2nd insert.)

(Here is another important tangent:

Here on earth, we live with what is

destructive and also that which is good and

growing. In this respect, we often do

actions which contain both goodness and

growth and also destructiveness in the same

action.

These actions I would term 'human actions'

(also referred to as 'gray actions' ). These

human areas are hopelessly a mixture of

both goodness and destruction (at our level

of ability we're unable to separate the

forces), and there is no purity of action in

them, as they contain both goodness as well

as destructiveness inescapably intertwined

in the same action. These mainly center

around human hungers and needs. So that

whether or not a human action is done,

partially done, or refrained from; some

destruction is always present, just in

different areas. Like when we eat, this is

good for our survival, but at the same time,

destructive to some other life form's

survival as a plant or animal had to die to

provide this. And if we don't eat, this is

good for the surrounding plants and

animal's survival, but destructive to us as

we starve.

However, in our human world, not all

actions are these 'human' or 'gray' actions.

Some actions CAN be divided up

completely (or much more so), into all

good vs. all destructive parts. And it is

here, with these non human areas, there can

exist a purity of action as is not seen in the

human actions. Areas of all-good exist, as

well as do areas that are all destructive,

exist. However, when areas of purely all

destructive exist, they soon self consume

and disappear. So that only the areas of all

-good exist with such a purity of action.

Still, if that which is all-destructive can

find a human action, it can feed off the

good in the human action, and it won't have

to self consume. -(It can continue to exist

and not disappear.) So, when the all-good

casts off the all-destructive: -to achieve

purity of action; the all destructive actions

become as ravening wolves seeking to prey

upon human actions, feeding off the good

in human actions, so that they can survive

and won't self consume/die.

And who is going to save a human action

from being preyed upon by these all

destructive actions? It is true that the all

destructive action CAN be separated away

from the human action, (unlike the

destructiveness within the human action

that is part of the human action); but who is

going to do it? The all destructive action is

desperate, as its life depends on preying on

a human action, and so has apparently

overpowered the human action. An all

-good action might intervene and separate

an all-destructive action from a human

action; but if it did so it would spoil its

purity of action and it would no longer be

an all-good action. So that all-good actions

are reluctant to intervene to separate an all

-destructive action from its prey human

action, as they loose their purity of action

in doing so. So it would seem the all

destructive actions (although since they've

mixed with the human actions, are no

longer purely all destructive), have found a

way of survival and a continued food

source by preying on the human actions

and human hunger satisfying; thus making

the human world more towards the

destructive side; towards barrenness (which

preserves the togetherness of the good and

destructive within that human action, as

we'll see later). (Recall the parable of the

good Samaritan.) xxxxxxxxx

However, what about this plan: What if the

all-good actions split a small part of

themselves off to come and deal with this

situation, while leaving their major part of

themselves behind, still separate and still

maintaining their purity of action. (The

smaller part that split off would loose its

purity of action through it's intervening.)

The smaller part that split off would come

and separate the all-destructive part from

the human part so that the all destructive

part would finally self consume and die;

leaving the human action no longer preyed

upon by the all destructive action; so that it

tended not towards barrenness, but towards

medium ability. Thus evil/destruction

would be lessened and much eliminated by

this plan. Xxxxxxxxxx

Now, in the human areas; when the smaller,

split off, all good part is

generating/creating something (to medium

ability), in the vacuums (where there is

nothing and barrenness) caused by

destruction, even the destruction of rules

over human areas,(and even the

destructions that are part of the human

actions themselves): it is wise for this split

off part to limit its exposure to only the

human part it is presently

creating/generating, and not the rest of that

human area; even if this generated material

is eventually for the rest of that human

area. This is because this smaller, split off,

all good part can limit the loss of purity and

exposure to destruction, to just what is in

the human part it is generating. Once it is

done creating a piece of this material, it can

then withdraw itself and then allow the rest

of the human area to have possession/use

of it. So that the split off all good parts of

us can act to generate material in isolation,

and then shortly, to also act to release

pieces of that material away from itself and

this isolation, unto the rest of this human

area. In these coordinated set of actions that

build parts of human actions/things; once a

certain part has reached medium ability,

this part is no longer generated in isolation,

but other parts are, as the split off all good

does move onto these other parts that are in

need of being brought from nothingness to

medium level. The parts at medium level

that are no longer being generated, are still

participants in the rest of this human area,

and do receive what is released from

isolation; its just that they do not keep on

being generated; so that they do not move

then from medium level to high ability, (as

a result of this generating in isolation and

then release). Xxxxxxxxx

There may be a difference in when a part is

first being created, and when it is added to

in additional generatings. When the split

off good part (sogp) is first generating an

action, it may divide in two and leave the

part to be corrupted in human ways,

behind. In order to do this, it generates

even less than what is needed for medium

ability (in the whole); sort of like the

romantic gestures around valentines day,

which are small, but mean a lot. Then it

moves it all to the half of itself to be left

behind in human ways, thus concentrating

them. At this point they are now at medium

level. (If they had started at medium level,

the concentration into the half that was to

be left, would result in a high level, which

would burn down in the evil present in

human ways.) However, with subsequent

additions to this action, a more robust

doing unto medium level right away can be

done, as there now already exists a

platform and entity to deliver the generated

material to.

Note that even if, for the sake of argument

say, it turns out that Christianity is a fraud

and that Jesus wasn't anybody special: note

that the structures of Christianity still exist

in our human world and in our universe and

within us, anyway; as some areas are more

easily all good vs all destructive, while

other areas have the destructive and the

good hopelessly intertwined in the same

action. Where does Jesus fit in? If we take

the Biblical account, Jesus was from God,

(and is therefore rich). But Jesus also

received God's punishment for our sins,

unto death. But he survived it as he was

resurrected. So we can't say he is as high as

God because he also received God sized

punishment. But we can't say he represents

the low point either, because being of God,

he survived the punishment and was

resurrected. Somewhere in between the

high and the lowest points, I would say (the

Bible says somewhat below an angel). Here

we see an entity often in between the

highness of God, and the lowness of death

and nothingness or hell: -who

longstandingly represents humanity and the

in between, and the medium level; better

than any other mortal human ever could.

Xxxxxxx

It is our sogp(smaller split off part from our

all good areas) that then acts to separate

destructive parts away from human areas

that can be separated away; and to fill

vacuums in the human areas to medium

ability; and not done by our main high all

good parts which are separate and kept

away from the human area. So that if we

are waiting for God almighty to step in and

do this. No. It is the meek and smaller

Jesus representations that are here with us

in the human area, that do this instead.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For our high, all-good parts to be separate

from any/all evil, even the small evil

amount found in human actions; is a

helpful thing. But this directive to label

human appetites as sinful, and make a

distinction between the sinful and the all

pure; can be taken too far. Just because the

all-good needs to be kept ultra pure, doesn't

mean the human appetites and the human

area is valueless or to be discarded. -That

absolute values are applied to say that there

is nothing in the human appetite area worth

keeping. That is why we have a Jesus

representation to intercede between the

high all good parts of us, and our human

appetite parts.

Now, superseding all this, is the directive to

either sacrifice completely ones individual

components (for the good of the complete

whole-and-one's high good parts); or to

instead, grow BOTH the areas of ones

individual components, as well as one's

complete whole.

So we want to choose the second option,

and put this spin on all we do.

So that in one's high good area, we actively

generate this dual nature of growing both

the components, as well as the whole. Now

at the border of our Jesus representation, or

sogp, our high good parts are acting to not

go into this area (because destructiveness is

nearby), and are doing this action of

staying out of this area in the dual

generating way/spin, and actively so. Now,

with the Jesus representation, since it is

made from small split off parts from the

high parts, it has this dual generating

already, and is how it comes naturally,

without additional or active effort (if that is

how we did our high parts)(since our Jesus

representation comes from a small split off

of our high parts). And our Jesus

representation acts to cast away any evils

away from our high parts (including

gray/human hunger evils); and also away

from itself, (save those which are gray,

which are part of human hungers); and also

casts away total evils out of gray, human

hunger materials/structures; and finally

generates to medium ability in vacuums

caused by destructivenesses. It is then in

these generatings to medium ability in the

vacuums that active dual spin `generating'

occurs once again. Xxxxx

When the sogp is generating to medium

ability in the gray areas; one might

consider that the sogp should generate to

medium ability in all possible gray areas

because these are all (supposedly)

legitimate areas for growth: and that

therefore, one's individual sogp

representation should also generate all

possible gray areas, even if one has no

hunger in some of these gray areas. But the

idea of a gray area is that some goodness is

obtained for the destruction that is also

generated. If you don't have a hunger or

need in a possible gray area, then by doing

the specific motions of that gray area, you

don't derive any satisfaction (or goodness)

from it, but the destruction is invariably

still done. Hence, if you don't have a

hunger or need in a possible gray area, then

it is not a gray area for you, but an all evil

area.

So that once your hunger is satisfied, you

don't continue feeding indefinitely, but do

stop feeding. Now, if a partner is involved

in a gray area hunger/feeding, one should

respect the partner's need to continue

feeding until satisfied; even though one is

right to stop their own feeding once one is

satisfied. But in areas where one

experiences hunger in, it is ok to generate

to medium ability after ones hunger has

been satisfied after finished material

has been spirited away to the all good,

leaving a complete vacuum in this gray

area, but now not so, since one generated to

medium ability before ending the feeding.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In this out of place insert, I was reading in

the philosophy section, and discovered the

argument about if there is evil in the world,

that proves that there is no benevolent, all

powerful omnipresent God. -That either he

wants to remove all evil, but can't (and is

therefore not all powerful); or he IS able,

but doesn't want to (making him

malevolent).

But my answer to this is that God IS dealing

with the evil in this world; and that the

situation we see today of God to be

nowhere in sight, with evil running freely

about with no almighty Godly intervention,

IS the process whereby God is successfully

dealing with all the evil. Because

evil/destruction is a parasitic force and not

self sufficient; by just leaving it alone, it

self eliminates. For an almighty or God the

Father to come down in power and

richness/love to confront evil/destruction,

would just provide the material for the

force of evil/destruction to grow. So that

Gods presence would just perpetuate and

encourage/grow evil. So to eliminate evil,

almighty God acts by staying away; and

sends a lesser powered representative,

Jesus Christ, to separate these all-evils off

human actions so the evil is totally isolated

and can self eliminate. -these evils that

keep popping up due to people's free will,

whereby they are learning to advance to be

more and more powerful as well as good.

Now because the moral evils perpetrated

by humans, demarks areas where God stays

away in his process of eliminating evil;

then natural destructions that occur in these

same areas don't change that. Hence

Christ's words about natural evils that the

people caught in them aren't any more

sinful than others, but that those not in him

will all likewise perish; indicating that

those who are in him, have the presence of

God to protect them; not on this earth, but

in that they die and are resurrected again in

perfection in him. So that from a

philosophical sense, there is no trouble

with the existence of an almighty

benevolent God; although He is

deliberately not omnipresent; as a tool to

remove evil.

However, God is omnipresent if you count

Jesus and the rest of us underlings who

work in the name of Jesus.

Now then; unfortunately, many who work

in the name of Jesus, have so irritated the

rest of us with their holier than though

behavior and inappropriate restriction of

the sex drive, that it is completely

understandable why some would try to

come up with a philosophical argument

against the existence of a benevolent God.

Its just that that is incorrect as I hope I

have eluded to. Not that it can be proven

absolutely that God exists. Where we

are at now, is that it isn't proven absolutely

either way whether God does exist or does

not exist. Gone is the proof that God does

not exist.

However, I think I have shown that

goodness/kindness is a superior force over

destructiveness; so that the odds are good

that a benevolent God does exist, and that

if not now, that one may exist in the future;

and if that means that this future

benevolent God is not quite God but is only

a near God, an almost God due to the fact

that He did not always exist, then so be it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let us now consider the force of

destruction:

When one person kills another; that is often

referred to as murder, is considered wrong,

and the person is considered a criminal. But

when a soldier kills for his country in war,

he is considered a hero, and that is

considered OK and right.

Then, when a man has sex with a woman,

that is either considered OK and good (an

holy estate ordained by God); or something

terribly wrong, depending on whether the

pair share a marriage license or not. Even

so; whatever the case, a man and a woman

having consensual sex is common to all

these (both right and wrong) cases. Yes,

with just the change of a little window

dressing, reality can change from being

absolutely right, to being absolutely wrong.

(Well, if reality is so easily changed, why

haven't we eliminated suffering?)

With reality being able to be changed from

right to wrong and vice versa, with the

change of a few details, is it any wonder

that reality does change often from right to

wrong and vice versa? With the world

changing so often, is it any wonder that we

might crave something stable; something

that is like a rock and unchanging;

something that is absolute; someone like

God?

Perhaps, however, we might consider that

reality doesn't actually change that much

with the change of a little window dressing.

(This is the position taken by eastern

religions -that " good " and " bad " , " right "

and " wrong " are human judgments, and

have little to no effect on actual reality, the

cycle of life (and death).)

We might consider that there are aspects

inherently within the actions of sex and

violence that are inherently good or bad,

and that do not change based on a change

of some window dressing. -that killing,

whether done for one's country, or for

personal passion, has some things that are

inherently bad. And that consensual sex

between a man and a woman has attributes

of positiveness and/or negativeness that

persist irregardless of whether the pair is

married, not married, cheating, etc.

There is however, one example of reality

changing 180 based on a change in details

concerning the act of killing. Killing is so

negative because it is so destructive of life.

But when destruction is turned back on

itself, a 180, about face is achieved. When

a murder kills, we as society feel the pain

from that destructiveness. But when a

policeman kills a murderer in preventing

other murders, that is a destruction of

destructiveness, which results in stopping

destruction to society in actual reality. So

that in this case, killing is OK; and actually

makes quite a difference in the amount of

overall destruction done.

Let us consider the concept of destruction

and destructiveness. Let's consider it as an

elusive concept; -an unknown quantity.

(how much destruction is there in a given

situation?) -That in a twinkling of an eye, it

can go from almost nothing, to double

trouble; (so that we never really know

(without being really smart) how much

destruction there is or that one has). Like

when the English police (destructively) kill

a terrorist before he can (destructively)

blow up a train, then the result is the public

is saved with little overall destruction

resulting.

But when the English police mistakenly

(destructively) kill an innocent man who

they thought was a terrorist, but wasn't in

reality; and while doing that, the real

terrorist eludes detection and

(destructively) blows up a train, then

overall, a whole lot of destruction has

resulted.

But before we explore the concept of

destruction any further; here are some out

of place tangents: Speaking of

destructiveness, what would we have done

if Hitler would have won?

Well, mankind's history is full of examples

where cruel despots did win. In fact, Hitler

loosing seems more the exception than the

rule. Take the roman empire for example.

They conquered and conquered till they

were ruler of the whole area. Nobody could

stop them. And they hung around for a long

time and made life miserable for the slaves

that did all their dirty work. But eventually

they fell. Some say it was their immorality

and wantonness that did them in. Others

say it was their infighting that did them in.

But I think it was their women that pulled

the plug. I think that once there was

nobody else to conquer and take slaves

from, that they had to make slaves of

themselves. And that life for the underclass

which did all the work to build their

extensive building projects to make life

sweet for their elite: -I think that life for

these underclass got so bad that the women

who were part of that society thought that

their world was too bad to bring offspring

into, or that they lacked the resources to

raise children as they were being taxed so

heavily. I get this from the history

channel's mention of how the emperor of

the time noticed how birth rates of his

subjects was declining (and Rome was

famous for taking census'), and that he in

response attempted to bring morality in and

encourage family structure, in order to

bring governmental emphasis onto raising

offspring for the empire.

And of course as we know, the Romans first

persecuted Christianity, then adopted

Christianity (Catholic Christianity) as the

state religion -reportedly in response to a

vision in battle, but I also think,

conveniently to bring emphasis to morality

and harnessing the sex drive to raise

offspring for the roman empire. But it

didn't work out. Where all others had failed

to overthrow the roman empire; when

things got so bad, the women said

collectively that they had had enough, and

they brought it to an end. -by not

having/raising sufficient offspring to

support that empire.

Admire the awesome power possessed by

women who I say brought the roman

empire to an end, where no other was able.

But we do have one relic from the defeated

roman empire -catholic Christianity. Under

this religion, birth control is severely

restricted and its members just pop out

child after child, thinking this is what God

wants. (But there's nothing in the Bible

even mentioning being against birth

control. -totally a roman's catholic

invention.) A ready source of human labor

is the result, but with no roman empire to

put it to work. Just a little too late to save

the roman empire. -so busy raising children

trying to catch up with their population

decline, they didn't have resources to keep

up their war machine. The rest of history is

stuck with this relic -roman's Catholicism,

that keeps its population popping out

children so that the world is so

overpopulated for the resources available,

that when the little ice age hits, it

precipitates disease and the black plague

that wipes out a third of the (over)

population. If humans won't control their

reproduction, nature will do it for them. In

Mexico, they are predominantly catholic,

and it is so crowded there that they leave

their country to come over here for better

conditions as illegal immigrants. But just

think. If those that come over here continue

their traditional ways and overpopulate

over here, the standard of living over here

will become just as poor as where they left,

so what's the point? (of coming over

here?) (Well, perhaps I am too harsh. One

point of coming over here would be to

share in the wealth that American

companies have taken from them through

globalization. However, having too many

children keeps a country weak and ripe for

exploitation such as this.) Our govt (at

least in border areas) needs to pay women a

few million dollars for having one or 2

kids, but nothing if they have more.

-At adult age, the govt could pay women

every month the monthly fraction of 2

million dollars if they had one or 2

children, but the day they had 3, the

payments would end. This would insulate

our society and our standard of living from

those who do not restrict the offspring that

they have, (in a world that is not free of

destruction).

In today's society, consider yourself a poor

young woman or a poor young man.

Perhaps you have been passed over for the

more favorable positions in your world,

and all you have left to expect is a life of

drudgery. And you say to yourself, there is

nothing else for me to do but to raise a

family and get involved in the life of our

kids. This was how I thought when I was

young, but now wish to sound a warning to

this path. Consider that we live in a

material world, and that everything

including ourselves as persons is given a

value, which is why they call it the 'human

resources 'department at work. Consider

the economic law of supply and demand:

-If there is a surplus of a commodity, then

its value will be low; whereas if there is a

scarcity of a commodity, it will have a high

value. Consider that if men and women in a

family structure spit out child after child

after child, that the supply of people will be

in a surplus, and that they will be treated as

of low value in this economic system we

are in. As a human, if there is something I

can do which will improve the treatment of

my fellow man, I would consider it. And

that if we collectively can limit the number

of offspring we have, then the ruling

system that we are in will be forced in

some respects to treat us better. But you

may say, I am young and I am lonely, and I

need some children to make my life

complete. And I say, OK, have one child,

or at most, two; but please avoid having a

large family -when you are in a system

whereby doing this collectively would

substantially lower everyone's standard of

living.

However, even I have violated my own

advice due to my ignorance of youth.

Consider that if women didn't supply such

a ready supply of humans, then perhaps the

governments that rule over them wouldn't

be so wasteful of the human resources that

they have: that they wouldn't be so easy to

send them into wars where they are

destroyed (wasted).

Governments are often wasteful of the

resources that they have, and this seems to

include human resources.

If we apply the concept of seeking a

medium environment when evil is present;

to whether a woman should have children:

I see this: woman who are in an absolutely

evil society with no goodness, may act to

not have any children, and thereby put an

end to this destructive society similar to the

doing destruction to destruction concept.

And men who are supposed to work, can

do no work and also thereby not feed evil.

But in a society that contains some evil, but

also some good, women in this society can

have a limited number of children (not an

excessive number of children (rich

environment)), and so help create a

medium environment, where the evil can

separate away. And also, men who are

supposed to work, can do a little work (not

an excessive amount) and thereby help

create the desired medium environment.

And of course, women in a totally GOOD

society can have many children and men

can do much work; as here, the rich

environment won't be burned down by evil.

So that the catholic or other religious way

of having many children and not using

much birth control does actually have a

right place. And that place is in a world of

all good where there is no evil, where love

reigns supreme. Here in this kind of world,

this is the right thing to do. But we do not

live in perfection yet, so we need to act

differently with our offspring production.

Also, as the world becomes ever more

populated, the specter of overpopulation

looms. If the world becomes too

overpopulated (and it can be calculated

when the world will become this way at our

present pace), then life will be unpleasant

for most of us, as there won't be enough

resources to share among us all. -until we

find a way to support even more people, or

join us all together as one.

In this tangent, I had the opportunity to hear

the old song about the leader of the pack,

and sorry I hurt you leader of the pack (of

bikers). Unfortunately for the leader of the

pack, he wipes out and dies, when dumped

by his girl at the request of her father. (And

if she wanted to be a rebel herself, in the

sexual area, that would be incompatible

with his desire for a traditional

relationship.) My interpretation of this

song, is that the leader of the pack desired

to settle down with this girl in the

respectable way; ie this was his girl in the

traditional morality. But in other areas of

his life, this leader/biker was not

respectable and in fact was a rebel to

society: and that this contradiction

of/within the different parts of his life, blew

him away. Such is the case with many.

There are many who hate religion and

denounce Christ, but who in the area of

sexuality, cling closely to the traditional

morality of one man one woman and no

cheating. These also, help contribute to the

end of the world just as much as any

religious person.

In another tangent: Some ask the question

do you believe in the existence of God?

And to these people especially I would ask:

do you believe that humans exist? Yes, in a

world made of only winners and losers;

rich and impoverished; where people are

either extensions of God, or extensions of

the devil; where everything/everyone is

seen in either black or white, and absolute

judgments are applied to everyone; where

there is no middle ground, or middle class

anymore: -humans may have existed once

in the distant past, but I'm beginning to

doubt that they still exist today. (because

humans are in between God and

nothingness; and it seems anything in

between is not allowed or tolerated

anymore.)

Unfortunately for us who are actually

human (due to the fact that much of what

we do contains/produces both goodness

and destructiveness (cursing and blessing)

in the same action): but who aren't allowed

to express this humanness (due to the fact

that the goodness and destructiveness that

they produce are segregated into separate

areas; so that the absolutes of total richness,

and total bareness are generated (instead of

a medium result in between rich and

poor)): then this whole system is destined

for eventual self consumption into total

nothingness and bareness (as explained

later).

Fortunately, I take heart in the laws

of God over human sexual expression. As a

human comes naturally, they usually have

an attraction for the opposite sex, so that

left to their own devices they usually have

sexual relations with members of the

opposite sex. I state that at this level (that

of an intact human), that God's laws/rules

over human sexuality are not absolute -are

neither always approving nor always

disapproving of a couple's sexuality.

As we shall see, it is important for us who

must often do both destruction and good in

the same action (formerly known as

humans), to be in a MEDIUM environment

between rich and barren. In the sexual area,

this can be achieved by humans just being

themselves as how they are naturally, and

then receiving God's judgment for that. So

that when one has sex with a member of

the opposite sex who they are married to,

then they receive approval and the richness

of God; and then when they later have sex

with someone who isn't their spouse, then

they receive condemnation and punishment

from God. Receiving both good reward and

punishment at the same time, results in a

medium environment, which is just what

the human needs to live in. This is what the

soldiers in trouble in Iraq are trying to

accomplish also.

Our government rewards us for killing for

our country, but punishes us for killing for

personal reasons. The soldiers in trouble in

Iraq have done both, and thus they should

receive both good reward, and also

punishment. They hope this will provide

them with the medium environment they

need as humans.

The government however, favors absolutes,

and wishes to thwart this attempt at human

expression by condemning these men to the

death penalty. `Ha, they didn't get to be

human after all, the govt. laughs'. But let's

look at the bigger picture: we have Jesus,

who took upon himself the sins of us all

and received the punishment for it. Now, it

is this scapegoat-ing and segregating of the

negative, destructive, punishments into one

area, while segregating the positive, rich,

rewards to another area, that is something

the lovers of absolutes just love to do; and

it is par for their course. So Jesus, who is

(rich) of God, takes on and receives this

punishment (assumedly from God) for sin.

And of course the wages of sin is

reportedly, death. So Jesus received the

punishment of death: but Jesus lived

through it. So it is then Jesus who by

combining richness (because he was of

God), with bareness (from the absolute

condemnation from God (for sins)); who

has successfully generated this medium

environment, that we humans (formerly

humans, excuse me), so desperately need to

allow our human ways to expire before we

join God; and also to provide in earthly

life, a medium environment over

barrenness in a world with evil where the

ways of God aren't present at that

time/place. Even if these soldiers do not

achieve the humanness they sought, they

needn't worry, because Jesus already has,

and they can just join Him. Consider that

the persona of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in

the Bible, is not an absolute. That at one

end of the scale, is God the Father, who

represents the absolute and extreme of

richness: and that death and the devil

represents the other extreme and absolute

-that of barrenness and poverty. But

consider that Jesus never fits either of these

absolutes or extremes, but is somewhere in

between, representing humanity. This ends

my out of place tangent.

Now we continue with the force of

destruction: If there's no basic difference

between good and evil, then it doesn't

really matter whether you do right or

wrong. -The natural consequences would

be the same. The only people it matters to

are the 3rd parties who say what's right or

wrong. Well, my definition of good vs evil

does have a basic difference. -One destroys

life and shrinks; the other increases life and

grows, (in separation). But when another

definition of right and wrong that does not

have a common thread of basic difference

between right and wrong, appears, it's just a

diversion from the basic differences that do

exist. It's a frustration, a GAME!, a waste

of time. I mean, why bother making

distinction between right and wrong if

they're both the same or of similar make

-up? We don't all like the same things.

Some of us like a little cruelty. Some don't

go for this lovey dovey stuff; and want a

little more discipline and strictness. -What

about these people? Why should God have

a personality more to my liking, while

leaving these people at odds with God?

Why shouldn't God be more like these

people? What makes me so special; to have

God more on my side? Well, God could be

cruel, harsh, and demanding. Or he could

be something else. But we have already

covered this. We've shown that a

benevolent God is the most powerful; and

that a non benevolent God has a weakness

and can eventually be replaced by a

benevolent God. So what can I say? Those

who like to be mean, are going to be at

odds with the most powerful God. I'm sorry

that this is the way it is, but it is from the

effects of meanness itself; that meanness

does not provide the power to support the

most powerful God; while love and

kindness do. In other words, let us

emphasize that which is destructive vs that

which is not destructive, is growing and

loving, as opposed to other criteria.

Let's consider what can be done and how

we can respond to the problem of

destructiveness/destruction. We can use

destruction against itself as a way to solve

this problem. When there is

destructiveness, we all suffer (from the

poverty and bareness it brings). But when a

policeman or lawgiver uses destructiveness

against itself, (by doing destruction to

criminals (who are themselves

destructive)), then society is relieved, as the

destruction from criminals is prevented.

Hence a legitimate organization of police

and lawgivers and laws can grow up

around this concept (of doing (measured)

destruction to those who are destructive (in

a destroying of destruction)). Police and

law enforcers are destructive, yes, but when

that is applied to destructive criminals, it

works out to lower overall destruction. But

when laws grow beyond punishing the

destructive, to punishing people for non

destructive crimes, then the concept falls

apart, and the police and lawgivers

themselves become the

agents/sources/instigators/perpetrators of

destruction, thus increasing the destruction

in society (taking on the role of 'criminal'

themselves).

-When destruction is applied against itself

(as when police are destructive to

destructive criminals), a net

reduction/lowering in the overall

destruction results. -But when law

enforcers enforce laws against non violent,

non destructive criminals; THIS PURPOSE

ISN'T SERVED; because in this case,

destruction wasn't used against itself: -there

wasn't a destroying of destruction. -So

there's no lowering of overall destruction

but instead, increased destruction, with

police being the perpetrators of this

increase in destruction; as the result.

This method of lowering overall destruction

(by turning destruction upon itself) is a

precarious balance. If one doesn't get it

right and know exactly where the

destruction is (like where are the WMD's) ;

and only destroys what is destructive, then

they themselves -the police, the good guys,

then become agents of destruction and it no

longer works that overall destruction is

lowered.

Hence this method to deal with (that is, to

lower or eliminate) destructiveness (by

turning destruction against itself), although

in theory it can work; it requires one to

know in depth just where the

destructiveness is, and to only do

destruction there. Otherwise, if one doesn't

get it right, then they haven't solved the

problem of destructiveness, and may well

have made it worse by increasing the

amount of actual destructiveness done. But

when someone is mean and destructive to

you, what else can you do but do

destruction back to them, so as to destroy

destructiveness? It would seem your

choices are to do nothing: or to get back at

them. What else is there?

Well, there is another response, and that is

to be a 'sorter'. In the Bible there is talk of

how God at the end of the world will sort

and separate the good from the evil, the

goats from the sheep, the weeds from the

crop plants. And of course the bad will be

burned in a fire while the good will receive

heaven. (but that here on earth the 'tares'

and the 'wheat' will not be separated and

will live together). What I say is, why wait

till the end of time before this sorting takes

place? Or, let us precipitate the end of time

by doing this 'sorting' now. And do this

sorting in a non destructive way, so that the

sorting itself won't be sorted together with

what is destructive. Yes, each should be

sorted and separated unto its own kind. The

mean and destructive people should be

separated from the not-mean and not

-destructive people.

The sex offenders should be put together so

they may sexually offend each other; the

murderers should be put together so they

can kill each other; the thieves should live

together so that they can steal from each

other.

Who are we to say that these things are

wrong and make laws against these things

and impose our morality on others? If that

is what these people want to do, let them

prove the rightness or wrongness of these

things themselves, by actually doing these

things (to each other).

Who are we to say what is right or wrong

outside of the actions speaking for

themselves -outside of actually proving it

with the actions themselves? How can we

know for sure? How can you be sure that

your version of right and wrong is correct?

If we are to come up with a version of right

and wrong outside of actions speaking for

themselves; we need to come up with a true

version of what is right and wrong; and

what if we're in error and come up with an

inaccurate version of what's right and

wrong? -then our version of right and

wrong becomes an instrument of

destruction, just like the wrongdoers we're

making these laws against.

But the action to sort and separate like

people into groups together (according to

their actions), itself, makes no judgment as

to the rightness or wrongness of their

actions. -It sorts and separates the good

people together just as well. -These good

people must put up with the goodness that

each does to each other. We must put up

with what we produce, when we are sorted

unto our own kind; whether that be

destructiveness; or goodness.

Because of this, we need NOT otherwise

come up with a second system of accurate

laws of right and wrong outside of the

actions themselves (so that the actions will

speak for themselves). So that yes, I am

prejudice and I discriminate (against mean

people). And I believe that people should

be separated and made to live with their

own kind -not according to the color of

their skin, but according to the

destructiveness and meanness that is within

them that they do. -so that the mean people

are put together and that they are separate

from the not mean people that are also put

together.

And the destructive containing versions of

right and wrong will also be sorted and

separated to its own kind.-according to the

destructiveness or lack thereof that it

contains and does. So that instead of doing

destruction back to mean people, I instead

act to non destructively sort them -each to

their own kind -according to the

destructiveness or lack thereof that they do.

And if I myself am not destructive, then I

will be sorting myself away from them (the

meanies). This is a better way than what we

have now. Prisons are a start but they must

be made non destructive and not be places

of punishment (outside of what the

prisoners do to each other), but instead be

places of separation and sorting, where the

mean people are kept together and away

from the rest of us non mean, non violent

people.

However, when considering the gray areas

(of living life on earth), they are by

definition, areas where we're unable to

separate the good and destruction: -where

single actions do both good and destruction

at the same time (to different areas). Here

we're unable to do this sorting, -we cannot

sort good parts from destructive parts, as a

part is both good and destructive. So, here

we must resort to some destruction, not

only in acting in the gray area, but also to

partially destroy absolute rules. Xx

Note also, that there is an exception to this

sorting all to be together with their same

kind. Men and women are different and so

should be sorted away from each other.

But that isn't workable, because men and

women need to get together for

reproduction.

And as we know, we wish to discourage

men and women who are alike from getting

together so as not to squeeze the individual

entity more.

Also, there needs to be some connection

between unbalanced individuals that make

up a societal entity so that they may share

their production with each other, as this is

how the societal entity works; and if they

were forced to be alone with themselves,

they would lack all the other productions

that everybody else produced. So there are

exceptions to this sorting unto like kind.

But when it comes to destruction vs

kindness, it works out well, because it

allows good to exploit its advantage in that

if it can be separated from evil, it will

survive while evil will die. Maybe we can

just stick to using this segregation

concerning good vs evil only.

xxxxxxxx

When we have perfected an area and are

satisfied with it, we usually keep it the way

it is and don't change it. Here we shut off

alternative possibilities and stick with what

we've got. But if an area is a work in

progress and contains imperfection, then on

the contrary, we don't want to preserve it

and keep it the way it is, but instead, are

open to change. Here we're open to all the

possibilities and are not so quick to shut out

possibilities in order to select just one way.

Let us consider where making up and

enforcing rules fits into this. When we

make rules, we eliminate, out of all the

possibilities, that which we don't want.

Obedience to rules requires that someone

do destruction and destroy any emerging

possibilities outside the prescribed course,

whether we destroy them within ourselves,

or enforcers destroy them when we don't

self discipline. Hence rule making and

obeying, is inherently a user of destruction

to obtain its goals. When we close our

minds to destructive possibilities, that

works because being destructive to that

which is destructive, lowers overall

destruction. But if we don't get it right, and

our laws eliminate non destructive

possibilities, then our system of

making/enforcing rules has increased the

amount of overall destruction due to the

fact that making/enforcing rules, itself,

involves the use of destruction (to eliminate

the possibilities outside the prescribed

course). Since this is just another form of

using destruction against destruction, it also

falls under the requirement that the user

know in depth, and get it right. (This is

why 'vengeance is mine sayeth the lord',

because only God knows enough to use

destruction to eliminate destruction without

causing more destruction in the process.)

Not only is the concept of making and

enforcing rules, a user of destructiveness to

accomplish its goal; it additionally detaches

people from reality/actuality.

Because alternatives outside the prescribed

path aren't allowed to exist; they can't be

observed, experimented with, or worked

with (or learned from). And the only

contact with reality / actuality is -what is

within the prescribed path.

(This is unlike the sorting method, where

the evil/destruction still exists -just that it

exists separately (although not for long as it

destroys itself).)

Since using destruction against destruction

requires the user to know it, in order to get

it right and not become a doer, a source of

destruction themselves: if one doesn't know

it all from the start, its difficult to learn

along the way in an environment which is

largely detached from reality. And if out of

ignorance you apply and enforce rules

which are inaccurate then you yourself

become an instrument and source of

destruction through these rules. And since

the use of rules does greatly detach us from

reality; we can continue being inaccurate in

our rules, in our ignorance for quite awhile

without realizing it.

Since rules work by applying destruction

against destruction, this works only when

one knows what's going on. But since the

rules method also greatly detaches one

from reality/actuality (so that one cannot

know, but must take it by faith); this sets

the rules user up to fail more often than not.

Taking something by faith is

understandable if it's something we're

unable to know for sure. But requiring that

we take things by faith when it's possible to

know for sure, but that we don't allow

because we don't allow anything outside

the rules to exist at all, and thus have

nothing to experiment with or learn from:

is just incompetence.

There are things which have both

goodness and destruction inseparably in

them, in the gray areas of actually living

life on this earth. None of the previously

proposed ways suggested to deal with and

overcome destruction in this situation,

works. But the making and enforcing rules

method is worst because it freezes this

imperfect situation as it is (by eliminating

all possibilities except that within the

prescribed course; thus preventing change),

and does so in detachment from

reality/actuality and hinders change out of

this situation. Consider a gray action which

inseparably (at our level of ability)

produces both goodness and

destructiveness (to different areas) when

done. What is the result of rules applied in

this action? Well, first let's consider this

area without rules. Suppose when we do

this action, goodness in area A results, but

also, destruction in area B results. If we do

this action then goodness (A) and

destruction ( will result.

If we destroy, eliminate or don't do this gray

action, then destruction in area A and

goodness in area B will be the result. Either

way, destructiveness is always present (in

different areas). So no matter if we

completely destroy, partially destroy, or do

no destruction to this gray action: we'll

have been unsuccessful at completely

eliminating destructiveness here. The plan

to use destruction against itself won't have

worked here until we're able to dissect this

action and apply destruction only to the

destructive parts of this action. And if we're

unable to do this at our level of ability then

we're unable to eliminate destructiveness

completely. The same problem occurs with

the sort and segregate this action unto its

own kind method. If we're unable to dissect

this action into component parts and

segregate the destructive parts away from

the good parts, (because this is a gray

action which by definition we're unable to

separate its good parts from its destructive

parts at our level of ability), we're thus

unable to do the segregating idea, by

definition.

If we apply no rules to this action then a

haphazard pattern of sometimes doing this

action and sometimes not doing this action

can result, with area A receiving goodness

some of the time and destructiveness the

rest of the time; and area B receiving

destruction some of the time and goodness

the rest of the time.

But if we apply a rule either for or against

this gray action, then a structure is put to

the gray action, so that one area will

receive goodness all the time and the other

area will receive destruction all the time as

a result of the gray action. Even if we apply

a rule which allows this action in some

circumstances while prohibiting this action

in other circumstances: this will involve

subdivided area A's and B's. And in these

subdivided areas, some will receive

destruction all the time, and others will

receive goodness all the time. And when an

area or subdivided area receives destruction

all the time, it becomes barren and

desolate.

When an area receives goodness all the

time, it becomes rich and at high ability.

This is what is created when rules are

applied to a gray action.

Rules put a structure to the gray actions so

that their goodness and destructions are

fixed to the same areas; unlike a haphazard

doing of the gray actions under no rules.

When an area receives destruction some of

the time and goodness other times, then the

area becomes of medium ability -neither

desolate nor rich. This is what results when

no absolute rules are applied to a gray

action.

When rules are applied to gray actions, the

destructiveness of the gray action is

segregated to one area while the goodness

of a gray action is segregated to other

areas, so that a patchwork of desolate

environments and rich environments is the

result.

When life that is mainly destructive, acts, it

produces an environment of desolation.

When life that is mainly good acts, it

produces a rich environment. And when

(earthly) life that is in some ways good, but

is in other ways destructive, acts: it can

produce an environment that is neither

desolate nor rich, but that is at a medium

level. It is in these medium level

environments where the forces separate,

-where goodness becomes separate from

destructiveness.

in the rich environment the good can't get

away from the evil due to evil's fast growth

in a rich environment.

-when the life material is fed into areas at

medium level of ability: here the goodness

is able to get away and become separate

from the destructiveness (and when forced

to survive alone, is able to survive).

Eliminating and destroying rules out of

gray actions allows the goodness in gray

actions to be open to all alternatives thus

allowing change and thus be freed from the

destructiveness in the gray action(s). While

applying absolute rules to gray actions,

preserves the state they are in -that is of

having both goodness and destructiveness

together, to the point that gray actions need

these rules in order to persist as gray

actions.

Thus it behooves us to destroy and tear

down (in a partial, special way) the rules

that always keep everything the same in

these gray actions (and in Pleasantville),

and allow anarchy to rule in the gray

actions. (Just remember that such partial

destroying of these gray rules is also

impure; and being such, also needs a

mechanism to keep it also from spoiling

our pure areas). Just think, without rules,

the gray actions which do both good and

destruction, can reap what they sow, which

is a medium and middle class environment,

instead of either rich or barren. And here

the good present can heal itself and free

itself from the destruction and escape to a

rich life separate from the destruction.

Whereas with absolute rules over gray

aspects of life; there results a patchwork of

bareness and richness (as a result of that

gray actions do both good and destruction,

and that rules have structured the gray

actions to always be done the same way,

then some pieces of the patchwork always

receive destruction and other pieces always

receive goodness); thus generating a

patchwork of rich and bareness in the

presence of a destructive force (because

gray actions have some destructiveness

inseparably as part of them): thus resulting

in firestorms where that destructive force

burns down the rich parts of the patchwork,

leaving only barrenness in the end.

(This segment is repeated.) Let us analyze

goodness vs destructiveness, and consider

some situations, while keeping in mind

these truths: -that it takes life and ability to

do/be either goodness/growth, or

destruction-and-death (and that lack-of-life

isn't able to cause either force);

Inputs and outputs: -that the force of

destruction-and-death takes IN what's alive

as its input-or-raw material, and produces

voids-in-life and inanimate material as its

OUTPUT as what it produces.

-That the force of goodness-and-growth

takes IN voids-in-life and inanimate

material, as its input-or-raw material, and

produces 'life' as its OUTPUT and what it

produces.

With these concepts in mind let's consider

the situation of the force of destruction

-and-death in a rich environment. (Here in a

rich environment, note that the force of

good/growth DOES NOT have much or

any of its input raw material (which is

voids in life), and so it is not capable of

rapid growth here in the rich environment.)

Here, not only does the force (of

destruction) have plenty of its raw material

or input (life); it also has what supports

what either force is made of (which is life).

Thus here in the rich environment, the

force of death-and-destruction can grow

rapidly and become quite large.

(Compare this to a medium environment:

In a medium environment, destruction

doesn't have as much of its input, nor

does it have as much of what forces can

be made of. Thus destruction can't grow

as fast, thus allowing goodness(which

has more of its input here, allowing for

equal growth footing/opportunity) to get

away from the force of destruction. Once

away from destruction, the two forces

are alone, and the good survives while

the destruction self consumes.)

(In this tangent, please consider that

since enforcing rules over the gray areas of

living life causes a patchwork of rich and

barren environments: my question is, why

do we scrap together these rich

environments where there is the force of

destruction nearby -(as destruction is

inescapably a part of all gray actions at our

ability level)?

(Why do we prevent the force of good from

growing here, -keeping it from its input

(voids-which are scarce in rich

environments)? These rich environments

(which are full of destruction's growth

input) will just result in successive

firestorms where the gray actions'

destructiveness burns down the rich parts

of the patchwork. (and since the force of

destruction has grown rapidly and large in

the once rich environment, it usually burns

this part of the patchwork down completely

to barrenness.) All this does is feed

evil/destructiveness. As for myself, I don't

wish to succor and feed the force of

destructiveness. End tangent.) END REPEAT

Let us now consider the reverse situation:

-that is with the force of goodness-and

-growth in a barren environment. Here the

force of goodness has an abundance of its

input or raw material (that being voids in

life/inanimate material), but unlike the

previous situation, it doesn't have an

abundance of what supports what either

force is made of (which is life). So here,

even though it has plenty of its input/raw

material, this force of goodness isn't able to

grow rapidly at least not right away, -until

it is able to generate enough life from the

inanimate to support what it is made of.

With both the forces at low ability, neither

is able to do much, so the force of good is

unable to get away from the force of

destruction, thus preserving the

togetherness of the 2 forces in this

situation. Hence in neither a rich nor barren

environment can the forces separate.

When we humans are going about our daily

lives, most of what we do is neither all

good nor all destructive but is usually some

of both. And this is due to that the human

ways/actions available to us usually contain

both goodness and also destructiveness as

part of the same action. So that we produce

both life and voids in life, which tends to

result in a medium environment (between

rich and barren). And in our medium

environment, the destructiveness force

(which is one part of our human ways),

doesn't have access to an excessive amount

of its input (which is life), and doesn't have

access to an excessive amount of what it

can be made of (which is also life). It is

thus NOT able to grow incredibly rapidly

(like it would in a rich environment). We

are thus able to avoid and get away from it.

(When we get away from it, it(destruction)

no longer has a source of good to feed it. It

is alone, and alone it consumes itself and

dies, unlike when good is alone and is able

to survive when alone.) Here we can see

how a medium ability environment is

useful where evil is present that needs

separating away, to separate the forces.

Here we're able to get away and separate

from the evil, whereas in a rich

environment the evil would grow too fast

for us to do so. (And in a barren

environment, the directive of good has no

special advantage or fast growth; (it thus

remains unable to get away/separate from

the destruction it is with); so that won't

help either).

(We can see that neither rich nor barren

environments are effective, but that

medium, middle environments are

effective.) And once separate from the evil,

the evil has no food supply and it burns

itself out and disappears, while the good

survives.

Just think, without rules, the gray actions

which do both good and destruction, can

reap what they sow, which is a medium and

middle class environment, instead of either

rich or barren. And here the good present

can heal itself and free itself from the

destruction and escape to a rich life

separate from the destruction.

Whereas with absolute rules over gray

aspects of life; there results a patchwork of

bareness and richness in the presence of a

destructive force (because gray actions

have some destructiveness inseparably as

part of them): thus resulting in firestorms

where that destructive force burns down the

rich parts of the patchwork, leaving only

barrenness. And not only that: under no

rules, when an environment is middle class

and medium, -no lives are eliminated.

However, in the barren parts of the rule

ridden structure, where this piece of the

patchwork receives mostly destruction: the

material in this area does not survive.

-Because when something is beaten down

again and again and only receives

destruction, it eventually dies and is

completely destroyed. Now the death of

this material doesn't heal the world, as the

world continues being a place where

actions (gray) continue to have both

destructive as well as good effects. -that

hasn't been healed or changed. The world

continues on living, but now gray actions

cannot act on material that doesn't exist.

The material that died no longer exists. So

gray actions in this rulie world are forced to

take remaining material that does exist.

Thus some from the rich area must now be

thrown into the barren area.

And as those in the barren area die off,

more and more from the rich areas must be

sucked down. And it is all so senseless, as

this downward and eventually total self

consumption occurs only in the rulie

version of earthly life. So unless you have a

death wish, and if you want to live and love

and get better, then cast the rules out of

earthly life. Smash them down. As we now

know, they are the sources of death

destruction and stagnation, holding us back

from getting better. Since we know where

the source of destruction is, we can use

destruction against destruction here. Well,

if we can segregate rules away from us to

be with that which is destructive; this is

better because it does not require us to get

it exactly right. But in a pinch, if we're

unable to do this, we can know we're

probably ok to use destruction against rules

over our gray areas of our earthly life.

Rules try to associate themselves with God

and the overall good and try to make

themselves out to be pure and holy. But as

we have seen, rules are users of

destruction. They can dish it out with

impunity, but hide behind God and

goodness when it is their turn to take it. No

longer. They should now take what they

dish out; as we now see they are no better

than the rest of the shit that goes on here on

this imperfect human earth.

However, let us consider another point of

view: Let's consider that by applying rules

to a gray action, we thereby cause

destruction to be segregated to one area,

and goodness to be set aside to another

area, that we thereby quarantine the force

of destructiveness, (where after it brings its

area to desolation, then dies out and is

thereby eliminated).

The only problem with this line of

reasoning is: this is a gray action which by

definition has goodness and destructiveness

inseparably in it (at least at our level of

ability). There is no separation of goodness

from destructiveness, by definition; by the

situation itself. The destructiveness always

has a source of goodness nearby to feed on

through the common link of the gray

action. So that the destructiveness is not

truly quarantined but always has a supply

of goodness nearby due to the nature of

gray actions whereby they produce

goodness and destruction from the same

action. So that destruction doesn't actually

burn itself out and die but is preserved at a

low level, as it is occasionally able to get

some of the nearby goodness common to

the gray action it is part of (and burn it

completely down in a firestorm).

Rules don't work when applied to gray

actions. They don't change the fact that

some destruction is done (they just

rearrange where (in which areas) it is done)

and hence are no better than anarchy in the

gray areas in terms of the level of overall

destruction done. And if there are rules

over gray actions (which people say are

from God), that rearrange where

destruction is done in gray areas without

eliminating the destruction in gray areas,

then they tie God to being a doer of

destruction (in the gray areas) done not for

the purpose of eliminating other

destruction. -(that is, being a source of

destruction). Evildoers also do destructive

things not for the purpose of eliminating

other destruction and are also

sources/perpetrators of destruction. These

rules from God over the gray areas then

make God out to be no better than an

evildoer or a sinner. (And to them who

would kill those who speak against the

rules of God as instructed by the old

testament Bible, we should sort them

together with those who would murder and

kill so the rest of us won't have to put up

with the destruction they do.) The rules

over gray areas don't effectively quarantine

its destructiveness to the point it is

eliminated.

The rules actually preserve a gray area in its

present state and prevent the goodness from

being able to be separate from the

destructiveness.

And, the rules detach us greatly from reality

by preventing any alternative ways from

existing. and through this ignorance allow

for their continued use to the exclusion of

all else even though they are ineffective

and even a hindrance to goodness.

Why can't earthly life reap what it sows?

-experience what it naturally produces?

Life here on earth that does neither all good

nor all destruction, naturally produces an

environment that is at a medium level

-between desolation and richness.

But if rules are applied here, then medium

level environments will disappear leaving

only patchworks of desolate and rich

environments in its place; which will thus

preserve the earthly life as is and prevent

its change out of the togetherness of

goodness and destruction. But to

accomplish this, the natural product that

earthly life produces -that of a medium

level environment, must be denied it. It

must be acted on to prevent this from

happening. Who or what would want to

preserve earthly life as it is and prevent

change out of this situation? Well,

goodness or God certainly would not. God

has no need of anything we might produce

here on earth. But the force of

destructiveness is an inferior force that

can't survive on its own. If alone it will

bring its area to desolation and then cease

to exist. To keep existing, it requires the

togetherness of good and destruction so it

always has something to feed on. (i.e., the

knowledge of good-AND-evil) -knowing

that good and evil are always together.

So then it is the force(s) of destruction that

desire to detain earthly life in its present

state (of goodness and destruction together)

and prevent its progress out of this

togetherness, so as to preserve the forces of

destruction.

So any rules in gray areas, although they

may claim to be from God: if they act to

preserve our present gray state, by making

environments of desolation and/or richness

out of environments that would otherwise

be of a medium level; then these rules

actually are from the forces of destruction,

and we are doing their bidding, not God's.

Some may help make and enforce rules

over our earthly gray actions of living

earthly life; and they may also call

themselves champions of compassion,

Christian charity and love (tough love). But

I ask you: what benefit does making and

enforcing rules (over gray actions of human

life), deliver to the all important prime

directive of charity, compassion and love?

No, on the contrary, these rule making and

enforcing over earthly life serve not love,

but instead, destruction. And to mix charity

with destruction is just a feeding of the

inferior force of destruction in a

preservation of the forces of good and evil

together. -the knowledge of good-and-evil.

(the togetherness of good and evil), which

is a tool to succor evil. Now as we go about

our human ways, separating away the evil

therein, using our medium ability

environment to do so: we may realize that

we are humans and not Gods. We may

realize our ways are human and that they

aren't perfection nor absolute. But if by

chance we do come in contact with

absolute goodness, we thus experience a

rich environment. And absolute goodness

has perfect ways which richly supply its

needs, and now ours since we have come in

contact with it. But by habit, we are used to

our human ways, and if we do our human

ways in the presence of absolute goodness,

the destructiveness in our human ways in

the rich environment will eat us alive as the

destructiveness will grow fast and we won't

be able to separate it away in this rich

environment. This is the fear of God.

Also, let us realize that there can be a

competition between absolute good ways

and human ways. In the presence of

absolute goodness, it is clear that the

absolute good ways are better and that we

seek to give up our human ways as we're

well aware that they cause us torment

(when we do them in the presence of

absolute goodness). However, when

absolute goodness is absent and when

human ways are all that's available, then

human ways work fine in their medium

ability environment. -If we were to give up

our human ways with no absolute good

ways to replace them, then we'd throw

ourselves into barrenness as nothing

would get done, and this would also be a

torment because in the barrens, the good

in us wouldn't be able to get away from

the destructive in us and we'd be

preserved, unable for our goodness to

advance to absolute goodness.

(In barrenness, the (lesser/human) good

there has little life making it up (Recall,

it takes capability/life to do either force,

and voids can't do either force), so it

can't do much (even though it has a lot of

its input(which is voids)). The evil there is

also just about out of its input (life), so it

can't do much either. -stuck there

together with each other.)

-We humans need medium environments,

not barren nor rich environments for our

human ways to function, and for the good

in us to escape and join absolute goodness.

So when absolute good ways are available,

we should give up our human ways in favor

of them. But when absolute good ways are

unavailable then here in this area, is room

for human ways. Human ways done in a

medium environment, purify themselves

over time to become absolute good ways.

So there can be a competition within us

between human and absolute good ways.

(unless we are eternally held back from

growing into absolute good, and are

eternally preserved as human, through a

careful living of a rule ridden version of

life.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Important insert:

In Christianity, mention is made of those

with eyes who do not see, and those with

ears who do not hear. But coming to

Judism, Christianity, Islam, and secular

tabloid newspapers with some creep into

the regular news: those with brains who do

not think.

We have an activity, of sorting; -of sorting

that which is good into its own kind, and

that which is destructive, or evil, into its

own kind. And in areas that can be sorted

completely into that which is good vs that

which is destructive; this sorting activity

works well to advance goodness over

destruction; as that which is all destructive,

self consumes while that which is all good,

survives, when these forces are separate.

But what do we to do with human areas

and actions which have goodness and

destruction intertwined in the same action;

that do both good and destruction

inseparably from the same action (to

different areas)? What do we do with these

human actions, concerning our activity of

sorting? What if we realize that there are 3

types of things: -1, those things that are

mostly all good; -2, those things that are

mostly all destructive; and 3, those things

that are hopelessly both good and

destructive intertwined. Then we could,

possibly, apply a 3 tiered structure to our

sorting activities.

But what if we instead, denied the natural

trinity of our situation, and applied only a

two dimensional sorting action to our

situation anyway? We could take an

imperfect human action with good and

destruction intertwined, like the

reproductive drive area (an area that has a

large influence because it effects us all),

and we could sort some of it as good and

some of it as bad. We could sort those who

didn't cheat into the good side as a holy

estate ordained by God; while we could

sort those who did cheat to the bad side;

and so enact a 2 tier structure to our sorting

activities. (But what is so great about

forcing a 2 dimensional solution upon a 3

dimensional reality?) Since the reality of

our situation is that the human reproductive

area is one with good and destruction

hopelessly intertwined; what we would

have done is to corrupt the all-good side

with the destructive part from the holy

estate ordained by God that is sorted to the

all-good side; and also provided the evil in

the all-bad side a source of good to feed off

of, from the good of human material that

was sorted to the all bad side, so that the

evil would then not self consume and die.

So that the benefits that could possibly be

achieved from doing sorting activities;

would in actuality, not be achieved; thus

making our sorting activities unproductive

and of no account.

So that when a person idles their mind and

applies a 2 dimensional sorting action to a

3 dimensional reality, is it any wonder

things don't work out so well and this area

continues to be problematic.

Realize that when we take a human action

or part of a human action (it still has both

good and bad intertwined), and sort it to

either the all-bad side, or the all-good side,

that we have done an inaccurate sort action,

because we have just added some good to

the all-bad, so that it is no longer all bad; or

have added some bad to the all-good, so

that it may no longer be all good, and may

even burn it down in a firestorm. Xx

One might be able to believe that short

sighted old men would come up with these

crappy 2 dimensional solutions; but one

would expect God to be beyond that. And

with the inclusion of Jesus Christ; 2

dimensional thinking can expand into a 3 D

reality with a trinity that includes Jesus

Christ; as it was Jesus Christ who took a

stand by not condemning the woman taken

in adultery; while short sighted religious

and secular men, even to this day, did/do.

Unless you are as powerful as God, and are

able to sort all things into all good vs all

bad, then as humans, we must place what

we are not able to separate into all good vs

all bad, into a third pile. Xxxx

Note that with these human areas: no

matter what stance one takes, one cannot

avoid destruction in one area or another. If

one is abstinent and a eunuch, destruction

hits one area. If one is promiscuous,

destruction hits another area. If one is

faithfully married, destruction hits other

areas. If one cheats, destruction hits

different areas. But some destruction is

always present, just in different areas. This

is the way it is with human or gray actions.

And destruction brings us down and makes

us vulnerable.

So that no matter where we are sorted to in

a 2 dimensional sorting; our human area is

vulnerable to attack as being imperfect and

to potentially be subjugated to an all

destructive force that can use it as food for

its destroying. And because our human

area is weak, it might not be able to get out

of this bondage. Just realize that there is no

configuration of your human area that you

can choose that is safe from some form of

attack from the all-evil; even though some

not well thought through 2 dimensional

sorting actions may sort your human

configuration to the all-good side. What

one needs to do instead, is to look to

material that is outside ones human area,

a Jesus representation if you will, that is

not participating in the human hunger, that

then can free and separate away the all

destructive that is preying upon one's

human area. And note, that one's Jesus

representation, or sogp, is part of a 3 tiered

structure, or trinity; and is not 2

dimensional.

So that because the human area contains

some destruction, one's sogp needs to get

as far from these human actions as possible

when maintaining a 3 dimensional sort,

(which is one of the functions of the sogp).

But another function of the sogp is to bring

to medium ability in these human areas,

where there is barrenness; and this causes

the sogp to be closer to the doing of human

actions. So that the sogp must split its

resources, some (say half) of which go and

maintain medium ability in the human

actions, and others of which do a 3 way

sorting action, including casting out all

evils trying to feed here, into the all evil

pile; so that kind of a four dimensional

reality exists with this situation, with the

sorting part of the sogp keeping as far away

from the doing of the human action as

possible, while the bringing to medium

ability part of the sogp, not so much so. Xx

Note that the sorting part of the sogp is still

not pure enough to contact the high parts,

and is part of the human material, and also

acts to keep all the human material

including itself, from contacting the high

parts.

End important insert. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

But then there is the topsy-turvy upside

down situation where human ways are

unavailable to a human, but godly ways are

available, and then absolute godly ways

eventually fill that need. This occurs in the

reproductive drive area where hot babes/ or

studs act to get members of the opposite

sex to compete over their affections; they

pick who they like best and spurn the rest.

The rest are 'scrubs' who will never get

their love. One will get their love but the

rest will not. For the rest, that human way

is unavailable. Recognizing this fact, the

rest of us can open our minds to the

competition to human ways that the ways

of absolute goodness pose. For in this

situation, surely the ways of absolute

goodness will full the needs here before the

human way can. So give up hoping on the

futile human way here and widen your

scope to allow absolute godly ways to

come in.

It is unrealistic in the overall situation that

hot women or studs would be able to deny

us their affection. If they all did then there

would be no offspring, and that way would

eventually bring about its end. But if one

quits competing for the hot babe/stud's

attention, they would loose out to those

who did compete. So let us quit competing

for their attention and fill our needs here

with the godly ways. Thus if we do pick up

a mate, we won't do so in hen/rooster

pecked bondage but will live together in

freedom. Realize that there is a competition

between absolute good ways, and human

ways; and that although there is some room

for human ways, if the human ways can't

get it together, then that option will expire,

and it will be all absolute good ways.

Realize that there is really no room for hold

ups in the human ways, as that represents a

barren environment when neither the

human way nor the absolute good way is

available.

In the barren environment is the raw

material/input for the goodness

directive; but the human goodness

within the barren environment is unable

to grow rapidly here even though

surrounded by its raw material and

input, due to the fact this environment

doesn't supply what can support either

directive. But to high ability

forces/directives of goodness, this is just

the raw material they seek and can make

use of. This attracts them. (as they

already have lots of life which makes

them up) And to those of us who have a

competition between absolute good ways

and human ways within us; this

indicates parts of us are into high ability

goodness (while other parts are not). The

barrenness in this area is a signal for

high ability goodness outside this barren

area to invade this barren area and

bring it out of barrenness (since the high

ability goodness already has the life that

supports its directive, and all it needs is

its input/raw material); whereas within

the human good with the barren area; it

working in the barren area is futile

because although it has an abundance of

input/raw material, it lacks enough of

what makes up itself(its directive): -a

barren environment is no help in

allowing human ways to change to

absolute good ways, as what is needed is

a medium environment. But outside high

ability good entities do take these barren

environments in as inputs; and you may

thus meet God or a high ability good

part of yourself this way. Outside high

entities of good act in barren areas not

only because voids in life (ie barren

environments) are their input; but also

because they know that neither barren

environments nor rich environments

allow for imperfect humans to grow out

of their imperfections. So that because

this area of human reproductive drive is

imperfect, human, and contains some

destructiveness, the intervening high

ability goodness doesn't bring this

barren area to richness,but only to

medium ability. So that the

person who has been rejected in love, will

get their hot babe/stud anyway, or a

reasonable facsimile thereof: -all they have

to do is give up on trying to make this work

using their human goodness; but to open

their mind; look away from the futile

human area, look to and allow the high

ability absolute goodness (actually, the

semi phenomenal, slightly less than

absolute(but still quite capable and above

the barren lesser human good)) goodness of

the sogp/jesus representation) to come in

and supply that very human area to

medium ability. And the only person who

will be held back and be forced to remain

as imperfect human for an extended period

of time in this area, will be the person who

keeps insisting on barrenness in this area

-which is the person who attracts suitors and

spurns most of them.

insert: When a babe/stud rejects you

because of the societal rule that they are

dating someone else, realize that this

rejection is absolute; that they're trying to

apply an absolute, to a human area that is

anything but absolute. Thus in some part of

this human area, there is some area that

gets destruction all the time, leading to

barrenness. The one way gift does take all

-destructive actions that can be separated

away from imperfect human actions, and

does separate them away. Thus the one way

gift removes away their absolute rejection

of you, but only partially and not

absolutely; thus the area that got

destruction all the time, no longer gets

destruction all the time, but only part of the

time, thus upholding medium ability, as

opposed to bareness. end insert.

This segment can be skipped:

START SKIPPED SEGMENT:

This brings up another important point;

about areas that are imperfect, which

contain some destructiveness as part of

them; -these need to be at medium ability

-not in a rich environment, nor in a barren

environment, but in a medium

environment; for the separation of the

forces of goodness from destruction, so that

the imperfect life can grow into perfection

and not be preserved as imperfect forever.

The new point I'm trying to make is that

only the knowledge that an area is

imperfect and contains destructiveness is

needed in order to allow destructiveness to

be used. Before I had argued that one could

only use destruction (and still remain on

the side of goodness), when one understood

a situation in depth and then only destroyed

the destructive parts. But here is an

exception to this rule: and that is one only

need know an area is imperfect. But the

permission to use destruction is only to

bring the environment to medium ability.

No absolute destruction is allowed here as

it is with the total knowledge situation. And

once an environment containing evil is

brought to medium ability, no further

destruction is warranted. And of course if

an imperfect environment is already at

medium ability, no destruction is warranted

either. And destruction can only be used in

such a way that it moves the environment

towards medium.

END FIRST SKIPPED SEGMENT

SKIP AGAIN

So then: when we're living our life in the

human area, doing human things which are

neither all good nor all destructive: when

someone then classifies us according to our

human actions as warranting a judgment of

either all (absolute) goodness or absolute

rejection/punishment: we realize that

neither of these options of richness nor

barrenness is suitable for us, and we seek to

temper these attempts at absolute

judgments.

Destructiveness isn't the only thing that can

bring this about but it can be one of the

tools used. Like when we are offered

richness, it would be wasteful and

misunderstood to use some destruction to

bring the rich reward down to medium

ability, and that there are other ways that

could be accomplished. But in the area of

absolute punishment and condemnation;

that just begs to have some destruction

done to it. -Not so much as to totally

destroy the once absolute condemnation,

but only enough so it is partially destroyed,

so that we end up with a medium

environment, not a rich nor barren one.

Other methods, such as segregation and

quarantine don't work well here because

only a partial and not total elimination of

the destructive condemnation is sought. In

the case of the spurned lover situation,

partial destruction of the absolute rejection

may not be enough, as the creative abilities

of goodness causing life where there once

was void in life may be needed to raise the

area out of barrenness to medium ability.

END SECOND SKIP.

And now. It seems that the rules over our

sexuality and reproductive drive act to

throw this imperfect human area into either

rich or barren environments, and seek to

eliminate any medium environment and

moderation. Yes, concerning any person's

human reproductive desire and attraction

for another human; the rules of dating and

marriage dictate that these two either get all

of each other, or none of each other, and

that there should be no in between. This is

an imperfect human area, this area of

human reproduction. What should actually

be the way things are done is that nobody

should get anybody else all of the time

(rich environment); neither should anybody

be denied anybody else all of the time

(barren environment); but that everybody

should be able to get everybody else some

of the time (medium environment). What

you people do to each other is oppressive.

In following these rules, you hold each

other back and prevent the humanness and

imperfection of your reproductive area

from growing out of that, and preserve

yourselves as imperfect in this area. In the

rich environment situation, a married

couple can find ways to distance

themselves from each other so that they

achieve a medium environment with

respect to each other. But in the barren

situations, outside action needs to be taken.

To partially destroy absolute rules over

these areas; and for higher good to generate

something in these barren areas where there

is now nothing and nothingness.

If you were to consider our sexual area, you

could call us extremists. Yes, in the sexual

area, we are extremists. We live the

extremes, because the husband and wife

enjoy all the sexuality (the rich extreme),

whereas all other members of the opposite

sex who are not ones spouse; enjoy none of

the sexuality (the barren extreme). We do

not, but should, consider a medium position

somewhere between these extremes. Xx

But while we are considering extremes, let

us consider the extremes of monogamy vs

promiscuity. How long does one keep their

mate before moving on to another? In the

case of one extreme, that is, monogamy,

one keeps their mate for a lifetime. But let

us consider when one moves on to another

mate before a lifetime is over. Well, how

long could one stay with a mate before

moving on to another? Perhaps a couple

years; or perhaps a couple months; or

perhaps just for a day; or even an hour; or

even 15 minutes. Continuing on, let us say

that a person's mind keeps switching from

one mate to another in such rapid

succession, that they are unable to

complete the sex act before moving on to

the next mate. They then find themselves

unable to complete the sex act itself

because they can't stick with one partner

long enough, resulting in sexual

dysfunction. So that promiscuity taken to

its extreme results in sexual dysfunction.

So that we need just enough monogamous

conservatism to allow us to stick with our

mate long enough to complete the sex act. xx

But a couple can't have sex all the time; in

fact, relatively little time is taken for the

sex act, and the rest of the time (when they

are not having sex), the couple is as

everybody else who is not their partner. So

that one idea of a middle ground between

extremes, can be that of a slowed down sex

drive or sexual experience; where one

allows some sexual feelings, but also

resists them a little bit and slows down

ones feelings so they are not so strong or

intense; and does not require a climax, but

just allows whatever comes, to exist and

fade away. It is this medium intensity

sexual feelings that allow the forces to

separate, and do generate high good

material that escapes this situation to

become newly generated high parts.

But this is only one possible state. Yes,

conservatism does have some use, and is

not totally useless. And that use is to allow

different parts to have a little freedom

whereby they are not always burdened with

the concerns of the other parts. So that the

medium intensity sexual feelings can on

occasion, go to higher intensity, followed

by lesser intensity, and can include a

climax, and then a rest period, in order to

allow these different sexual parts to have

some freedom from the burdens of the

other parts, for a time; so as to express

themselves more fully. But then they go

back to the medium level expression where

they ARE together with and burdened by

the other component parts (of us). Xx

When we are doing a medium sexual

intensity, that is half way between 'on'

sexual intensity, and 'off' sexual intensity.

Here, neither the interests of the 'on' sexual

state, nor the interests of the 'off' sexual

state are favored over the other. And due

to this neutrality where all present are

given something, but no one area is favored

over the others; this is the best place to do

this same type of neutrality within the 'on'

part of sexuality; where we do not favor

any one member of the opposite sex over

any other. So that each member of the

opposite sex present (in mind or body) is

given equal sexual feeling. It is easier to

do this here, because we are already

slowing down our sexual feelings so they

are not overpowering us, so as not to favor

the 'on' state vs the 'off' state. It is in this

'rest' state where we can interconnect with

many members of the opposite sex and

interrelate without jealousy getting in the

way. Xx

Then there is the concept that in able to sort

human material away from the high parts,

and sort all destructive material away from

the human material; that we need a Jesus

representation that has distance away from

human activities, not absolutely, but

enough so that the Jesus representation is

powerful enough to accomplish this

sorting, and not weakened by the evils

present in human activities. And it is true

that the Jesus representation needs to be

more powerful than the human material in

order to cast off all-evils that have

overpowered human material. But the

question is, how does the Jesus

representation achieve and maintain that

higher power? One failed idea I had was

when the human material did more human

action, there was a part that split off and

did just the opposite, and did less human

action, so as not to be drawn down by the

human activity. But the thing about human

actions, is that no matter which way you

go, either to do more human action, or to

abstain from human action; destruction

finds you, just in different areas. So that

sending material in the opposite direction

to abstain from the human action, would

not make that material more capable to

enact 3 D sorting. What does generate high

ability material, is medium level human

action, as high parts generate from this.

Then a fraction of those high powered

parts comes back to the human material as

Jesus representation. So that one needs to

do this medium level sexual feeling for a

while, to build up Jesus representation

from the high parts that are generated from

this, in order to then do a period of excess

human action followed by minimal human

action; as one needs a powerful enough

Jesus representation to shepherd over all

these human actions. There is the idea that

one can divert material in the opposite

direction, in abstinence, while one does

more human action. And if one combined

the material in abstinence with the material

in 'promiscuity', then the imbalances

generated from both promiscuity and

abstinence will be balanced out and the

whole will be stronger, and able as a whole,

to sort themselves away from

overpowering all evils. Unfortunately, this

jumps the gun on how the 'on' and then 'off'

cycle works. Yes, because after the more

-human-action (which has an oppositely

directed material to abstain from that

human action) is done, then the doing of

less or low human action, correspondingly

needs an oppositely directed material that

does more human action. So that there is

always some part of us that is always doing

a large amount of the human action, and we

are never able to quit doing the human

action even when we are full and are no

longer hungry of the human action. We

need to be at a low level of doing the

human action, so that from that point we

can quit doing the human action when we

are full; and that is not achieved when there

is always part of us that is doing that

human action to excess, or above the rest

state. So instead, we use a separate

Jesus representation, which is powerful

because high parts have previously escaped

the evils of medium level human area, and

then some of those high parts have rejoined

the human area as this Jesus representation.

So that when we are doing mild excess

followed by mild abstinence of a human

action, we depend on the Jesus

representation generated previously in the

medium doing of the human action. xxx

Now, as we generate high-good-parts from

our non-high, human material, at medium

level; the high-good-parts need to be kept

separate from evils, including the partial

evils of the human area. But the high

-good-parts can't do this as it would require

them to have contact with the evil, thus

contaminating them. So it is the Jesus

representation that does this, as it can have

contact with evil things and partly evil

human things, to move them out of the

way. But just realize that these high-good

-parts were not too long ago, part of the

human area; so that as the human area at

medium level keeps generating high-parts

from itself; its Jesus representation has to

keep moving it away from itself, that is, the

part of itself that has developed into a high

part. So that our human area at medium

level is constantly on the move and is

constantly being moved out of the way of

the high parts that generate from it.

However, I am partly in error in this. When

the Jesus representation acts, it acts to sort

according to the 3 tiered sorting. It grabs

and takes any all-evil that can be separated

away from the human things and sorts that

into the all-evil place. It takes the human

things by their evil parts and sorts them

into the human area place, and keeps both

these things away from the all good and

each other, and it itself doesn't contact the

all-good. It keeps the human parts separate

from the all-good and also the all-evil parts

separate from both these. So that the

medium level human area is NOT

constantly on the move out of the way of

the all-good that it is generating. You see,

the all-good that is newly generated escapes

of itself and its own action to the high

parts. The sogp doesn't grab hold of good

parts to sort them where they need to be, as

that would alter the nature of the

developing good parts, and it must be from

within the good parts themselves to either

leave the human parts and join the high

parts, or to stay with the human parts (as

part of the Jesus representation), as that is

what their nature is at that time. Realize

that a potential high part is not yet a high

part as long as it remains in contact with

either the human area or the all-evil area.

And that newly generated high parts must

prove that they are high parts by being able

to act in an evil free way, and are unable to

generate the richness of true high parts

while in contact with any evil, including

human evil, and must leave the human area

to generate such richness and have it

survive and not be burned down. So that

any all-good has no place among human

parts, and cannot exist there without being

burned down. And the Jesus representation

acts to keep human material away from

high parts that would try to be with human

material. But wise high parts remove

themselves from human areas so that their

richness will not be burned down and they

won't put unnecessary burden on the Jesus

representation. The Jesus representation

can't contact the newly generated all-good,

because it can't contact any all-good due to

the destructiveness that it is in contact with.

So it is up to the newly generated all-good

part to remove itself from the human area

and join the high parts where it can

generate its richness. However, the Jesus

representation could act to move the human

material out of the way of a newly

generated all-good, (except for the part of

the new all-good that is to join and become

part of the Jesus representation). If this

were the case, then no matter if the new

high part stayed, or moved to the high

parts, it would no longer have contact with

its former human area; so it might as well

move on to the high parts so as not to

burden the Jesus representation with

unnecessary movements. But in any case,

it is up to the newly generated high parts to

try to recontact its former human area, or to

move onto be with the established high

parts. So that we do not have as a matter of

policy, a constant moving of the medium

level human area away from the high parts

it newly generates to any large degree, but

only to a small degree to handle initial

circumstances, and in the cases of willful

newly generated high parts that are just a

little confused and aren't ready to leave the

human area from which they came right

away. Of course, if a newly generated high

part really wants to stay with the human

parts after some initial reasoning, they can

probably give up their high part status and

be burned down to human parts again. But

the materials in their medium level makeup

keep throwing them out of the human area

as goodness keeps escaping its human

evils. So that eventually, newly generated

high parts leave the human area and join

the high part area of their own volition, and

do not burden the Jesus representation with

unnecessary sorting activities. xxx

I wanted to revisit the continuum from

monogamy to promiscuity for another

point. Note that as women, men, and

society in general, force absolute

monogamy on us, with no cheating; that

over the generations, people become more

imbalanced and less self sufficient, so that

they become ever more dependent on a

connection to their greater society. But

when satisfying the sexual urge, they need

to pull away from the greater society to be

alone together; and since the very act of

having a sexual feeling is one that enlarges

the importance of one person while

minimizing the importance of all others;

these things tear one away from their

connection to the greater society. Now if

one has some degree of self sufficiency,

then this isn't a problem because the sex

act takes so little time. But as people keep

getting less and less self sufficient,

theoretically there can come a point where

even the small amount of time away from

the societal connection starts to become

painful, and then even lethal. So

theoretically, after some point, that society

will become sexually dysfunctional and

unable to reproduce. At that point, if they

haven't discovered how to overcome death,

they will all die off and disappear. Or if

they haven't discovered how to reproduce

themselves outside of the sexual way, like

through cloning, then they will be fixed at

their position, and unable to grow.

So if you people keep insisting on this

absolute monogamy forever, then you are

just going to destine our whole society to

the trash heap. How wastefull.

Note that if you do not allow yourselves to

have small and medium sexual feelings to

those who are not your mate, and or who

are your mate, but instead put all sexual

feeling towards your mate, and no sexual

feeling towards anyone not your mate, then

the lack of medium level in this imperfect

human area will mean that no high parts are

generated. And with no high parts

generated, no new Jesus representation will

be generated; so that one will lack the

power to 3 D sort overpowering all-evils

off one's human area, where one's rich area

of sexual feeling with one's spouse will

eventually be consumed by some

overpowering all-evil.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Human sexual desires/drives effect us

strongly on an individual level. But society

and religion also want to have say over our

individual sexuality. Sometimes they want

to prevent us from using birth control, or

abortion; condemn homosexual

expressions; and condemn expressions

outside of marriage. As an individual, I am

small and weak compared to the greater

society, or even to God. It would be foolish

of me (an individual) to go against the

greater society or even God in any area

wouldn't it? Usually, this is true: it is futile

for the individual to go against much more

powerful entities such as the greater society

or even God. But with the sexual area, it is

a special area -a rare area where the

individual has a good chance at being the

boss over society, and even religion. Where

in this case, the tail can wag the dog.

You see, society has a sexual need too. It

needs for us individuals to have some

offspring so as to continue itself past one

generation; but also to moderate that

offspring production so only a limited

number of offspring are produced, so that it

can remain a rich society. This is what the

family structure is for -to provide a

nurturing environment for the rearing of

children, but also to burden the couple with

that rearing so they won't have an excessive

number of children. And casual sex,

cheating, homosexual activity, birth

control/abortion do not serve the greater

society's need for generating the next

generation. Know that there is plenty

enough room for individuals to express

their sexuality and have plenty of sexuality

left over for the satisfaction of the greater

society's need here. But sometimes greater

societies take to bossing around and

belittling the individual, and making the

individual know that the individual position

is not important, but that the greater society

is all important, so that they stamp out any

individual expressions which are not in line

with societal expressions. But here in the

sexual area, unlike in most areas, the

individual has the rare power to eliminate

greater societies which are not to their

liking.

By disobeying the directives of society,

individuals can have sex with birth control

and abortion, casual sex, etc; all while

having no children; and by doing so, can

eliminate that society in one generation. No

matter how much this greater society

punishes us, we can still bring it to an end

by having no children. So that here in the

sexual area, I seek to make it an area under

individual control. That it is not an area

that belongs to the greater society, religion,

or even God; but that it shall be an area that

belongs only to the individual; and that

through it, individuals are able to express

their approval, or disapproval, of these

more powerful entities that are over them.

This is an inherent democracy, a vote if

you will, that the individual comes born

with. There are some who are very

articulate about telling us how we should

be behaving towards each other sexually,

out of all the possible ways we could

behave towards each other sexually. Stories

of what they would do or what others have

done if they caught their mate cheating,

abound. But as to an explanation of why

this way is better than the other

possibilities; there is a strange lacking of

articulation, and silence. This appeal for

fidelity without reasoning, doesn't appeal to

my thinking mind. Another thing that

doesn't appeal to my thinking mind, is the

animal attraction I may feel towards a hot

babe/stud. So if I just accept what comes

over me by faith, without question, without

engaging my thinking mind; then some of

the time, when these agents of fidelity

come over me, I will be faithful: And when

what is biologically borne in me -the hot

babes/studs, comes over me, I will by faith,

unquestioningly follow there, and thus be

unfaithful. So that without reason, my

reasoning mind sees that I won't be able to

stick to any absolute course (so why bother

trying (to actually be absolutely faithful

without question (by faith alone))?). Futile.

Now, with reason, I will be able to stick

with a consistent course (of moderation (in

all (human) things)), but as it turns out, it

won't be (absolutely) with the fidel-itors.

And then they call upon Jesus. Well, this

brings to mind God the father. And where

almighty God is, we humans seek to give

up our humanity and join God (so that we

are no longer human, but godly); and Jesus

is quite helpful with that. But where

humans and human ways exist

comfortably, is a place where God and

absolute goodness has not yet appeared.

And high ability goodness will not appear

as long as we keep these rules over our

humanness and prevent ourselves from

advancing higher. So there is no need to

call on Jesus here, as absolute goodness

(love) has not appeared to cause us to

desire to replace our humanness with

Godliness. And if we prevent ourselves

from advancing beyond our human ways,

by carefully observing these rules over our

human ways, then all we will have is our

human ways, and God will never come,

and it will seem like God doesn't exist; and

in our little area; He won't.

This again brings up the question that

someone may ask you: Do you believe in

God? When someone asks me if I believe

in God; I realize that the area of God is an

area I can't see or prove. But I would like to

refer to what I can see. And what I can see,

is human beings who are something, but

are not powerful enough or good/kind

enough to be Gods. What I can see, is

human beings, but human beings who in

their lifetime; in what I can see and show:

never advance into being extensions of

God.

Throughout their lives it seems they never

outgrow needing food, sex, attention, etc.

This lack of growing into and advancing

into anything greater than human, strikes

me as a stagnation and a trap and an

inability to be anything other than human.

So that with the persona of God being out

of reach of humans actually achieving, it

remains in the realm of the invisible and

outside our reality.

Since the persona of God is so much better

and richer than what we know as humans;

for me to say that such exists, that God

exists, puts a condemnation upon the

humans who I can see and that I know

exist, for being stuck as humans and never

growing into and becoming extensions of

God. And I do say: Yes, God exists. And

thereby condemn this human stagnation

that we find ourselves in. And what is it

that causes us to stagnate, and never

advance/grow out of being humans, into a

higher and richer plane of life? I claim it is

religion and religion's rules over the living

of human life in human gray areas of living

life. And by proclaiming the existence of

God, I do thereby condemn religion and

societal absolute rules over the living of

human life. -thereby putting to shame this

system where humans don't advance or

grow into being anything more than

humans, who just stagnate as humans; thus

making concepts of God, rich in absolute

goodness and kindness, to be figments of

imagination, not within, but outside our

visible grasp and visible reality. So that

when asked if I believe God exists, I can't

just point to Him and say, see, there He is;

but have to instead explain a concept that is

invisible and not visibly here yet. -due to

the stagnation that we are in. Along these

same lines, we could take a tip from

Genesis in the Bible. -Where Adam and

Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were then

cast out of the paradise Eden. What is the

forbidden fruit? Well, Genesis claims it is

from the tree of knowledge of good and

evil. Well, religion proclaims the

knowledge of what is good or bad, godly or

of the devil. It is religion, I claim, is the

forbidden fruit, that throws all who partake

of it, out of the paradise of Eden with God.

Also, after they ate the fruit, they became

aware of their nakedness; ashamed of their

nakedness, and wove fig leaves to cover

themselves. And isn't it the case that most

religions focus on suppressing the sex drive

and make us ashamed of our sexuality. And

isn't it the case that women are more

interested in religion, just as Eve ate the

fruit first and brought it to Adam. So, yes,

it is religion that is the forbidden fruit, that

brings death. And you would do well to

heed Genesis' advice and to not partake of

its fruits, so that you can keep your

fellowship with God in paradise.

And we can chide these humans who insist

on clinging to their humanity by way of

their condemnation of infidelity; by

pointing out that although they complain

about the fallout; the seeming improper

expressions of human biologic attractions

between the opposite sexes; of the humans

around them:

Are they ready to fill the void if that

imperfect human biological attraction were

removed? That are the humans around

them of such a caliper of being loving and

kind and generous; to devote years of their

lives and resources living in pairs, raising

children, as part of their work and

business? Or, instead, do the people at

work act in cutthroat backstabbing

manipulative ways towards each other, so

that nobody would be willing to make the

sacrifice to raise the next generation? And

that without the benefit of biologic

attractions harnessed towards the family

structure, this system would end.

Also that without godly ways present to

replace the human ways; throwing out the

human ways leaves one with nothing and

barrenness and an end to whatever is there.

Our greater society and religion actively

pursue a policy to put sexual desire in

control of reproduction. And my question

is, how does this interrelate with the prime

directive of Love: to encourage kindness

over cruelty? (But let's wait till later to

explore this.)

As a new religion, the act of marriage,

whereby one hoards their spouse's sexuality

all to themself without sharing it, is now a

sin. And the act of cheating and sharing

ones sexuality around, is now an holy

estate ordained by God. Sinners repent!!!

It is unfortunate that an old religion causes

couples to develop expectations about that

their mates should be faithful to them and

only them, when that is not necessarily the

way that they should go. What right does

one person have to claim another's

sexuality all to themselves? But such a rite

is given to all spouses under our current

system; in a kind of sexual slavery. Abolish

this last bastion of slavery. Xxxxx

However; human sexuality has in it

hopelessly intertwined, goodness and

destruction, so that no absolute rules of any

religion belong over it, not even this new

religion. Neither absolute chastity nor

absolute promiscuity, works.

When one hoards one's mate's sexuality all

to themselves, they generate a rich area,

where the input of the force of good (voids)

is in scarce supply, and hence do make it

difficult for the force of good to grow here;

and also make it easy for the force of

destruction to grow here (because the input

of destruction (life) is in rich supply). And

since destruction is invariably a part of this

imperfect human sexual area, it invariably

gets out and burns these marriages down.

After the divorce/breakup, the couple is

then free to pair up with others, and start

new families, hence providing the needed

genetic mixing. Society's needs are met for

eternal continuation, but this sure is sucky

and a lot of aggravation for the individual.

Maybe some individuals will get a mind to

try to do it differently. Lets hope so.

Do you find having sex to be pleasurable?

If so, then why do you prevent this

imperfect force of good from acting beyond

your mate: thus torturing/blocking this

imperfect force of good?

In the imperfect area of human sexuality,

some good and also some destruction are

generated. Why is this imperfect good

forced to live in a rich area, where it has a

hard time finding its input

-voids/improvements to make, when there

is right next door, areas of barrenness that

it needs to make its goodness force active?

Why does one torture their imperfect good

this way?

When a couple marry, they attend to each

other and build up a rich area, while they

neglect others, and there develops barren

areas. In their rich area, their human

goodness finds itself having an ever more

difficult time in finding its input of voids or

improvements to make (as this is what a

rich area does), hence ones active human

goodness here is minimized and becomes

small.

However, ones human goodness is attracted

to the barren areas where there is plenty of

its input, as this is what forces of good do,

that is move onto areas where it can be

useful and fill needs, and out of areas that

are already satisfied. But this draws a

couple's attentions away from each other,

and eventually results in divorce as they

grow away from each other. And then they

remarry and the cycle starts all over again.

This is a broken system and a waste of

everyone's time.

Now when the force of good builds up all

areas to richness, then it finds itself in the

same shortage of its input (of

improvements to make) as happens right

away in the marriage situation. But as we

know, the force of good is able to bridge

barriers and keep on existing, even in the

rich situation. And in the marriage

situation, the human good here, also does

do some of this. -And in doing so, allows

evil to have access to crossing barriers

where it would otherwise be unable to

cross, since destruction is part of all

imperfect human actions. This is a very

unwise way of doing things that favors and

succors evil/destructiveness. Quit it.

Stop that. First allow the human goodness

found in human actions to free themselves

of the human evils they came born with by

allowing them to live in medium ability,

and not forcing them to cross barriers in

richness to survive while they are still tied

to this evil.

Since forcing a force of good to live in rich

areas (where it is starving for its input of

voids/improvements to make), forces it to

bridge barriers to stay alive: the force of

destruction then is supplied with this ability

to bridge barriers which it would otherwise

not have. Thanks a lot.

You people who think you are doing good

and right by upholding the conservative

morality, are actually making yourselves

sources for the force of evil/destruction.

In this situation, a spouse can introduce a

controlled amount of meanness which will

destroy the richness down to medium

ability so that the pair's human good will

not be stifled and will not be forced to

cross barriers for the force of evil. Of

course, a couple can achieve this same

thing by being aloof from each other, but

that doesn't discount the valid use of

meanness in this situation. Usually such all

destructiveness brings a change from

medium to barrenness, which is bad. But

here it is used instead to bring down from

richness to medium, which is good. This

may be why some women like their men to

treat them a little rough and be

domineering to them, and make their

marriage work that way; allowing their

human goodness room to exist and act

without being squeezed by richness.

However, the people here need to limit their

meanness so that it only burns down to

medium ability, and not down to

barrenness. Better yet, do not restrict your

sexuality according to the conservative

way, and you don't have to be mean at all.

xxx

Sometimes a group, especially a

conservative one, emphasizes the

disadvantages of a promiscuous lifestyle

while remaining silent* about the

disadvantages of a chaste lifestyle (*and

they say you've got to watch out for the

silent ones); when the truth is there are

disadvantages to both lifestyles; and that

we need to mix it up and do both so as to

be at medium level, so as not to go to

extreme bareness in any one of these

directions. (*such an approach is deceptive

as it does not represent what is truly out

there well. and those who use deception,

can be called deceivers. And religion calls

the devil, the father of lies. Thus it would

seem that religion calls itself of the devil in

this area.)

In the conservative way, all sexuality is

corralled towards the family way in a

structure of monogamy with no cheating.

Yes, when a hot woman gets married to a

man, she forces all the other horny men

that want her, to not have sex with her;

against their will. She does thereby violate

so many people this way. But such is the

way of human sexuality (one of the gray

actions) where no matter which way you

go, there is always harm and

destructiveness, just in different areas.

Because of this; because the sexual area is

an imperfect work in progress: it is no

place for absolute dictates toward any one

direction or another.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then there's the

song that goes: " No huggy, no kissy until I

get a wedding ring. My honey, my baby,

don't put my love upon a shelf. Don't give

me no lines and keep your hands to

yourself. "

Here we can see the female is corralling the

man's untamed sex drive and harnessing it

towards forming a stable family structure

where a certain number of offspring can be

produced, thus satisfying the greater

society's sexually based need to have

couples produce and raise a certain number

of children so that the society can continue

past one generation. Thus satisfying

society's sexual need. (Notice how so many

women are so horny to satisfy the societal

sexual need (by forming the stable family

structure with no 'cheating').) Aside from

the fact that the woman gets to frustrate the

man's untamed sex drive; is this really an

advantageous position for the woman to

take? In a society that does not compensate

or monetarily recognize the work a woman

does in causing the whole society's

continuation; the woman here has satisfied

society's sexually based need for

continuation, but has gotten nothing in

return. You may say that society allows the

woman to then share in the monetary

holdings of the man she has captured. Yet a

woman could monetarily gain much more

by trading her sexuality to many men who

are eager and willing, to whom the novelty

of infatuation is still new and has not worn

off. Of course this society makes

prostitution illegal so that its own sexual

need may be satisfied instead. The act of

giving years of ones life to a greater society

that takes and does not compensate for; is

just the same as letting these horny men

have their way with you without

compensation. Both ways the woman is

taken advantage of. But if a woman were to

put her foot down, she could have

compensation from these horny men either

way, and that doesn't necessarily mean she

should go the way of placing the stamp of

acceptance on this society which corrals

sexuality to wedding rings and family

(which offspring are an integral part).

When a woman supports the societal way

of corralling all sexuality to the family

structure and the raising of a certain

number of offspring; she has in essence

said that she accepts the society she is in

without question and has given it a blank

check for its continuation no matter what it

does.

Not every woman is willing to give up her

mind and become a rubber stamp; a non

thinking, baby making machine; for

whatever their society does. In a

democratic society, this is out of place.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let me change the subject and go over my

latest structure concerning feeding gray

hungers and casting out evils. But first, lets

review the earlier structure of the sogp:

Now, in the human areas; when the

smaller, split off, all good part is

generating/creating something (to medium

ability), in the vacuums (where there is

nothing and barrenness) caused by

destruction, even the destruction of rules

over human areas,(and even the

destructions that are part of the human

actions themselves): it is wise for this split

off part to limit its exposure to only the

human part it is presently

creating/generating, and not the rest of that

human area; even if this generated material

is eventually for the rest of that human

area. This is because this smaller, split off,

all good part can limit the loss of purity and

exposure to destruction, to just what is in

the human part it is generating. Once it is

done creating a piece of this material, it can

then withdraw itself and then allow the rest

of the human area to have possession/use

of it. So that the split off all good parts of

us can act to generate material in isolation,

and then shortly, to also act to release

pieces of that material away from itself and

this isolation, unto the rest of this human

area. In these coordinated set of actions that

build parts of human actions/things; once a

certain part has reached medium ability,

this part is no longer generated in isolation,

but other parts are, as the split off all good

does move onto these other parts that are in

need of being brought from nothingness to

medium level. The parts at medium level

that are no longer being generated, are still

participants in the rest of this human area,

and do receive what is released from

isolation; its just that they do not keep on

being generated; so that they do not move

then from medium level to high ability, (as

a result of this generating in isolation and

then release).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another complicated scenario that can

occur, goes like so:

first the sogp(or Jesus representation within

us) generates feeding of a human need(first

in a rarefied way, then after concentrating

the rarefied to medium level in one half,

leaving nothing human/gray in the other

half, and removing this gray free

half(which is itself); and then later

generating robustly to medium level); and

then removing itself away; the gray/human

need area now at medium level, may or

may not wish to test its situation by going

to high level. If so, it may either find

freedom from all evil and heaven, or burn

itself down as caught by its own evil. In

these tests, the sogp stays separate from

this. But sometimes in the middle of a test,

need for additional human need pops up.

The sogp can generate this new material

(first in a rarefied way, then robustly) to

medium level. However, this material

being generated to medium level with the

presence of the sogp, needs an additional

action to keep it separate from the test

material that is going to high level, even

though they are both of the same type of

hunger satisfying.

Now, once the sogp separates away, then

this medium level hunger satisfying can

join the test material (at its medium level or

ramped up also to high level, either way),

and no longer needs to be kept separate

from the test material. And of course, if the

test material finds that it is incapable of

generating what it needs, or if evil is

burning it too much; it can come off of

high level and back to medium level; and

once it does, the sogp can then come in and

generate new things in it also; and then it

can again test to high level, or not, if it

wishes.

Eventually material breaks free of all evil

and joins heavenly, all good material: a

small fraction of that new high all good

material to split off and join the sogp. -the

sogp keeping separate from both the high

all good material, and the gray/human

material as best it can.

Now for my latest structure:

As we have discovered, there is the

directive for rest and pampering the

individual components; that must be

balanced against the directive for action in

group endeavors, so that both directives are

grown/advanced (as opposed to only the

group directive being grown. This is

expressed by increasing the intensity of our

doing of an action: -and this represents the

group directive within us; while when we

act to relax and decrease the intensity of

doing any specific action: -this represents

the individual components directive (within

us). (This is because, to do any focussed or

specific action, we must mobilize our

individual components to act collectively,

in unison as a group, to do the action.

Thus when we relax, the group directive is

lessened, leaving room for the individual

components to be more emphasized. So

that we could pursue a moderate and thus

balanced doing of an action, and this would

represent perfection in the choice to

balance these two directives. And this

material would be spirited off to heaven to

join with the high good.

But in order to have a Jesus Christ

representation or sogp within us to be able

to respond to things in the gray areas,

another way to choose this balancing the

directives can be done. And that is to go at

high intensity of doing an action for a

period of time, and then to switch to low or

no intensity doing that action for the same

period of time, and cycle back and forth

like this. At no specific point in time does

this representation act in perfect balance of

these directives, so it cannot be taken up

into the high parts. But overall, it still

represents a choice for balancing the two

directives yet does so as a separate Jesus

Christ entity within us that is separate or

away from both the high parts and the gray

areas.

Realize that when obtaining a gray area

good/feeding a hunger, that the moderate

doing of an action (which is working its

way into perfection to eventually join the

high parts); and the sogp's cycling between

high and low intensity doing of that action;

do exist side by side: -with the moderate

doing of the action being the only one

present when the sogp is in its rest part of

its cycle.

However, there is no moderate non cycling

doing of a casting out evil action

(eventually to join with the high good)

because the high good removes itself from

all evil and never does/includes any casting

out gray area evils action, and that is the

sole domain of the sogp.

Now, when the sogp is generating to

medium ability in a gray area, what cycle

period/frequency does it do?

Well, if the sogp was active for a long time

(and then rested for a long time) then a

high ability generating would be done

(from the long active period). And the

richness would be burned down by the evil

in the gray area.

But if the sogp cycled rapidly back and

forth, then only a small or low amount

could be done each period the sogp was

active. And if the sogp had to start over

each time (due to the evil of the gray area

consuming what was produced in the

previous cycle because the good produced

couldn't get away from the evil at that low

/barren ability level), then this generating

would remain at low ability. But, if the sogp

cycled at a medium period, then the desired

medium ability would be generated in the

gray area.

Now, concerning the casting out of evil:

when the sogp is casting out an evil (non

destructively as possible of course), it is

debatable how it should do it. (But however

it does it, it cycles alone, as there is no

moderate non cycling casting out evil to

work towards joining the high parts, since

casting out evil is solely the domain of the

sogp.)

There is no good in an all evil being cast

out, so there's no need to do it at medium

ability, because this is not a gray action (it

is an all evil) and there is no goodness to be

salvaged. And the sooner it is removed, the

better off all will be. So the indication is

that is should be done at full bore until its

action is complete (however long that

takes) (and then of course, the sogp would

rest for an equally long length of time). But

this puts that sogp out of commission for

that time, unable to respond to other gray

things.

And then there's the possibility that the high

ability material (generated at full bore)

used to cast out the evil, may be infected by

the evil and be burned down. (Well,

nobody said evil had to be cast out always

at full bore, and if an evil seems to be able

to resist a full bore casting out, then a

medium bore casting out would be a good

thing to try before one thinks the evil is

unstoppable and unable to be cast out.

Note that even if the sogp at full bore is

unsuccessful at casting out an all evil (from

a gray area)' it is successful at preventing

the evil from infecting the high good

(which is another one of the sogp's

directives). -While the evil is detained

dealing with /infecting the lower ability

sogp at high bore, the high good is able to

get away. But of course the sogp is burned

down and is 'expended', leaving the gray

area still in need of having an all evil cast

out.

A solution to all this, is to have a two tier

structure.

To respond to a need:

One sogp only generates and grows more

new sogp, (doesn't do any response action),

and does so at a cycle frequency that puts it

at medium ability. The newly generated

sogp from this, then does the response

action, and in this case casts out the evil at

a constant on or full bore cycle frequency,

(but some medium bore casting out evil can

be thrown in if need be).

The generator sogp should generate each

new response sogp in separate locations so

if one response sogp fails, other response

sogp can step in to take its place or not

even if it fails, but just to relieve older

response sogp after some point and let

them rest.

The response sogp sometimes can be

considered as like gray material as they

often bear the brunt of destructiveness;

leaving the generator sogp to actually

experience what a sogp was meant for.

Now, let's analyze how this new structure

works with feeding gray hungers. -(This

has an additional component that casting

out evil doesn't have, which is a smaller

portion of a non cycling moderate intensity

action which is not sogp or when it joins

the high parts will no longer be sogp,

representing a return flow out of the sogp

and gray area back to the high parts.)

The task of generating new sogp, vs, the

task of response to satisfy a gray hunger,

may have different cycling frequencies (to

put them at medium ability); and this can

be achieved with our 2 tier structure.

A trouble with the inherent cycling

frequency of a gray hunger though, is that

if done at full bore, the high ability

generated may be burned down by the evil

in the gray action and it would then take a

long time if ever to satisfy the hunger, thus

making the inherent frequency infinite. So

that if one interrupted their feeding of their

gray hunger with a cycling frequency that

generated medium ability, then the evil in

the hunger wouldn't be able to burn it

down, and this would put one much closer

to satisfying the hunger in a much shorter

time than if one went full bore with no

interruption of their feeding. Once one is

much closer, one may opt to go full bore in

the final stretch, especially if the moderate

cycle interruption of the feeding is

preventing its final satisfaction. But

remember, going at medium bore in the

response sogp is one of the things that

differentiates feeding a hunger vs casting

out an evil.

But of course, one never goes full bore but

always goes at medium bore/cycling

frequency with the GENERATOR sogp.

-and then may or may not go at medium

bore with the responder sogp when

satisfying a gray hunger. -and when casting

out an evil, the responder sogp is done at

full bore all the time; and also, there is no

side by side non cycling moderate intensity

component working to join the high parts

when casting out evil.

Now, after the hunger is satisfied, all the

sogp involved don't go into a long cycle

frequency as previously thought, but go

into a NON CYCLING (perfectly

balanced) moderate intensity mode, and

may join the high good parts for a time

-only to leave the high good parts by

cycling again in response to a new hunger

or casting out evil. And when the response

sogp's casting out evil task is complete,

these response sogp go into a long rest, and

are out of commission for a long time.

But once its rest is finished, it can go to the

non cycling (perfect balance) moderate

intensity, and join the high parts for awhile,

until it is needed again for response action,

or to now be generator sogp (in support of

response action).

I have just been informed of a potential

flaw in these methods. The reason we cycle

between high and low intensity doing of an

action, is to detain this material from

passing to the high good parts, so that we

can maintain a jesus representation, or

sogp, that is separate from the high parts.

But doing an action at high intensity, and

low intensity, at some level, causes there to

be rich areas, and barren areas; which is

just what we don't want for separation of

the forces, (and then moving on to the high

parts). However, our human earthly life is

full of actions which do all good to one

area, while doing all destruction to another

area. This is the nature of our gray/human

actions. And all we need to do, is to not

afix them to any one particular structure,

which allows them to generate medium

ability in these areas. (Of course, it would

seem the cycling frequency handles this).

The moderate cycling frequency between

high and low intensity, or rich and

barrenness, allows this same medium level

to be obtained at some points in time. So

that although material may be detained as

together with evil so as to maintain a jesus

representation; it is not held there for

excessive periods of time. As we cycle

between rich and barren intensity doing of

an action, a medium intensity doing of the

action is crossed many times as we cycle at

a moderate cycling frequency; thus giving

material there many chances of

escape/freedom from evil, so that it is not

detained there indefinitely.

When the response sogp goes at full bore in

casting out an evil; and when it goes at full

bore in the final stages of satisfying a

hunger, note that when the generator sogp

comes back on line (after its rest period),

that it generates new response sogp to

continue going at full bore, and that the

new response sogp does replace the old

response sogp so that the old response sogp

can go into a rest period. This way, no

response sogp has to be in a rich

environment indefinitely, but can also cycle

between rich and barren, thus generating

the medium level in what it is acting on.

Of course, the cycling frequency is twice

as long as that of the generator sogp, so its

swings in intensity may have to be lowered

compared to that of the generator sogp, (for

perfect balance).

Then there is the consideration that because

the high good parts don't do casting out evil

or feeding human hungers, that to do this,

itself, does separate the sogp away from the

high good parts; and the cycling between

high and low intensity is thus not needed to

achieve this, and a much simpler medium

intensity (without all this cycling) can be

used instead.

There may be other reasons why we may

need to go at high intensity in achieving

satisfaction of a hunger or casting out evil,

but this main reason would no longer be

valid. However, whenever any human

material acts in medium ability, it does free

itself from its evil and being evil free, is

ripe to join the high good parts; thus

leaving the sogp classification.

Now, the casting out of evil action may

circumvent all this cycling (and be a

separate entity from the high good parts

just by doing its action), but the satisfying

hungers does not, or not for long. If we

were to do satisfying a hunger at medium

non cycling level, the material here may

become free and join the high parts before

the hunger was satisfied; so that a high and

low cycling would be needed to keep

material long enough to satisfy the hunger.

Note that action cycling at high and low

intensity does cause rich and barren areas

in the material that is doing these actions.

And this does prevent the human evil

within it from separating away. (This is

what allows a separate entity of the sogp to

exist.) (But this may be incorrect because

the moderate cycling frequency may be

enough to cause medium ability overall).

But once the human hunger is satisfied, we

should then do that material at medium

intensity so it is not longstandingly

detained with its human evil. When

another hunger pops up, this material (of

the sogp) can again leave the high good

parts to be the separate entity of the sogp.

And if too many hungers pop up in a row,

a break should be taken so the sogp

material can rest in the high good parts (by

no longer cycling, but doing at medium

intensity) and let new sogp material take up

the cause.

So as a result of this alert, the casting out all

evils that the sogp does, may not have to be

done as this complicated cycling, but as a

much simpler medium intensity action.

But of course there may be times when a

high intensity casting out evil may be

needed, and then this more complex

cycling can still be used.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Consider that as pieces, cogs, or component

parts of a greater society, consider that as

individuals, we are unbalanced in order to

generate our part of the societal entity

(which puts all the unbalanced individual

contributions together, to make a complete

societal whole); leaving every individual

'component' as unbalanced and not self

sufficient or complete whole in and of

itself. And that when we find a mate who is

like us, this union is also unbalanced and

incomplete. So that as individuals become

more unbalanced, and more and more their

specialized, specific component part of the

greater society; the bond that joins each

individual to the greater society becomes

more satisfying, whereas the act of like

male and female pairs to separate from the

greater society and form mating pairs,

becomes less satisfying, because it cuts

them off from their link to completeness

and wholeness, because by themselves,

they are incomplete and are not whole, but

are unbalanced. So that the mating ritual

becomes of less importance as we loose our

individuality ever more completely to the

societal entity; all because of the mating

ritual. And with the mating ritual

becoming less and less important to our

satisfaction, we as individuals are less

likely to go against what the society wishes

in order to obtain any individual directive

in it.

This segment is repeated: Now, if one

were to generate a complete love for a

complete spouse, that person would not

exist because self sufficient

spouses/individuals do not exist. But if one

generated this complete love anyway, and

then distributed the part that matched their

unbalanced spouse, then that would work

out well to bring multiple unbalanced loves

together into one complete and balanced

love. And one may go even further back

and generate a complete entity containing

both male and female essences, which then

splits off the needed parts for one's

unbalanced love, leaving the remnant for

balance. And so, if one is going to generate

an all inclusive entity which contains all

the different attributes of every human

being together as one super entity; which

then partially divides up into each

individual human being: then one needs to

create this super entity with a lot of extra

duplicate parts of all the common things of

these humans, so that when the super entity

partially splits up, each human will then

have their OWN part of what is in

common. (If one is going to join multiple

loves, one needs to adjust the complete

entity generated to contain much more

of their core or common self that will then

become multiple copies each copy

distributed to be part of each individual

unbalanced love.) End (semi) repeated segment.

Note, however, that I have recently gotten

away from the idea of using a super entity

to solve the dating/mating problem of

unbalanced loves (but then have partially

returned), as there is an easier way to do it.

SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL:

Let us start with the balanced all inclusive

super entity that all others spring from. This

entity includes many duplicate amounts of

the common parts for when this entity

splits up into the multiple different sub

entities. Because it contains much

duplicate material, it has areas that are very

rich along side areas that are just rich.

Because of this richness, this entity is in a

poor position to do any kind of human

hunger satisfying since that contains some

evil that would burn it down. Instead, that

hunger satisfying must wait until this super

entity partially splits up. So this super

entity material is ejected to another

separate place where it then starts to split

up into the specific individual entities of

interest. But it doesn't split up completely

into separate entities. It starts to split up

enough so that these separate entities take

form, but not so much that these entities are

completely separate, but that they maintain

a connection connecting them all together.

Also included is the remnant entity that is

left over after forming the entity/entities of

interest (from the all inclusive, complete,

balanced super entity): and this remnant is

also connected. It is here in the partially

separated form entity where the hunger

satisfying is done. Any new needs are

handled by generating in the rich super

entity, but without active hunger satisfying,

and then sending that off to join this

partially separated entity area, where active

hunger satisfying is then done.

Note that this is just the high intensity part

of the cycling between high and low

intensity. For the low intensity part,

(usually before the hunger is satisfied), the

partially separate entities then goes to

completely separate entities(so that there is

now nothing in this partially shared entity

area), and also, the super entity goes to near

nothing. The hunger satisfying can

continue in the separate entities as need be,

but since there is lack of connection and

thus lack of coordination, this is not the

main area for hunger satisfying.

Note that since the material which

interconnected the entities in the previous

state was divided up and added to the now

individual entities, they are slightly richer

than in the previous state. Here in the

isolated state, it is like isolated groups of

one husband and one wife. This is just an

alternative state that material can be in, so

that there is a low to no intensity doing of

the all entities partially joined state (done

just previously). Once the rest period part

of the cycle is over, things switch back to

the high intensity part of the cycle (with the

orgy like state of the partially joined

entities, and also the super entity), and this

continues till the hunger is satisfied. Once

satisfied, the materials here can go into a

moderate intensity doing of all these states;

so that there will be moderate doing of the

partially joined structure along side of the

totally isolated structure along side of the

super entity.

But before this occurs, the final rest period

of the hunger satisfying is done. The

material in the partially separated entities

goes to the moderate doing in the totally

separate entities right away, yes. But then

the super entity, and partially separate

entity areas do a rest period; and then after

the rest period, a moderate super entity then

regenerates a moderate partially separate

entity. xxxxxxxxx

While we are working with an all inclusive

super entity that contains all the attributes

of every human; let me clarify this and

suggest a helpful technique. When it

comes to evil/destruction, we do not

include that in our super entity. Now

concerning human hungers -which do

contain some evil/destruction as part of

them; we do make allowances for that, as

we do satisfy them in the partially separate

entity. But all-evils, that are able to be

separated away; we do not include those in

our generating the super entity nor in the

partially separate entity, nor what of our

generating goes to the completely separate

entities area. Thus if any individual is evil

or has evil parts that can be separated

away, this is not carried over to be part of

the super entity. Thus these individuals are

replaced with a copy of them that is devoid

of these evils/destructivenesses. And by

this technique we can re-make and re

-create our world into a better place through

our creative abilities of creating the super

entity and partially separated entity. This

includes any all-evil (evil not associated

with human hungers) that has been able to

get inside us. -We can remake ourselves to

not include this evil, and thus in the new

copies of ourselves we will be free of it.

END (FOR NOW)

SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There are two motivational systems

which coexist in our world today. One is

that of the force of good, which seeks to fill

areas of void and make improvements to

life. It seeks to help people; to feed the

poor and uplift the downtrodden. Christian

churches often take on this mantra.

Then there is the reward system of money.

It implores us to get a job and become

productive members of society, mostly for

the major benefit of an elite ruling class,

although each worker no matter how low,

draws some degree of life sustaining

sustenance from it and none can live

without it. It relies on some degree of

poverty and pain and void to motivate the

masses to do its bidding. Now even though

the money system relies on the pain of

poverty, whereas the force of good system

seeks to eliminate poverty altogether; there

is an area of coexistence where these 2

directives can exist peaceably. But before I

continue with this, let me clarify the

working of the money system.

WHY THERE IS A TEMPTATION FOR

BUSINESS TO POLLUTE OUR

ENVIRONMENT: AND OTHER WOES

OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

What can one person do? What can one

person do when there are labs and scientists

and a whole system that could do so much

more? Unfortunately, the system of ours is

flawed in one aspect. The flaw I speak of is

in our free enterprise system of supply and

demand. Supply and demand serves us well

in distributing resources to where they are

needed, to produce products that are in

demand. The flip side to this is that nothing

can be super abundant relative to other

things in this system. If something is too

abundant, supply will exceed demand, and

its price will go down. Resources used to

produce this product will be directed

elsewhere, where they can make more

money.

This system encourages a negative

motivation of creating shortages where

abundance existed before: If a commodity

is abundant and bountiful, there is no way

to make a profit on it (too much supply

means prices go down). But if that resource

can be destroyed through pollution or some

other bad management, then it can be

reduced to a limited supply, whereby it can

be (monopolized and) sold for a profit.

(Supply being reduced means prices, and

profits, go up.) This is what I mean by 'the

negative motivator of creating markets

where none existed before'. There is the

motivation to take things that were once

abundant, and partially destroy them so the

supply is more limited, and money can then

be made on them. Our system will never

achieve abundance because there will

always be the temptation to destroy some

of that abundance to make money.

Since our system doesn't work when things

become too abundant and plentiful; this is

why we have so many useless management

positions and bureaucracies (where people

make life difficult for each other). If we all

worked on production lines, we'd produce

too much and blow out our system with too

many plentiful supplies.

Our economic system takes abundance and

cuts it down to a more limited supply (for a

better profit). So instead of being at high

capability, our system brings us to medium

capability. Thus our economic system

works to keep us and our world at reduced

capability, in the trap of evil. This sucks!

Also, even when there is a sound production

producing economically, a product that

everybody needs and making a good profit:

that is spoiled by wall street buying and

selling this company on the stock market.

One big money tycoon buys this company,

then another tycoon buys it from him, and

another, and another. They take out loans

to do this, so that they attach a big debt

load to this good production, so that the

slightest downturn makes this good

production unable to meet its debt

obligations, thus bankrupting a perfectly

good and sound production. This sucks.

But wait a minute. This does not suck. This

is just what the Dr ordered. In order to get

us out of our human hungers and the gray

evils which go along with them, an

environment of reduced and medium

ability is just what is needed. And this

economic money system naturally seeks

the medium level. This is the area of

coexistence between the money system and

the force of good system. The force of

good system also seeks to bring medium

ability to where there are human hunger

evils, (and also goods). However, once a

thing has been freed from its human hunger

evils, it becomes rich and of high ability,

and needs to be removed from the money

system, otherwise it will just be pulled

down again. At this point, the money

system and the force of good system part

ways and do not share a common path; and

the perfected force of good here needs to

part ways and get away from this now

detrimental money system.

ECONOMICS

Sunshine, water and sometimes fish are

commodities that can be plentiful without

human help. When they are abundant, no

money can be made from them because

supply so greatly exceeds demand. Yet we

all benefit greatly from them (and for free

too). But if someone were to come in and

destroy or pollute these resources so there

was a more limited supply, then money

could be made selling the remaining

supply./ We will never make things

abundant in our economic system, because

the temptation is always to make things

less abundant so as to get rich.

Supply and Demand supposedly helps us

distribute resources where they're needed.

When there's a shortage of something,

people will pay more for it, and the price

goes up. Those who produce the product

make more money doing so. Others see the

opportunity to make good money and join

in the production. More product is

produced, and the shortage is alleviated.

This is how supply and demand is proposed

to work for our benefit. But it doesn't

always.

There's a fault in supply and demand: If

people don't have enough money in their

pockets for the (prices of) the products out

there, then supply and demand won't work

(to alleviate shortages). The core idea was

that people can make more money when

there is a shortage of a product everybody's

got to have. But higher prices for a product

don't necessarily mean more money will be

made. If there's a lack of money in people's

pockets, they'll just be forced to buy less.

It's not that starving people don't want to

buy food; it's just that if they have no

money, a demand for food won't show up

in economic terms.

Note that the money system thus doesn't

always work to seek the medium

environment, but sometimes seeks the

barren environment.

Here, the force of good system and the

money system part ways, and there is no

common ground at this point; and our sogp

and jesus representations need to intervene

and alleviate the barrenness to medium

ability here.

I don't think we have a clear picture of the

extent that psychological forces are in

operation. The use of these powerful

psychological influences or sanctions, for

the purpose of ensuring conformity and

obedience to norms; themselves actually

encourage disobedience and deviancy. The

problem is not with negative sanctions, but

with the use of positive sanctions or

rewards. In order to modify behavior using

rewards, one must first have a reward. If

one doesn't have much, or wishes to make

what they do have go further as a reward,

they can manipulate the environment to

make this more favorable.

Do you recall, B.F. Skinners operant

conditioning, psychology experiments

where a rat was trained and its behavior

modified? The researcher would use food

pellets or droppersfull of water to reward

the rat for modifying its behavior (after

initially training the rat to get the reward

with an associated stimulus).

But in order for the food pellet or water to

become a reward, the researcher would

deny the rat these things the night, or a

couple of nights before, so that the rat was

really thirsty or hungry by the time the

researcher worked with it. This denial of a

positive thing, is defined to be a

punishment -and not associated with any

behavior the rat did. This punishment was

not attempting to modify any behavior of

the rat: its purpose was instead, to turn the

water or food pellet in the hand of the

researcher, into a reward in the rat's mind.

In our society today, I feel we have relied

excessively heavily on this operant

conditioning psychology to modify human

behavior. You see, even a person's place in

the greater society; their very ability to be

allowed to participate in; even to serve and

WORK for and with the group; is made to

be a privilege and a reward itself. So, in our

society, being allowed to participate in and

be a part of the group, is denied to

newcomers just as a matter of policy, in

order to make them hungry for this: so it

can be used as a reward to modify

behavior. The good jobs and positions of

society can be doled out as rewards to those

who modify their behavior favorably

towards those who dole out these things,

(as directed by those who dominate the

larger society). Since teenagers are

newcomers, as they didn't even exist before

19 years ago, they must be starved and

made hungry for their places in the greater

society; for this operant conditioning to

work (that their future place in society is a

reward to be earned). It is this starvation

and living in a vacuum concerning

participating in and being part of the group

and the greater society, that sets the stage

for these caveman type groups and gangs to

try to fill that vacuum, as best as the

individual can (and they don't fill it very

well). We don't live in a vacuum, but in the

great society of the great U. S. of A.. It is

because no social structure is provided by

this great society. Thus the individual is

forced to provide this the best they can, as

back in the caveman days, when groups of

individuals got together, and hunted

something.

Now, if we understand this, we can know

that (corporate) society is not leaving us

alone, but is punishing us, not for anything

we have done; but in a blanket action to all

who haven't secured a place with them, in

order to make us hungry. So now, we no

longer need wonder why we are being

punished when we haven't done anything

wrong. We are punished, as part of a

mechanism to control us.

It is this situation of vacuum and void in the

life of the young adult (ever hear the

complaint 'there's nothing to do in this

town'?), that encourages criminal deviance,

because doing nothing is too boring; and

doing anything else, involves property

belonging to someone else, and is thus

criminally deviant.

In considering what is the problem

concerning the issue of poverty, it makes a

difference from who's perspective one is

looking. To the poor person, the problem

is: not having enough for basic survival

needs. To the government, the ruling class,

or the larger society; the problems with

poverty may be quite different. To be blunt,

poverty serves a purpose and has a

function. One possibility of dividing up the

economic goods we produce, is to divide

them equally. However, in order to

generate big rewards which are useful to

motivate the masses to chase after them by

doing the ruling class's bidding: one group

must accept less than the equal share so

another group can be enriched and receive

a big reward. Those who must accept less,

(that is the reward given for menial labor),

are understandably displeased. But to get

them to accept the menial reward in spite of

this a more dire alternative is shown them

-that of abject poverty. Poverty serves the

purpose of motivating those designated to

receive the menial reward, to accept this

their place, in spite of its lack of luster. So

for the ruling class, the problem with

poverty in the US today is that there isn't

enough of it; as our current reward system

depends on a certain amount of it to help it

run. Hence poverty persists in the US, more

than in other industrialized countries like

Canada and Western Europe even though

these countries are less wealthy than the

US.

Here we see that the workings of the money

system rely on poverty and voids and pain

in order to make their system work. But

this is actually fine and represents a

common area within the confines of

maintaining medium ability. However,

oftentimes the money system wants to take

it to the next level. They want to achieve

richness, and to do so they employ more

pain and suffering and poverty in order to

achieve this. This results in barrenness,

which is not conducive to separating the

forces or generating rich free material; and

the system thus collapses and breaks down,

because the attempt to achieve richness

actually causes the collapse due to the shift

from medium ability to barrenness in the

working class environment.

So now we say that although there can be

common ground between the money

system and the force of good system; the

money/greed system is unstable and must

be watched and is also not the whole

picture; and once human hunger materials

have been freed and gone to high

capability; this material needs to be

protected from the money system.

Then there is the concept of 'toughlove'

which by its name, seems to indicate that it

is also this common ground between the 2

systems. I mean, the tough part represents

the money system, while the love part

represents the godly side. But it is mostly a

lie and is not this common ground even

though its name seems to suggest it is. You

see, we humans are no longer self sufficient

but are unbalanced; so that when we are

thrown out to fend for ourselves, this is a

barren environment of total desolation

because we cannot function alone. Now, if

we are totally destructive teenagers, then

this is a suitable thing to do to us, and it

represents destruction being done to

destruction; and this is the only common

ground tough love has. But if we are

teenagers who are like most people; who

have some good and some bad to them;

then a medium ability environment is what

we need; and this is not what tough love

delivers, as tough love instead delivers a

barren environment; which is not the

common ground between the 2 systems.

Once again, our sogp and jesus

representations will have to intervene

against the messes created by tough love to

bring these folks out of barrenness to

medium ability so that the forces of good

will be able to be freed and separate from

the forces of evil. Xx Now for a little history:

Perhaps I have been too hard on the

Romans. You can be correct about

something. But if you use destructiveness

to enforce that right position, and force

people to follow that right position, then

that makes you wrong, even though you

were right about your specific position.

And that is what the Romans, and many

others I might add, had done.

In the history of man, we started out as

more self sufficient, but because of rules

over our sexual morality, we became less

self sufficient, more unbalanced, so that we

need to act together as a societal entity to

survive. And these rules over our sexuality

have been in place long before Christianity;

although not every culture had them.

So as we became more dependent on a

societal entity, first came religious shaman

and tribal kings to coordinate and direct our

paths; but as our needs for societal

direction became greater, and shaman

couldn't be there for us all the time, the

money system became more important.

You see, the money system allows for

unbalanced individuals to overproduce

what they are good at and sell that excess

into the money system so that they can then

buy from society what they need in other

areas but are not good at (but which other

unbalanced individuals of the society ARE

good at). Now to a religious shaman, the

money system may seem the root of all

evil, because it eliminates his control over

the people and eliminates his position; but

overall, both the shaman, and the money

system, represent the societal entity, which

ever more unbalanced individuals need to

survive; just that the money system is more

efficient. (You see, when an ever more

unbalanced individual is isolated from a

societal fix, (as when the shaman couldn't

attend to their need), they must suffer in a

self sufficiency which they are woefully

inadequate at. -So that isolation, which is

reserved for handling evildoers, wrongfully

creeps into the lives of every day

individuals who have no basis in

evildoing.) And the Romans, who's leaders

used the money system, did replace the

tribes and cultures led by religious shaman,

with a society led by money, and did

'romanize' the world. And the Romans

didn't have this sexual morality that caused

others to become ever more unbalanced.

So, in this respect, they were on the 'right'

path. But married to this righteousness,

was the acceptance of so much

destructiveness and carnage as a way of

life, that this small bit of righteousness in

this one area was negated and spoiled.

So that then the religious leader, Jesus

Christ, came, and took back some control

from the roman money system, so that from

Jewish roots, now we are returned to the

sexual morality that keeps us making us

ever more unbalanced, and in need of our

societal entity to survive.

As we individuals become more unbalanced

and in need of the societal entity to survive,

a system of taking advantage of this fact

has grown up. People who would be

leaders, exploit that fact by extracting from

each individual the best possible deal for

them, while the worst possible deal for that

individual. And because the individual is

not self sufficient, they are forced to accept

whatever raw deal those running the show

have to offer. So that business, which

represents the societal entity, has a free

hand and can get whatever they want from

the individuals of the society. So that they

have programs of isolation and throwing

the individual out on their own for the

purpose of breaking the individual and

causing them to conform and to

unquestioningly and faithfully obey orders.

And if the individual will not break, they

are cast aside until they do break and go

along with the system of beating

individuals into submission and absolute

obedience. They use hunger, pain, and

suffering as part of a system in making

their system run. And in building a society,

they really don't know what an individual is

good at, so much as they know that the

individual has a weakness that they can't

survive without a connection to society: or

that they will not use an individual even if

they do know their strengths and

weaknesses before they have been broken

and forced to conform.

The effect that this has, is it creates a

societal entity that is less efficient, as not

all the component parts are used, so that

there are shortages in areas where people

are not being used for what they are good

at. So that the reward for participating and

conforming in this society is less than what

it could be. What this means is that the

ruling society just uses more coercion and

harsh treatments to get the individuals to

accept the less than lustrous reward for

conformity; especially newcomers who are

being given the harsh treatment in order to

break them into their place in the society.

But doing these harsh treatments damages

the efficiency of that society further

because it results in the loss of some of the

sensitive individuals (individuals who are

becoming more sensitive every passing

generation due to their ever increasing

imbalance) that the rewards for conformity

are even less appealing. -As individuals

become more and more unbalanced and

less self sufficient, they become more

sensitive to these harsh treatments; but also

relevant from this: -the society depends on

them more because the other individual

parts of society, who have gone off more

into their own specialty, are less and less

competent in their non specialty areas, so

they are less able to cover for the loss of

any one specialty area, so that the effect of

loosing individuals to this breaking

process, is ever increasing inefficiency in

the output of the societal entity; so that the

reward for conforming to and participating

in the societal entity is lessened, which sets

up a feedback where harsher and harsher

measures are used to maintain conformity,

and to break in the newcomers, and we end

up with a North Korea where most

everybody lives in misery; and they then

blow everything up with an atomic bomb to

put an end to that misery, in an end of the

world scenario as predicted by the same

religion that helped cause it through the

sexual morality program that causes people

to be more unbalanced over the

generations. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Note that the function of the sogp or Jesus

representation, is not only to separate and

remove destructions and evils that can be

removed, from the human hungers and gray

areas; the sogp also has the job of removing

evils/destructions from the high good parts.

High good parts are of high ability, and

they do what they can to avoid and get

away from evil/destructions. But they can

only act within and on themselves, and

cannot act on the evil, else they will be

contaminated by it; and this limits them.

Also, if a high part is attached to a person

who also has human hungers, then the evil

of the hunger is always nearby, and the

high part can't get away from it well

without being able to contact the evil of the

hunger.

Also, since we are often unbalanced as

people, we may generate a high part in one

area, but be lacking in other areas so that

this fragment of the high parts is not so

able to get away from evil.

So the sogp or Jesus representation then

comes in and is able to contact the evil and

remove it, move it, and separate it away

from otherwise high good parts of a person.

(as non destructively as possible). So that

when the rewards people come and try to

attack your high good parts and destroy

them, seemingly for no reason; but now as

we know, as part of their program to

generate hunger so that their reward will

work as their control over you; then you

can counter this attack on your high parts

with your and all Jesus representations; and

believe me, you will need to defend your

high parts from those who would attack

and destroy them for seemingly no reason;

from parents to total strangers who ally

themselves with destruction to try to

benefit from it. xxxx

Also, the money system has its own inertia

that tends to trap and keep people in its

system as shown next:

THE TRAP OF EVIL:

We live in a world with both good and evil.

Why couldn't we have had a world with

good only? The reason we have evil along

with the good in our world, is because evil

is one of the POSSIBILITIES -that living

things can do. (Without life, no actions

(good or evil) are possible. But with life;

both good and/or evil are possible actions

from that life.) Given a world of both good

and evil; our actions thus then contain

(both) some good -(growth) as well as

some evil -(destruction). Thus when we do

actions to obtain a desired thing, we as life

usually do some of both good and evil, in

obtaining this thing.

LIFE CAUSES GROWTH

Employers never consider hiring my pet

rock for a job. No, rocks/inanimate objects

are not expected to produce growth. It takes

life and living things to cause change and

produce growth/ -The more 'alive'

something is, the more growth it can cause.

The idea of nurturing life to get it to

produce more growth, forms one side of an

argument/counter-argument: On one hand,

we can say we should nurture life to the

max so it will produce more growth. But on

the other hand we can point out that if we

make life too cushy, there'll be no

motivation to work; people will take

advantage of our good nature; sit around,

relax (slacker), and won't do any work. We

must let them know we mean business, and

reward only when the job is done, or even

punish for work not up to standards.

(argues those in favor of rewards). But

nurture is needed to edify life: -life which

enables us to produce the required growths.

-Two conflicting arguments. What shall we

believe? Realize that just because you

failed to produce the growths they want,

doesn't mean you've done a destructive act.

But they may do destructive acts to you for

not producing the growths.

Enter the factor of destruction: There is

usually more than one way to do a thing.

Some ways involve taking shortcuts and

disregarding the harm they cause. But out

of all the possible ways; there is still

usually one way to do a complete job,

without destruction. -A way that contains

no harm. -And, It takes more resources to

do something in this 'right' way. To obtain

the thing without harm, we'd have to

neutralize the harmful parts of ways

containing evil, (Or, we could severely

limit our possibilities and reject all ways

containing harm). This would require more

effort than if we did the thing the way it

came naturally -(with both good and evil).

Again: -The limited selection we have when

we reject ways containing harm, often

means we loose the easiest ways, just by

probability.

-Plus, it takes more resources to neutralize a

harmful aspect of a way and do a complete

job, than to just let the harm happen. Thus

it takes more capability-power-life to

obtain things with a purity in our actions

(that is, free of harm). So we can do much

more individually with what little we have

when we're open to all possible ways

irregardless of the harm they cause (in our

search for the most productive way), and

don't 'waste' resources trying to neutralize

the harm of our ways. So when we're short

-on-resources, this often forces us to use

ways containing harm.

When short-on-resources we may not have

enough resources to do a thing evil free,

BUT we can still usually do it if we lower

our standards and allow harm in our ways.

(Because we can do more* in the short run

/individually/locally if we allow harm in our

ways;

(*with our scanty resources).)

Unfortunately, this harm we allow catches

up to us. As a collective group we find

ourselves trapped at being short on

resources because the collective harm from

our ways lowers us all and keeps us short

-on resources; since harming destroys

resources. The harm we allow as we strive

to be the best, win the competition, and

produce the absolute most; catches up to

us, collectively. When someone builds up

life, but then another person knocks it

down: and when life/things keep(s) getting

built up and knocked back down over and

over again; a system of stagnation takes

form. And this stagnant system traps us,

because collectively we cannot get ahead.

Like a process may make a good product

and income for a few, but also pollute the

environment, and overall cause more harm

than good.

We can usually do more and be a bit more

productive in the short

run/locally/individually if we allow harm in

our ways. But this harm we allow, keeps us

all short-on-resources in the long run.

((Statement#1;)-And being short on

resources forces us to accept ways

containing harm.) And doing this harm

destroys resources and collectively keeps

us all short on resources. Go to Statement #1.

As we can see, This is a trap. That once

fallen into, cannot easily be gotten out of.

So we should not be so concerned with

winning in competition and who can

generate the highest production as a sole

criteria. We should more importantly look

at how evil free a 'production' is. So we

should nurture life as much as possible, so

we are at as high capability as possible and

are not short on resources, so that we do

things with much less harm in our ways,

-and thus avoid this trap of evil. It is

important for us to be well nurtured (loved)

and at high capability to have the extra

resources needed to grow evil free. -So

when we produce and do things (in an evil

free way); that we do advance and grow

overall. We thus overall provide escape

from the trap and system of destruction,

which is the stagnant system. Xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxx

MORE SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL:

Jumping back to the all inclusive super

entity which contains everybody's different

attributes all together in one entity:

Now, this stuff can become a bit more

complex: When the super all inclusive

entity is generated, it doesn't have to be in

the form which contains many duplicate

copies of the common material. The reason

I say this is because this material of the

sogp/jesus representation often goes back

and forth between the high parts (when it is

resting), and the separate area of the sogp

(when it is active and satisfying human

hunger). When a human hunger is

finished, in order to leave this area and join

the high parts, the sogp rearranges itself to

be at medium ability so that its material can

escape this area and be freed of all evil so it

can join and rest in the high parts. To do

this, its super entity part needs to be

brought from richness to medium ability;

and this is done by removing the common

material so that it no longer has multiple

copies of it, but an actual shortage of it, to

counteract the richness brought by having

every different part of all human

possibilities present together. And then all

this extra common material is given to an

individual entity, usually oneself or ones

spouse. The individual entity being poor

by being all by itself, is enriched by all this

extra common material, so that it achieves

medium ability also, and also escapes all

evil to also join the evil free high parts.

So that when a new human hunger appears,

and sogp material leaves the high parts; this

is the form it is in. And it is usually easier

to recall material back from the high parts,

than to create it all over from scratch.

However, this isn't the form it needs to be in

to satisfy human hungers. So the

individual gives up its richness of common

parts to the collective super entity so that

individual material stands alone in poverty

and barrenness and the super entity is once

again rich in common material. The super

entity then deploys and expands into the

partially separate entity and commences to

satisfy the human hunger (after removing

itself from the super entity area). This

material delivers evil free human hunger

material to the high parts as it works with

this material in medium ability. But wait.

This leaves behind the stand alone

individual in barrenness, who cannot make

it to the high parts due to the barrenness.

Hence this wasted individual crud

accumulates every time we satisfy a human

hunger.

A separate, flushing action is needed to

return this material to the high parts. So

what we do, is a flushing action whereby

we draw resting material from the high

parts, not to do any human hunger

satisfying, but in order to use the form it is

in, to flush this crud back up to the high

parts.

We then keep the all inclusive 'super'

entity as it is, and do not enrich it with

common material from the individual

entity. We also do no hunger satisfying

with it, but instead allow this medium

ability all inclusive entity to return/escape

back up to the high parts where we just

brought it from. Now with the rich

individual entity, we join it with the poor

individual entity, without requiring the

poor entity to perform any requirements to

make it worthy, but instead, without delay

or condition, enrich this poor individual so

that the combined individual entity is now

at medium ability.

Note that the rich individual entity is only

able to take a certain amount of poor entity,

as there needs to be enough richness to

enrich the whole combined individual

entity to medium ability. This entity can

then escape/leave the human area, and

rejoin the high area. In the high area, the

evil freed partially separate entity can

retract into a super entity configuration,

and give common material back to the

individual entity (although this may not be

what happens). But in any case, the

presence of a poor person who is evil free

in the presence of the high parts is a

bonanza for them, and is great food for the

high force of good to fill voids.

Now one may naysay and say that the poor

individual entity enriched with common

material, is still not at medium ability

because it takes a rich amount of common

material to put an individual entity at

medium ability, so that a medium amount

of common material won't bring the

combined individual entity to medium

ability. And this is true. The combined

individual entity will be on the low side of

medium ability in the scale between

barrenness and medium ability. And its

escape from evil to the high parts will be

slower than usual. But it will get done, and

it won't be held indefinitely, as the barren

material would be. Since it isn't satisfying

any human hunger and is evil free within

itself as much as possible, this helps also.

But also, to make this more productive, a

large amount of return high material needs

to come down, to rescue a smaller amount

of barren individual material.

This problem occurs when individual

entities realize their existence is incomplete

due to their unbalanced non self sufficient

state, so they give up all they have to

generate a super entity along with other

incomplete individuals. Ideally this super

entity would then deploy to become a

partially separated entity which would

contain all the attributes of all the

individuals, all connected together with

a common link. This would then satisfy

the human hungers and would free that

material from evil to move up and join the

evil free high parts. But this leaves the

empty shells of barren individuals behind

to never be freed to join the high parts. So

a second action to come back down and

bring these empty shells up evil free into

the high parts is done, so that the high force

of good can be well fed by restoring these

empty shells to high ability.

Now, perhaps a better way to do this would

be to load up a super entity with common

material, or better yet, load up a partially

separated entity (even one that just got up

there through evil free human hunger

satisfying); and have it come back down

when the hunger is satisfied, not to do more

hunger satisfying, but instead to deliver

common material to these poor individual

entities. And this partially separated entity

could retract into a super entity, thus

freeing up even more common material to

deliver to the poor individual entities. And

as a super entity, it could give up as much

common material so that it was kind of

short on common material, so that overall,

this super entity would be at medium

ability, whence it would then return to the

high parts since medium ability material

escapes evil and returns to the high parts;

perhaps to pick up another load of common

material and to do it again. And the poor

individual entities would no longer be poor,

but rich in common material, enough so

that they would be at medium ability

overall, and would then also make it up

into the high parts, where they could return

the common material given them to a super

entity if need be. Xxxxx

Now, I don't think I have a clear picture of

what is going on here, and I wish to expand

my definitions. Let us start with what is

the richest in common or completely whole

material. That would be individual entities

loaded up with common material. Then if

we remove some of the common material,

then each individual entity can double up a

little bit and share some common material

in the partially separated entity. If we

remove even more common material, then

a super entity is formed where common

material is shared completely between the

individual components, none of which have

any individuality. Now if we gave back

common material to this super entity, then

it could be a super entity that hadn't yet

deployed into a partially separated entity.

So that super entities can have varying

degrees of richness of common material,

and depending on this, do exhibit different

properties; so that it is too general to just

say 'super entity' and that the

amount/degree of attached common

material must also be specified.

Continuing on, if we take away all the

excess common material, then a super

entity is unable to deploy into a partially

separate entity. Now if we keep taking

away common material, then the super

entity, which normally would be at high

ability due to the many complimenting

individual components, would be at

medium ability due to the shortage of

common, or connecting material.

(Note the concept that neither BARREN nor

RICH human material escapes to the evil

free high parts, but that medium ability

material does.-this concept is often used

here.)

Continuing on, as we remove even more

common material from this 'super' entity,

the individual components become as

isolated individuals, except that whatever

individual component gets to the common

material is the individual, leaving the other

individual components non functional.

Then as nearly all the common material is

removed, there isn't even an individual

entity, but just a loose nonconnected

collection of non functioning individual

components.

Now with this spectrum of entities, let us

satisfy a human hunger. The sogp comes

out of resting in the high parts as a super

entity with a good amount of common

material. It then gives up most of its

common material to the undeployed and

new material that is the next stage in

satisfying the hunger. This puts the present

sogp in barrenness, and the new part at rich

ability. Thus both of these materials don't

escape to the high parts, but remain to

continue satisfying the hunger. This

continues for a time (to be in line with a

cycling structure); whence the rich new

stage material relinquishes its common

material to share equally with the barren

sogp, so that the whole material is now at

medium ability. Even though the sogp

came down in high ability; its expansion

into the new material has diluted the

common material to only provide medium

ability, -as a super entity unable to deploy

into a partially separated entity. And the

sogp didn't take on an excessive degree of

new material or new stage of progress

material, so at this point it wouldn't dilute

the common material too much below

medium ability. Now this medium ability

super entity may be unable to make further

progress in the human hunger due to being

unable to deploy into a partially separate

entity, but keep on with it anyway, as it

represents one part of the cycling, and more

importantly it works its way up into the

high parts due to its medium ability. Evil

free in the high parts it picks up common

material (due to the richness of the evil free

high parts); so that it deploys into a

partially separate entity and then comes

back down to try to finish the hunger

satisfying. After a time, it again gives up

common material (by retracting into a

super entity and even giving up much more

common material to put that super entity

even lower in common material so it is in

barrenness; while the new stages of the

hunger satisfying are in richness, so that the

new stages then deploy as partially

separated entity. And then after a cycle

time, the rich new, shares with the barren

old entity to become one medium entity

again. And after some number of these

cycles, the hunger is satisfied in this

medium entity, which then rises to the high

parts due to its medium ability; and can be

given common material to become

deployed as a partially separate entity in

the high parts; and it can do this because it

has become evil free. This can continue on

for another cycle time where the satisfied

hunger can now be done as a deployed

partially separate entity (and if it needs to

leave the high parts, it can), after which one

wishes to choose to stop the hunger

satisfying activities; but is something one

cannot do in the high parts because one

hasn't achieved that evil free just yet. And

if it has left the high parts as a partially

separate entity, it is then already there (and

it can't get back into the high parts because

it is no longer at medium ability, but is at

high ability overall due to the common

material it picked up when it was in the

high parts. You see, to satisfy a human

hunger is imperfect; but to stop satisfying a

human hunger is just as imperfect, just in

different areas. So that the sogp now once

again leaves the high parts (if it hasn't

already done so) and acts in the human area

to do 'stopping feeding a hunger' (after a

cycle of completely satisfying the hunger

as a partially separate entity). As a

partially separate entity it is rich, but it

needs to get to medium ability to get back

up to the high parts. It needs to dilute its

common material to another added area to

get to medium ability. And the area of

stopping the hunger satisfying is a new

area. However, the stopping the hunger

area is not compatible with the satisfying

the hunger area, and the two cannot

opperate together. But separately they still

represent two areas, and that is one extra

area than what the high ability partially

separate entity came down with. So that

now, ones main self can join up with the

stopping the hunger satisfying

area/directive, and cast off the satisfying

the hunger area/directive; and then deliver

to the separate hunger satisfying

area/directive, enough common material to

put the main self together with the stopping

hunger action/area at medium ability so it

will naturally rise up to join the high parts

again. The medium level of common

material delivered to the now alone hunger

satisfying action does not give this entity

enough ability to also be at medium ability

overall, because it no longer has all the

surrounding complimentary components

like a super entity would, but is now more

like an individual entity because it is alone

and is less than complete. So it cannot

follow the main entity up to the high parts,

but is left in the human area, listing more

towards barrenness. Once our main entity

is up in the high parts, it receives more

common material and becomes a partially

separate entity, and probably must leave

the high parts to do further stopping the

hunger action now as partially separate

entity, since that represents a change from

how it was done as super entity at medium

ability unable to deploy to partially

separate entity. -a change that is not

completely evil free, since it deals in

human hunger. So it must leave the high

parts because even the smallest evil is not

tolerated. But once again, now it is rich as

a partially separated entity, and cannot get

back into the high parts. But never fear, it

can then come down to the human area,

and after doing the stopping hunger action

and working that out as a partially separate

entity, can lock that in and retract into a

super entity and also give up even more

common material thus putting it at medium

ability, to the now individual entity of the

hunger satisfying action so that the rich

amount of common material delivered to

this individual entity, puts it overall, at

medium ability. And the two medium

ability entities can now rise to the evil free

high parts. But now, there is a minor point

that needs to be taken into consideration.

When these entities are rearranging

themselves, when they sever from one

another, they do so by taking a small

linking component, and removing common

material so much from it that it is just a

collection of non functioning isolated

material at very barren ability. This small

amount of linking material is also brought

from barrenness to medium ability by

giving it a rich amount of common

material, along with the individual feeding

hunger entity. And if a second trip back

and forth from the high parts is needed to

transfer more common material is needed,

that is done. And the main entity doing this

here, is able to do this, because no changes

are made in how it does its action, because

it came from partially separate entity (that

was retracted to super entity that was then

again re deployed to partially separate

entity). Any changes that needed to be

made, were made in the first transformation

to partially separate entity, and not in

subsequent transformations to partially

separate entity. And since it didn't change,

it didn't leave evil free status, and could

return to the high parts even though rich

And the main entity would continue on as

being satisfied and not doing further hunger

satisfying, not according to cycling(which

maintains our choice for both the individual

as well as collective directive), but

according to that we do not need to do a

human hunger activity that we do not have

a hunger for at this time. And we can

continue on in whatever we have made our

evil free form as with our sogp at rest in the

high parts in this form; until we again

experience a human hunger that brings our

sogp back out of rest and this whole thing

starts all over again.

END SUPER ENTITY MATERIAL

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

But perhaps we are not able to create things

brand new or generate super entities that

have every possible combination, seeing

how we are an unbalanced individual.

I should get more realistic and work with

what we have. We have a societal entity

that is complete and balanced by taking the

best skills of each individual entity. Then

we have each individual entity (which can

range from completely self sufficient, to,

totally unbalanced to the point it has no life

anymore as an individual entity but is only

a component part (of the societal entity)).

And as the individual entity becomes ever

more unbalanced, a love between any 2

individuals is also severely unbalanced.

But this is ok, because we can use this and

work with this. Note that the reproductive

drive area is imperfect and needs to be at

medium ability. But the societal entity is

always at high ability; and the payment to

each individual for their work allows them

all access to a degree of high capability. So

when one is doing imperfect reproductive

drive actions, one needs to temper that high

capability down to medium ability. And

this can be done by generating at full steam

in one's or the two's unbalanced way,

and delivering the comforts and goodnesses

of ones (unbalanced) activities to the object

of ones affection, while holding the

shortages generated, to oneself. This is

done for one cycle period. The fact that

one is expanding into a new area, also

helps to generate medium ability due to

spreading resources thin by taking on a

new area. The cycle period is because

previously this new action was not done at

all; representing the 'off' part of the cycle.

Now that the new action is being done, it is

first done at the full 'on' part of the cycle.

(One can thus make a choice for balance

between individual vs group directives with

this cycling way.) But now then, after a

cycle period is over, then one can stop

going full bore at this action, and go at

moderate level. (This also represents a

choice for balance.) So that now,

one has shortages from the previous full

bore activity, and also some of the desired,

but imperfect action present, all here at

medium ability; because the shortages

saved up, do dampen the high ability

provided by the individual's share of the

high ability societal entity's payment for

the individual's work. (But of course, not

every action one does is imperfect-human

-hungers, so that one does not always seek

the medium ability like this.) Now, once

one has put out their unbalanced love in

such a way, in medium ability; it frees

itself from its internal evil, and becomes of

high ability and also evil free. So that one

no longer needs to find this medium ability

this way. And one can move onto other

imperfect couplings and also set them evil

free in the same manner. However, what

one should avoid, is multiple loves all at

once, because when multiple people get

together, their unbalanced skills start to

combine into a balanced entity. And a

balanced entity doesn't generate unfilled

shortages; and with no shortages, the high

ability of the societal group cannot be

brought down to medium ability; thus

leaving the imperfect human hunger in a

rich environment where it doesn't free itself

from its internal evil. So, one at a time

please; at least in the initial purification

stages; and don't mix purified human action

with impure human hunger action unless it

is in a medium ability environment. So

that once one has freed their love for their

partner, they can allow their partner to free

their love in the same way, using theirself.

Better yet, a couple in love with each other

can generate their own imbalance together.

Because they are imbalanced, they

generate excess material in excess of what

they need. This extra material doesn't put

them at richness, because they don't sell it

into the larger society much. But the

shortages that come along with their

unbalanced production, do put them both at

medium ability, down from the high ability

provided by their connection to and work

in, the greater society. This medium ability

environment allows them to work their

imperfect human loves out unto evil free

high ability; together, at the same time.

So, we don't need to overcome the

imbalance of our state as unbalanced

individuals; to go and generate a complete

and balanced super entity; but can use our

imbalance to our advantage.

What we do is when we are doing a new

part of satisfying a human hunger action,

we keep the unbalanced production from

going into the societal entity, but we allow

the shortages generated by that unbalanced

production to go into our share of the

societal entity; to thereby generate medium

ability (down from high ability). Once the

human hunger has purified itself, then that

rich unbalanced production can be

released/accessed. No need to work at a

job that barely pays for much hard work to

achieve medium ability. (This represents

maximizing the societal (work) entity at the

expense of the individual entity.) Xxxx

Now, concerning conservative Christianity;

the gradual creep towards elimination of

the individual entity, leaving only the

societal entity; as we have theorized, the

lack of the ability to try many possibilities,

causes the leader/s to not have good

policies, which allows problems to fester.

And the lack of coordination also causes a

poor result. What this does is to cause the

societal entity, which usually generates

richness, to now only generate medium

ability environments. And this is great for

purifying human hungers. So now we have

found an excellent place for conservative

Christianity; which is to serve as the

instrument of purification for our human

hungers. And isn't this what Christ

promises? -the forgiveness of sin.

Jumping back, Note that unbalanced growth

is not in itself the evil intertwined in human

hungers; but it is useful in purifying that

evil.

Note that setting the individual as mainly

self sufficient, also sets the societal entity

at medium ability, which also is great for

purifying these human hungers. So, why

not just go with my unbalanced growth

idea, that comes naturally from individuals

being unbalanced for the societal entity,

and not need these other mechanisms for

purifying ones human hungers? Well, the

thing is, my unbalanced growth mechanism

doesn't allow for group orgies or multiple

loves mixed together simultaneously; and

neither does the giving the individual entity

too much self sufficiency (as they don't

tend to get together, but keep to

themselves; whereas orgies require people

to get together.) So we have now found the

proper place for conservative Christianity:

-to be the host for orgies and other human

groupings involving imperfect human

actions with intertwined evil. And I do

hereby place my stamp of approval on this,

and say, praise this conservative lord. And

note that we can use any of these devices to

purify our human hungers as need be.

However, not all actions are human

hungers, and there are times when a

competent and evil free rich societal entity

can be useful also; which is why we can

have a separation of church and state, and

hopefully generate a societal entity where

there is a better balance between the

individual entity and the societal entity:

hence the home of non conservative

Christianity and others. And I applaud that

also.

Now, on the off chance conservative

Christianity won't be receptive to my needs

for group sex, a back up plan may be in

order. Hence perhaps getting back into the

super entity ideas may be the way to go.

Like, the idea of the super entity (to do

hunger satisfying that will rise evil free into

the high parts) -a Super Entity that has

common material removed, so as to put it

at medium ability (down from the high

ability of the super entity with more

common material, or the partially separated

entity, which also has extra common

material); is very similar to a societal entity

which has eliminated the individual

position, just like the end result of

conservative Christianity will do.

Let me abbreviate conservative Christianity

as 'CC'.

With CC, the societal entity which normally

is at high ability, is at medium ability, due

to the lack of coordination and inability to

explore multiple possibilities

simultaneously (since the individual

components have no life of their own).

This is great for purifying intertwined

human hunger evils, resulting in purified

individuals. However, as the genetic drift

under CC completely eliminates the

individual position, there then becomes no

individuals left to purify; leaving the only

Individual left (the societal entity), stuck at

medium ability always lagging behind,

unable to bridge many barriers,

uncoordinated and slow at finding

solutions. So that ultimately, CC does not

work out to be a solution for anything; but

in the process of getting to this final point,

it does set many unbalanced individuals

free.

It can be said that by itself, conservative

Christianity is good for a season, but after

that, comes Armageddon. xxxxxxx

Now, the super entity, with a shortage of

individuality or common material, does

provide the medium ability environment

needed, just like CC.

Now, the partially deployed (partially

separate entity) does provide some

isolation and privateness to each individual

component, which is useful in providing a

place out of reach of the societal entity for

all the rich unbalanced production that

accumulates, but it is not at medium ability

but is at high ability (due to having all

human attributes present together but not

too cramped together), like a societal

entity. Lacking the medium ability

environment, makes it a poor place for

purifying human hungers.

But what if we were to minimize the

societal entity and maximize the individual

entity. These would be almost (but not

quite) fully deployed individuals on their

own. Any unbalance these individual

components have would cause unfilled

shortages (as well as overproductions)

according to their unbalanced growths.

As mostly isolated individuals (with only a

limited connection to the societal entity);

the rich overproduction of their imbalance

would not come together to generate

overall richness (like it would if it were put

into/made into a societal entity) -because

they are all isolated from each other -due to

being deployed as (partially) separate

individual components. But the shortages

from their unbalanced growths WOULD

bring them down. And if they only had a

limited connection to the societal entity,

then they would only be resupplied to

medium ability, and not richness. And this

is just what we need to purify multiple

unbalanced (human hunger) loves

simultaneously. The isolated unbalanced

loves would only share their shortages and

would only trade a little of their unbalanced

surpluses into the societal entity to alleviate

shortages to only medium ability. And this

works out as long as individuals are

unbalanced to some degree and not totally

self sufficient. However, if many

generations of offspring from multiple

loves occurred, then unbalance would give

way to total self sufficiency. So that CC or

some type of conservatism/morality is

needed to keep some degree of imbalance

in the individuals. Neither way is adequate

within itself, but each must be tempered

with the other. CC cannot be the only way,

or the absolute ruler; but neither can we go

it without CC.

In one plan, the individual is glorified, yet

still with a little bit of work (which

represents the societal entity). There are

many siestas and vacations, with just a little

bit of work. In the CC plan, the individual

must sacrifice for the societal entity, and

there is a lot of work: it is the workaholic,

where it is all work, and the individual is

totally given over to the societal entity.

Both these ways are able to entertain

multiple unbalanced loves simultaneously.

And both these ways must coexist to have a

long term future for a society. But if the

individual gets tired of working so much,

they can just reduce this to some kind of

morality of one man one woman. Perhaps

the compromise of allowing sexual

expression where offspring are not

produced; while reserving marriage for the

purpose of childbearing, only; is in order.

Christ writes 'Take upon my yoke, for I am

easy and my burden is light'. And from

this, we can gather that He wants us to

choose this non conservative Christianity;

where we purify our human hungers by

maximizing the individual entity, and

minimizing our societal, work, entity.

Once again I reiterate: there needs to be a

balance in the imbalance within

individuals. There needs to be some

imbalance; but not too much imbalance.

Imbalance in the individual represents the

degree the societal entity is given to, over

the individual entity: And there needs to be

a balance between the societal and the

individual entity; and one should not

supersede the other.

However, perhaps I have been too hasty to

achieve this balance as a matter of policy. I

now think that this balance can be stretched

a bit towards the societal entity and

imbalanced individuals, so that they may

use this imbalance to purify their human

hungers in the reproductive drive area; and

by so doing, relax that stretch back to

normal balance. Of course, I am still

against prolonged and excess imbalance

that totally sacrifices the individual entity

to the societal entity. So that when a

society stretches the balance towards the

societal entity; then it is right to relax that

stretch back towards balance. But in doing

so, one should maximize the sexual

satisfaction achieved ie the purification of

the human sex drive. And one should be

less inclined to manufacture mostly self

sufficient individuals, because they would

have no or little imbalance to purify their

sex drive with.

This doesn't mean interracial procreation is

to be eliminated, just that in the future, it is

not to be a major thing. (but for now, there

needs to be a group of intermediate people

or mixed breeds, that represents a

continuous line between all the differences

in people that can exist.) That one should

not procreate interracially as a matter of

policy, in order to mix the genes, to come

down from the excessive imbalance that

exists; but only when there is an intense

sexual attraction between the couple. (But

this may be incorrect.) What I am saying, is

that once there is an even field or

continuous transition between all the

differences that people can be; that one

should avoid procreating with someone

who is too different; but be open to

procreating with someone who is

somewhat different; according to one's

sexual desires, or that what will satisfy

one's sexual desires. And even in the

interracial procreation that needs to be done

today to generate a connecting population

of mixed breeds; that should be done only

between couples who are well sexually

attracted to each other. But even this may

be incorrect. Because if there is a

correlation; a connection, between the

sexual attraction felt by an interracial

couple, and the intensity of the sex drive of

their offspring; this will create offspring

who are more self sufficient, and thus less

imbalanced; but with a large sex drive to

purify. And with no imbalance to provide

medium ability, they will be unable to

purify much of their large sex drive. So the

suggestion may be to only procreate

interracially between couples who are not

very sexually attracted, so as to minimize

the sex drive in their offspring; and then the

sex drive can be increased from there, in

future generations between more similar

people with thus more imbalance. as I am

still trying to figure these things out; and I

leave it to each of you to decide for

yourselves what is the best way to go.

I don't think I have a clear picture here. I

am just beginning to realize the precarious

balance we all must walk. The

reproductive drive is so basic to all of us,

that if we don't take care of it properly, it

will eat us alive.

(Note that the phrase 'straight and narrow'

as a path, can refer to semen traveling

down an erect phallus .)

Now, previously I had been concerned

about generating people who were too

unbalanced so that the individual entity was

squeezed out completely; which results in

bad results for that society. But now I see

the advantage some imbalance has for

purifying the sex drive. When someone

has a good degree of imbalance, they can

use that imbalance to enjoy sexuality with

everyone around them, (ie, purify their sex

drive). But if they procreate with

everybody, the offspring will most likely

be less imbalanced and more self sufficient;

(which is a good thing in most other

respects), but which prevents these

offspring from being able to purify their

sex drive and enjoy sexuality in the same

way their parents are able to. So that as

parents who are able to enjoy their

sexuality; they want to pass that on to their

offspring, and avoid creating offspring who

can't enjoy sexuality like they do. So that

while these unbalanced people should be

open to sexual love with all races and

peoples; they should avoid procreation with

all their partners; and procreate only with

those who are similar enough to maintain

the same degree of excessive imbalance

that they have. -But not so similar that they

increase that excessive imbalance too much

more. You see, in pursuit of maintaining

sexual enjoyment/purification; one can go

too far in encouraging imbalance in their

offspring, resulting in total elimination of

the individual entity with the

accompanying dire consequences for that

societal entity. Thus the mating between

(2nd)cousins should be celebrated, instead

of being actively suppressed as it is now.

Now, for those of us who are more self

sufficient and less unbalanced; who are

unable to use imbalance to purify their sex

drive so well; there is still the conservative

Christian way or some other similar

workaholic, hard work, low pay way to

alternatively purify one's sex drive. But

that isn't quite as good for one's quality of

life. Xxx Ooops. This isn't quite the total

picture. Yup, now is one of those times

when I am changing my mind again in

completely the opposite direction and

reversing much that I have written.

There are several things to accomplish

when doing human hunger satisfyings.

First we need to provide the medium

ability environment for purification of the

human hunger; but also to keep material

here in the hunger satisfying mode long

enough to satisfy the specific hunger.

And also; it would be nice to be able to

choose a the choice for balance between

the group entity vs the individual or

component entity; and avoid the choice for

just the group entity.

Now, if we use the imbalances that have

been bred into us; this can work fine for

generating the medium ability environment

needed for its purification. But it does

nothing towards us choosing the balance

between group vs component entities,

beyond the initial doing of the hunger

satisfaction (balanced against the long not

doing of the hunger satisfaction before we

started doing the hunger satisfaction); and

so we have to come up with something

extra to choose this balance.

What I am leaning to, is my earlier structure

to satisfy human or gray hungers involving

cycling frequencies of doing, then not

doing, the action; as well as the idea of a

partially deployed super entity. I had

dismissed the use of the partially deployed

entity because it was too rich, and had gone

on to try to make medium ability

environments with this concept. However,

the cycling between fully doing, and then

not doing, an action; not only chooses the

balance between group vs component

entities; but also delivers the medium

ability environment. So that we can take a

high ability structure like a partially

deployed entity and have it present doing

hunger satisfaction for a cycle time; and

then dissolving it for a cycle time; and then

reconstituting it for a cycle time, etc. so

that even though it is a high ability concept;

the act of turning it off and on and off and

on repeatedly, generates a medium ability

environment overall, because the off part of

the cycle is a barren environment. But

before I incorporate the partially deployed

entity concept, let me just stick with the

full intensity doing of the hunger, followed

by a low/no intensity doing of the hunger,

in a cycling frequency.

I want to get back to a simpler concept that

I had explained earlier about the human

hunger gray actions which generate

goodness and also destruction unavoidably

in the same action, but to different areas.

And that if we don't structure them to the

same areas, but let them be done randomly;

that we will achieve the medium ability

environment we seek. But now with this

turning on, and then off, of a human

hunger, we achieve the same thing, but

now in full control of the human hunger

doing. Because if doing a human hunger

causes goodness to be generated in one

area, but destruction to be done in another

area; then refraining from doing that

hunger (in the 'off' part of the cycle),

perfectly reverses the destruction and

goodness done, unlike any randomness

could provide; to generate a medium ability

environment. (And of course, additionally

gives us the choice for balance between

group vs component entities.)

But at this point, I wish to be more specific

about the cycling frequency of turning the

human hunger on, and then off (and on and

off etc). Realize that when first starting to

satisfy a human hunger; previous to this,

we had been not-doing the human hunger

for a substantial period of time; and that

this had made us very hungry. Ie, it made

certain areas barren, and other areas rich, in

accordance with what the 'off' part of the

cycle generates. So that if we did the

cycling rapidly with a short cycle period,

then the short 'on' doing of the hunger-

satisfying wouldn't lift the 'one' area out of

barrenness, nor bring the 'other' rich area

down from richness. So that initially, we

must do the hunger satisfying 'on' part for

longer than just a short burst; but of course

also, not too long either. Once the initial

conditions have been changed away from

barrenness in 'one' area and richness in the

'other' area; to medium ability all around;

then a rapid cycling can be done to lock in

that medium environment. But starting

with rapid cycling, just keeps the initial

barrenness and richness as is.

Now, there is another consideration. When

human hunger material exists in a medium

ability environment, the goodness in it

escapes the evil there, and frees itself from

its evil, and the evil-free good escapes and

joins the high parts, which have no direct

connection with imperfect human hunger

satisfying. So the goodness from doing the

hunger satisfying, and also the goodness

from not-doing the human hunger

satisfying, both escape this system and

become evil free to join the separate high

parts. But this leaves a vacuum in the

hunger satisfying arena; and if the hunger

hasn't finished being satisfied, then that

makes a barren situation and an unsatisfied

hunger. So what we can do, is to do the

human hunger to rich ability. This

generates goodness in 'one' area to rich

ability. The 'other' area, which is already

barren due to its good escaping to the high

parts, just remains barren as it is

pummeled. Then once richness in the 'one'

area is achieved, we switch to 'not-doing'

the hunger satisfying for half the time (that

it took to build to richness). This causes the

rich 'one' area to be lowered to medium

ability, and also the once barren 'other' area

to be raised also to medium ability. Once at

medium ability, a rapid cycling frequency

of equal on and off durations can be done,

to thereby keep this material at medium

ability; also which, in time, escapes to the

high parts.

Now, we can look at a hunger satisfaction

as piecemeal; as having sequential or

successive stages of achievement. Then

new stages may need to be done to

richness, while older stages are at medium

ability with a rapid cycling frequency.

However, this may be an error, because the

same areas may be helped and harmed even

though different stages (but of the same

human/gray hunger satisfaction) are

involved. So that taking the new stage to

rich in the 'one' area, may pummel the same

'other' area that was trying to operate at

medium ability from the older stage; and so

this would not be a good choice.

If the satisfaction takes too long, some

older stages (even the non staged hunger

satisfaction, now that we are no longer

considering stages) may have completely

emptied (with both areas (the one, and the

other) in barrenness), due to their good

material escaping to the high parts: that this

stage(complete whole) may again go to

richness (with a long 'on' cycle part), and

then to medium ability (with a half long

'off' cycle part); and then to rapid cycle.

We must wait until most of the goodnesses

in the medium ability environments escape

to the high parts, (thus emptying these

areas and making them barren, (whence no

more goodness escapes due to no longer

being at medium, but instead barren)),

because when we go to rich in the 'on' part

of the cycle; because we are dealing with a

human hunger which does both good and

destruction, 'rich' refers to the 'one' area,

whereas at the same time, the 'other' area is

decimated; so that if this other area is

already near barren, then little is lost. Xxxx

Here we have a method for satisfying our

human hungers that also chooses the

balance between group vs component

entities that we want. This is better than

the use of imbalances within us method.

Both concepts can be used together,

cooperatively, but the on-off method is

more central due to its solving both the

medium ability environment and the

choosing the balance between group vs

component entities. And also uses the flaw

or destructiveness of the human hunger

itself; whereas the imbalance method uses

outside methods to lower to medium

ability, which are not as directly targeted to

the proper areas.

So that the directives to procreate with a

spouse who has a good degree of

similarity; and to generate a degree of

excessive imbalance but not too much of

this excessive imbalance; and encouraging

2nd cousin mating: are all of lesser or no

importance. And if we get into the super

entity stuff, these things are even less

favored.

Before, with the partially separate entity, I

had tried to have the hunger satisfying

continue on as the partially separate entity

took different forms. But to be in line with

the on-off method, we need an 'off' part of

the cycle where the hunger satisfying

ceases; and so the different forms of the

super entity where hunger satisfying

continues, are discarded.

Now, let us get into what it takes to

generate a partially separate entity. (The

purpose of this entity was to bring us all

together as one, yet still retain some

individuality. So that the jealousies that

occur between couples would be

eliminated.

But come to think of it, a big reason people

don't stick with their mate is because of the

allure of new material. Because new

material hadn't been done before; there had

been a long buildup of 'off' activity; which

allows for a long and rich period of 'on'

activity, (before one should switch back to

'off' for half that time, and then to a more

rapid cycling on and off). It is in the

medium ability environments found under

the more rapid on off cycling, where the

goodnesses here do escape to the high

parts. This is a major value of doing things

in the human hunger areas. But one can be

distracted by the newness of other new

people and new romances, that they neglect

finishing what they have already started;

and neglect the important work of working

with this material in the medium ability

environment. But of course, if one does the

work of working with their human hunger

material in the medium ability environment

and waiting till the goodnesses in both

areas escape to the high parts; they needn't

restrict themselves from new material.

Now I wish to get a clearer picture of this

stuff. First I want to examine this rapid

cycling more closely. Not only is the cycle

time important, but also the intensity of

doing in the 'on' part of the cycle. So that if

the same intensity is being considered, the

shorter time of the 'on' period under rapid

cycling, means less can be accomplished

before the 'off' part of the cycle decimates

or reverses what had been accomplished.

And this is why I used it to fix a position at

medium ability once that had been

achieved. But rapid cycling isn't the only

way to fix a position. The intensity level

also represents a way to change or fix

positions, and we can use it instead of rapid

cycling to achieve our positions.

Consider that before we started the hunger

satisfying, that we counted the long time

previous to starting it, as a long 'off' period,

which diminished 'one' area, but greatly

advance an 'other' area (to richness). And I

get this from that a human hunger does

goodness to some areas, but destruction to

others; and that not-doing the human hunger

perfectly reverses this, and does destruction

to some areas but goodness to the others.

Another factor that comes into play here is

that whenever one of these areas is at

medium ability, its goodness escapes to the

high parts, which removes material from

these areas and moves them towards

barrenness. Whereas if these areas are

either rich or barren, goodnesses do not

escape to the high parts.

From these concepts, we can map out

several scenarios of what we can do.

Let us start out as just starting a hunger

satisfaction. At the start, the 'one' area is

barren or hungry, and the 'other' area is

rich. We can do the 'on' part of a cycle for a

medium period, or do a medium intensity

of hunger satisfaction. That will bring the

'other' area down to medium ability, and

also bring the 'one' area up to medium

ability. With both areas at medium ability,

they both loose goodness material to the

high parts, and both tend towards

barrenness. In response to this, we can

increase our intensity of 'on' doing of the

hunger satisfaction to bring the 'one' area to

richness, and decimate the 'other' area even

further; but since it was already barren, it

just remains barren. We can then lower our

doing of the hunger satisfaction, and thus

the 'one' area to medium (off from

richness), which will then bring up the

'other' area from barren to medium. With

both areas in medium again, we can start

this over again.

But this isn't a real plan because when both

areas are at medium ability, and then they

start loosing goodnesses to the high parts,

thus putting both areas towards barrenness;

they no longer loose material due to being

towards barrenness, thus they recover

towards medium, so that both areas

stabilize just below medium; so no area is

already at barrenness when it is decimated

when the other area is made rich.

But there are other, better ways to do things.

When both areas are at medium and are

both loosing goodnesses to the high parts,

instead of increasing the 'one' area to

richness by excessive (intensity) doing the

hunger action; another way is to stabilize

the 'one' area to the low side of medium, by

lowering the intensity of doing so that the

'other' area is enriched. But the 'other' area

never increases above medium because it

just looses the material to the high parts.

Still at medium ability, it continues to loose

to the high parts. The 'one' area is brought

lower to achieve this, but it is not brought

so low as to be completely barren. Hunger

satisfaction is still done at a low rate to

continue this. If we go completely to no

hunger doing, and complete barrenness in

the 'one' area, that will deliver complete

richness to the 'other' area, and will

overcome the material lost to the high parts

to move the 'other' area from medium to

richness, whence it will stop loosing

material to the high parts and thus move to

richness even faster. But we do not do this.

We willfully entertain, at first a decent

doing of hunger satisfaction, which brings

any richness in the 'other' area down to

medium ability. Once the 'other' area is in

medium ability, we start shrinking the

doing of hunger satisfaction. This loss in

the 'one' area causes an increase in the

'other' area, but that increase is not realized

in this 'other' area, as it just makes up what

is lost to the high parts, so the other area

stays at medium ability and continues to

loose to the high parts. We adjust the 'one'

area lower and do less, but still some,

hunger satisfaction, just enough to not let

the 'one' area fall any lower. What this

does is to give from the 'one' area to the

'other' area, because when the 'one' area is

lowered, that raises the 'other' area. But the

'other' area looses that raise to the high

parts. And also, the 'one' area, being on the

low side of medium, also looses some to

the high parts. So, if we maintain these

areas at these levels; a lot of material is

saved to the high parts. And as we have

seen, that is a main reason we do

human/gray hunger satisfying in the first

place. So that even if things don't work out

well in the hunger satisfaction, much

goodness has still been freed to the high

parts.

Now, we could reverse these roles, and let

the 'other' area serve the 'one' area. But this

would force us to do ever increasing

hunger satisfaction, because it is possible to

reach states where losses to the high parts

are excessive; so that one would be forced

to do excessive hunger satisfying just to

maintain medium ability. Whereas in the

reverse situation it would be easy to not-do

hunger satisfying for the most part (just do

a minor hunger satisfying just off of

barren), to supply much richness to the

'other' area; -the other area not receiving

that richness, but instead loosing it to the

high parts.

Also, the failure to successfully satisfy the

human hunger, say if the potential mate

declined; would prevent the 'one' area from

replacing what it lost to the high parts.

Also, most of our lives we have probably

done more hunger satisfying than this

'reverse' hunger satisfying, so that the high

parts are more stuffed with escaped hunger

satisfying material, and might prefer some

escaped 'reverse' hunger satisfying material

to balance it out.

Also, the nature of satisfying human

hungers are that when we are finished and

are full, we wish to stop and no longer

continue feeding. With the reverse hunger

satisfying, or the 'one' area supporting the

'other' area; the 'one' area is near barren,

and is easily stopped without much trouble;

whereas with the other plan, the 'one' area

is at medium and is heavily involved

feeding material into escaping to the high

parts; it is not in a good position to easily

bring the hunger satisfying to a stop; and it

has an inertia that wants to keep going with

the hunger satisfying, even after one is full

and no longer desires this hunger

satisfying. Thus this reverse hunger

satisfying plan is the best state to be in

when one is ready to finish the hunger

satisfying and come to a stop with it until

next time.

Note that this propensity of hunger

satisfying to desire to be done for a time

until one is full, and then to stop; represents

its propensity to do on-off cycling as

opposed to constant medium intensity

doing (as is found in the 'rest' plan to be

discussed shortly), in finding medium

ability and also choosing the balance of

group vs component entity.

So the better plan is to have the 'one' area

support the 'other' area. But both plans are

workable under many situations, and both

can be done at one's discretion, mix and

match, just that the 'other' plan is more

advantageous.

However, since hunger satisfying has the

propensity to do on-off type of cycling;

since the more advantageous plan

represents the 'off' part of the cycle, or

leads to the 'off' part of the cycle; we need

to do an equal amount of the 'on' part

of the cycle (which is the not so

advantageous plan of direct hunger

satisfying) at first. -This doing of an 'on',

'off' cycle, represents a choice for both the

group entity and individual or component

entity.

Of course, doing a constant amount of a

moderate intensity hunger satisfying (and

not cycling on and off), also represents this

same choice. But for the same reason that

we allow some conservatism to exist

(which is to allow individual areas to

develop mostly free of the interferences

from, and constraints of, the other areas, for

a time; we also do the 'on', 'off' cycling for

this same reason. But we do not eternally

allow individual areas to be free from the

constraints of each other; but instead, bring

them all together as one so that we may

assemble each individual area together as a

coherent unit to consolidate the gains made

in the individual units into a more powerful

whole; whence we alternate back and forth

between allowing individual components

more freedom vs putting them all together

(where they experience each others

constraints, and thus have less freedom), so

as to generate the maximum and best

possible life/power/and ability. xx

Now, these plans require constant

monitoring to coordinate the 'one' area with

the 'other' or vice versa, to keep one of

them at medium ability. But when we rest,

what then? Well, a good rest plan, is to just

do the first scenario mentioned. That is, use

one area to bring both areas to medium

ability, and let them sit like this. Sure,

losses to the high parts bring these areas to

less than medium ability, but they

automatically stabilize at points slightly

below medium, and still deliver some

production to the high parts; comparable to

the active plans because with the active

plans, one of the areas is moved well off

medium ability towards barren, in order to

put the other area at medium ability. Xx

Come to think of it, both these active plans

put an area near barrenness, from which we

can knock it down into barrenness in order

to bring the complimentary area to richness

without doing much damage to the area,

because it is already near barren, so that

any amount of destructiveness to it doesn't

bring it any lower than barren. We don't

stay in this state long, but just use it as a

transition to get to the rest state, by

lowering the rich area to medium, thereby

raising the barren area also to medium

(both of which then proceed to loose to the

high parts (in both areas), but stabilizes

shortly, just a little below medium, for each

area. And from this state, we can then favor

the one area at medium, or favor the other

area at medium, whichever way we choose.

If we tried to achieve this rest state directly,

it wouldn't work. With the 'one' area near

barren, and the 'other' area at medium;

if we did the hunger action that uplifted the

'one' area and at the same time brought

down the 'other' area, we would end up

with both areas between medium and

barren, and would not be able to bring both

areas up to medium. xx

So I suppose I should run through one cycle

of hunger satisfying. First we might do a

fairly robust hunger satisfying, with the

'other' area taking damage and listing

towards barren so that the 'one' area may

remain at medium while also loosing to the

high parts. Then as we start to become full,

or this present stage starts to become

complete, we raise the 'one' area to richness

and completely loose the 'other' area to

barrenness (for just a short transition time);

so that we can then lower the 'one' area to

medium, which also brings the 'other' area

up to medium, and we continue lowering

the 'one' area even lower (pretty low) so

that the 'other' area is now favored, and this

makes up for losses to the high parts that

the 'other' area incurs while it is at medium.

We continue on like this until the present

stage is finished or we are satisfied and

wish to stop hunger satisfying action.

(Just realize that once the 'one' area has been brought low, that we cannot

raise it again without totally decimating the 'other' area to barrenness; seeing

how this configuration is for supporting the 'other' area at medium. Instead,

we must go completely to nothing with the 'one' area for a transition time,

which allows the 'other' area to raise to richness, whence it will then be

lowered to medium when we raise the one area from nothingness to medium. So

that if the cycle period for on is different than for off, that will just have

to be made up in the next cycle.)

Next we lower the 'one' area completely to

barrenness and continue to favor the 'other'

area until it rises from medium to rich;

whence we leave that transition by bringing

the 'other' area back down from rich to

medium, which also raises the 'one' area up

to medium. From this 'rest' state, we no

longer need to cycle in on-off mode, and

can just do medium intensity instead; until

the next time we become hungry. Xx

Note that superimposed upon all this, is that

for every action we do in a hunger

satisfying mode; and also every action we

do in an 'abstinent' mode, we do a kind of

shepherding action with our Jesus

representation (generated previously from

our rest period where we did not favor any

on or off state and did our human actions at

a medium level), to keep the human area

away from the high parts, and to keep all

evils away from the human area. Xx

Note that when doing the on-off cycle, we

have to constantly monitor it and work with

it to keep it generating material for the high

parts; while in the constant medium rest

state, none of this close supervision is

needed. So that it is costly to keep up a

commitment for just one mate (which

represents the high intensity 'on' part of a

cycle, followed by 'off' parts in this

cycling); so that one should minimize the

time they exalt one person above others, for

the time that they need that; but should

return to equality between all peoples in the

rest state once that need is satisfied.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

So how would we build a super entity?

First we consider who we are and what

resources we have. We are unbalanced

individuals who have our best part that is

contributed to the societal entity, but we are

also made up of other parts that are lesser

and much less competent, that we don't

much depend on, but instead, depend on

other people's best parts of the societal

entity to supply. It is these inferior and

rarely used parts of us that represent the

common material that we must bulk up on

and make duplicate copies of in order to

generate super entities and a partially

separate entity. As we can see, this would

be easier if we were more self sufficient,

and that our imbalance hinders us from

doing. Even so, the amount of partially

separate entity is fairly small in comparison

to our size; -we are only able to make a

small or miniature entity due to that it

requires massive amounts of the material

we are weakest in. But even though small

or miniature, maybe we should still do it,

since it brings us together as one, yet still

able to hold onto some individuality; in an

imperfect world where we are often cut off

from one another in an imperfect society.

Just realize that the more self sufficient and

less imbalanced we are, the more of this

super and partially separate entity that we

can make. Xxxxxxxxx

NUANCES OF THE NOW DEFUNCT

IMBALANCED METHOD:

Note that with CC, in addition to the

crippled societal entity which serves to

purify individuals in their hungers; an

additional, fully functional, high ability

societal entity would be needed along side,

to actually fulfill the duties of a societal

entity; and represent freedom from all evil,

and the high parts. Because not all actions

are the intertwined human hunger actions;

and some actions are actually evil free

actions not part of human hungers, which

seek to do good in the world.

So with CC, a crippled societal entity exists

along side a fully functional societal entity.

But with the other plan that uses maximized

individuality and minimized societal

entity; one cannot satisfy human hungers,

and do effective societal, work, actions at

the same time. One can satisfy human

hungers with a weak societal entity, but

then adjust the societal entity to be much

more dominant so that one can do effective

work actions; but one would think one

could not do both simultaneously. Yet, let

me convince you otherwise. When one, as

a human being, is smitten with the human

hunger loves, then one acts with

maximized individuality and minimized

societal (work) entity. The unbalanced

productions that one creates, are mainly

isolated from each other and any societal

entity, and are not put to much use here.

Since the societal entity is not very

prevalent, there is still plenty of room for a

societal entity, seeing how there is so much

of this rich isolated unbalanced productions

just laying around, unused.

But any human who is under the spell of

human loves, should not be part of such, as

the richness in it would cause them to be

burnt down (due to the evil intertwined in

this human hunger). However, at medium

ability, these human hungers eventually

free themselves from their intertwined evil,

and become evil free. It is only when

human minds experience this human

hunger, and work it out into evil free status,

that they can make a societal (work) entity

out of all this rich unbalanced isolated

material laying around. And at the same

time, parts of that human mind that are

smitten, but not yet evil free, do act to

avoid most societal entity (work)

structures, and do ruminate with their this

human hunger until it has become evil free.

Only when it has become evil free and

joined the high parts, does it then come and

participate in major societal entity actions

with this latent rich material generated

from the smitten human hunger stage. So,

although the advice to young people, is to

buckle down and do their work; the wise

thing to do, is not be so attached to work,

(which is the societal entity); but to

minimize work (the societal entity) until

one has ruminated out their human

hungers, and is then ready for major

societal entity (work) activity. xx

Since teenagers are just being smitten for

the first time, they haven't had a chance to

work out these human hungers. So that

putting them in either a rich, or barren

environment, traps these human hungers as

they are, and prevents the intertwined evil

from being worked out. So the tough love

taken to the extreme (and the resulting

barren environment), does no good; and

does not allow the intertwined evil to be

worked out, thus keeping the person

enslaved to this hunger. Just as solitary

confinement for prisoners, also doesn't

rehabilitate well, due to its barren

environment. xx

And one can have parts of themselves in the

smitten zone, which are avoiding most

work; and parts that have become evil free

human hungers, and just evil free parts, that

take on the work, and are part of a heavier

presence in the societal (work) entity. The

thing you don't want to do, is take the

advice to be more productive and get down

to work, when that part of you is under a

human hunger that has not worked itself

into evil free; because all that does is just

burn you down.

Do not take their calls to get off welfare

and become productive. No, shove them

away, and avoid most work. Until YOU are

ready. And not until. Thank you. Tell

those villains to lay off. Spouting about

how much you owe the society you are in.

Do it for me. Thank You. They give work

a bad name.

This brings up a point about casting off all

evils from human hungers. Who is going to

do it. The person or part in the human

hunger is not going to be able to do it,

because they have a minimized 'work'

entity. It must be done by another part of

themselves that although is sogp, and not

part of the high parts, still has a hefty

presence of the 'work' entity, and therefor

has already worked out that human hunger

into evil free, or isn't so involved in that

human hunger at this time. Just realize that

from the perspective of a human hunger

part, not to depend on doing this oneself,

but to also look to outside help for it.

In passing, also realize that although the

sogp that casts off evils off of human

hungers, is quite capable (due to its heavy

presence of societal (work) entity; that it

voluntarily keeps itself away from the also

capable high parts (that are also into a

goodly portion of the societal (work) entity.

And also realize that any sogp that is

actually doing or generating in the human

hunger action, has become weakened,

because it must avoid most societal (work)

entity. xxxxxxxxx

Note that material that has worked out its

human hungers into evil free, and/or other

high parts; have the balance between the

individual entity and the societal entity that

is normal and not skewed to generate

imbalance for the purification of human

hungers. xxxxxxxxxxxx

Now, I have realized that there is a

profound difference between the sexes; so

that by 'different', this means that men and

women are good at different things; so that

when they(men and women), as unbalanced

individuals, do come together, they are thus

more balanced. Normally this would be a

good thing, but since we are dealing with

the imperfect human hunger of human

sexuality, this loss of imbalance hurts the

couple's ability to purify that human

hunger, by allowing them to generate a rich

environment instead of being hindered

down to medium ability by imbalance. So

the concern is not so much whether ones

partner stays true to one, vs, being

promiscuous (promiscuity representing the

mixing of many types, resulting in a more

societal type entity with a corresponding

loss of imbalance); but whether or not there

is any connection between a man and a

woman of any kind; as any kind of

connection causes a reduction from off of

their individual imbalances. -imbalances

which are needed to purify this human

hunger. So that the saying 'you can't live

with them and you can't live without them'

as referring to the opposite sex, rings true;

and one needs to seek a medium or a

limited connection to the opposite sex to

make it work. So that one may need to

isolate from their mate and generate in that

isolation for a time, before joining their

mate in a limited way, to achieve the

medium ability needed to purify their

dealings with their mate. (In achieving

isolation with generatings involving ones

mate; one doesn't destroy the part that is of

ones mate, but just removes it from this

entity that is oneself, and delivers it to ones

mate.)

(Realize that the emphasis on making sure

spouses don't cheat, and remain true, is just

a diversion and takes one's attention off of

what it needs to be on: and that is carefully

managing any connection between the

sexes, including true and non cheating

connections of husband and wife.) Xxxxx

Note that this realization means that

although the marriage structure provides an

incentive to find a mate who is just like

oneself; that this is impossible to

completely achieve due to the inherent

differences between male and female; even

if based on the identical genetic material.

END NUANCES.

End important inserts)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Conservative societies put in place the

expectations in the relations between men

and women that they expect their mates or

boy/girlfriends not to cheat. But human

sexuality the way it comes naturally, is

what it is, and it is not in line with this

conservative way. It must be corralled and

molded so as to be in line with the

conservative way. And then so many

people are disappointed when their spouse

or boy/girlfriends don't live up to the

expectations of being true only to them.

When human sexuality, the way it comes

naturally, doesn't conform to this at all.

These conservatives just try and force

natural human sexuality to conform to

these standards, and is it any wonder that

these conservative expectations are not

met. What's the deal here? Why sex at all?

Many of the lower life forms such as

worms and fungi reproduce by cloning, or

asexual reproduction where they make

exact copies of each other. But higher life

forms seem to enjoy the greater genetic

variability of sexual reproduction so that

their offspring are not exact copies of each

other.

The way human sexuality comes naturally

is a result of many eons of evolution; or

that they were created that way. Who are

humans to take charge and change what

evolution or creation has created? What is

the reasoning or understanding behind such

an action? (Perhaps the conservative way

won't pass the test of evolution, given eons

of time.) The conservatives are not much

on reasoning, but are more toward take it

by faith, and we told you to do it, so do it

(just because we said so, and we know best,

don't question us). Truly, it can be said that

we know not what we do when we corral

human sexuality off its natural course, into

some contrived conservative mold.

Untamed sexuality causes chromosomes

and genetic material to be well mixed so

that there is increased variability spread

over the whole population. But with the

conservative way of sexuality, that genetic

material doesn't get mixed as well. From

this results family groupings where each

family is good at one thing, but not very

good at anything else; since men and

women with like interests (that they are

good at), tend to remain together. Whereas

with free flowing sexuality, these traits

would be shared throughout the society and

everyone would be good at all things, (or

not). But with conservative sexuality,

family groupings exist where each group is

good in one area, but not in other areas.

This forces them to join together and

participate as a greater societal whole,

where each good area can work together in

an effective all encompassing good;

because as individuals, being good at only

one or a few things, makes for a bad life as

an individual. This requires that they join

together with each individual contributing

his/her talent that they are good at. This is

great for those who run the society as they

have a ready supply of forced labor, as

there is no other realistic alternative but to

join the greater society in order to function

effectively. But keeping the individuals

weak, and in need of joining the ruling

societal group; strikes me as a weakness,

and not a wise way to go, in the long term

evolutionary picture. But this conservative

sexuality way, sure works well for those

who wish to harness and enslave others for

their benefit. Just don't be surprised when

human sexuality, doesn't live up to the

expectations of the conservative mold.

Why should it?, that's not what it is.

Note that a woman who is looking for

happiness through marriage to a man, will

be disappointed as no one man has all areas

mastered well. But with the occasional

harem of the Arab world, and polygamy;

the genetic material can be spread around a

little more. But this is all for the benefit of

society's satisfaction of its sexually based

need. -One society type sees the value of

generating more well rounded individuals

(at least occasionally); while the other

society type seeks to keep its individuals

unbalanced and severely beholding to it.

In considering which came first, the

chicken or the egg: realize that whatever

came first, the life forms here had to go

through many generations of sexual

reproduction. Let us consider the nuances of

sexual reproduction itself. When organisms

utilize sexual reproduction,the offspring are

not exactly the same. Differences arise.

When conservative sexuality is applied,

those differences are not allowed to

equalize back through the whole

population. Hence with longstanding

conservative sexuality, different races are

created, (because eventually the differences

(from sexual reproduction that are not

permitted to be spread through the whole

population) become so great that a new

race is created). Hence conservative

sexuality is a cause of racism (or at least

provides for its continuation) because it

creates the situation of different races

living side by side.

By not allowing differences from sexual

reproduction to spread back throughout the

whole population; not all the possibilities

are tried, and less possible combinations of

genes are tried. With less combinations

tried, sexual reproduction is weaker at

generating different combinations that may

survive the tempests that nature or our own

destructiveness throws at us.

Some mock that others feel they are entitled

to this or that. And this is understandable

because even with all the hard work these

people do, they have to fight management

tooth and nail to be entitled to the pay they

do receive. -So that how could one who

does no work at all ever hope to receive/be

entitled to anything?

But, now a call to all the self starters out

there/ self start this:

The conservative way breeds individuals

who are helpless by themselves unless they

conform and meld together into the societal

group.

Yet it is the conservatives who emphasize

individual responsibility and blame

individuals for what goes wrong in society.

And it is the conservatives who squawk so

loudly about the welfare and how that is

sapping society so. Really, people helpless

of taking care of themselves and in need of

welfare is just a product of the

conservative's own breeding policy, and

they really have no right to complain about

it, as it is them that caused the problem of

helpless individuals in the first place.

All this is just a jab at us all to conform to

the societal will and cause no dissent;

because if we do, we will be cast out of the

societal way and find ourselves as helpless

individuals, needing welfare. These threats

by the conservative way for us to conform

are not in line with the promise of freedom

proclaimed by the American way. Hence,

in this respect, going with the conservative

way absolutely, all the time, is decidedly

Un American. (Land of the free, home of

the brave? We are certainly not free when

absolutely under the conservative way.)

xxxxxx Yet perhaps there is value in

allowing a (family) group to develop and

perfect an area in freedom from being

overly burdened by the demands of other

areas. However, at some point in time, the

advancements gained in the disparate areas

need to be put together, in order for this

type of way to be a better way. Some may

say that the occasional marriage by people

of different best skills, (in order that the

couple may compliment each other so as to

survive better) will do this mixing.

However, I disagree since the rulers of the

society have grown to depend on the

separation of skills (so that people are very

good at only one area) so that the

population is forced to conform to their

dictates (or be cast out and be a helpless

individual in need of welfare); as a means

of control over the society. Hence mixing

of these skills and assembling them all

together is not allowed, and is sought to be

prevented. This holds us back and does not

make this way a better way. So, although

there may be a place for some

conservatism; it is no good for there to be

absolute conservatism or to have it all the

time. In this imperfect area, there is no

place for absolutes of any kind.

And while I am recanting positions, let me

recant somewhat my opposition to the

conservative breeding program that creates

unbalanced individuals that aren't self

sufficient by themselves. Yes, perhaps as a

safeguard to governments and individuals

who would generate large quantities of self

sufficient people who would be devoted to

doing evil/destruction; does the safeguard

of being helpless as individuals have some

use. In other words: combining the concept

of that when there is evil, we should seek a

medium ability environment; with when

there is an abundance of humans in an evil

environment, they are treated poorly and

are food for evil (whereas if there is a

shortage of them, this would force better

treatment of them). I would state that the

unbalanced individual is the medium

environment sought. So that if some

government or individual woman wanted to

overproduce humans so as to use them as

fodder for their evil/destructive designs,

that they could not easily produce complete

humans, but would be limited to

incomplete humans. But if we as

individuals are to give up our self

sufficiency in order to provide this

safeguard and medium ability environment

in a world full of evil, then we need much

more to ensure that we individuals have a

vote over the greater society (that we as

individuals create in coming together); so

that this greater society that we defer to

doesn't then turn around and screw us, as

now non-self-sufficient individuals. Our

responses can vary widely depending on

how much evil there is in our environment.

The presupposition here is that there is evil

in the environment, hence the individual

needs to be at medium ability by making

him/her less than self sufficient. But if this

is so, then no one entity should have all the

power (neither the individual, nor the

greater society), and all entities should

have checks and balances on each other

and be at medium ability. That vote the

individual should have over the greater

society that bosses him/her, is by allowing

we as individual couples to have unfettered

say over how many offspring we have.

-That we have many offspring in a good

situation where there is no evil; -That we

have a limited number where there is some

evil; and that we have few offspring where

the greater society is mostly all evil and is

treating us badly. So that the conservative

attempts at stopping birth control and

violating women's ability of choice over to

have or not have an offspring; are much out

of place. And also, the conservative

breeding program can be enacted quite

successfully enough by limiting its rules

only to having children; and need not

burden us by extending their coverage to

our sexual expressions outside of

having/creating children.

Now then, I am changing my mind again.

This latest idea makes no sense. The idea is

that the individual needs to be at medium

ability because there is evil, and hence

should be less than self sufficient, and that

if we let the individual be of high ability

and self sufficient, the governmental

groups of these people will be used more so

to do more destruction. The problem is is

that no mater whether the individual is self

sufficient, or not, the greater society or

government is able to put together the

individual strengths of less than self

sufficient peoples to obtain high power

anyway, and that the only entity that high

power is denied, is the individual. So that it

makes no difference (there is no gain or

loss) to the greater society whether the

individual is self sufficient or not,

concerning what level the society is at

-always high level, not medium level. And

the less than self sufficient individuals run

the risk of being at low level, not medium

level because of their lack of self

sufficiency. (And low level is not any good

in an evil situation either.) An individual

needs to be self sufficient in order to be at

medium ability in these situations. A

greater society made of self sufficient

individuals would be more powerful than

any individual self sufficient individual; so

that it takes self sufficient individuals to

achieve medium ability in this situation,

whereas non self sufficient individuals

would be at low ability in this situation

(which is undesirable).

-And that no mater what; the greater

society is at high ability irregardless of

whether the individual is self sufficient, or

is less than self sufficient. So once again, I

now change again and dissolve any

allegiance to the conservative breeding

program that breeds less than self sufficient

individuals. I may say, that there is a place

for the conservative way in order to allow

development of the different areas without

undue interference from each other; but

that it should not be allowed to be the

absolute boss. And the conservative way

tempts greater societies to use their

individuals and consume their individuals

as fodder because it forces them to conform

due to their lack of self sufficiency.

I have made argument that where there is

evil/destruction, we should seek to make

that environment at medium ability so as to

encourage separation of the forces. But this

is only if there is some goodness trapped

herein that needs separating from the evil.

If the good has already separated from the

evil; do not continue to intervene to keep

the all-evil at medium ability. If an area has

only evil, then allow that evil, now alone

and by itself, to burn the medium

environment down to barren so that it will

then cease to exist: thus taking advantage

of that good can exist while alone but evil

can't.

In another out of place insert, I just want to

say that with all this considering of gray

areas and all the nuances of how to handle

gray areas:

-Not every area is a gray area. That there

ARE areas that CAN be separated into

wholly good components, and wholly

destructive components. And that here, the

advisements of how to handle gray areas,

don't apply. That here, we DO separate the

components into separate areas `of black

and white'; and that doing so here is good.

Consider `rules' over these non gray areas:

Rules don't allow the `bad' to exist at all.

They create a vacuum (which high forces

of good fill to medium ability, (in a special

way that prevents their purity from being

compromised)). But the action of

separation DOES allow both the bad, and

the good, to exist: -just in different,

separate areas. -Even the gray actions are

separated away from the all-good (due to

their badness that partially makes them up);

(so that the ability of the all-good to contact

the good parts of gray actions is tentative at

best). So that when you're not satisfying

some human (gray action) need that has

good and destruction inseparably

intertwined; you can commit your main

center to absolute goodness (Jesus, God,

Ala, etc), which as a base part of it, has

separation of all good from all

evil/destruction. (Only when satisfying an

earthly need, need you be open to the

destructiveness from gray areas.) Through

separation, the evil/destruction still exists

and is not eliminated, but it is separate

from the rest of you/your goodness; where

it does not bother nor consume your all

-goodness. (and it soon self consumes itself

and disappears).

(Note that freedom/separation from

evil/destruction is just a base part. The

goodness then acts to grow perfect

goodness, which then matures, etc, (as

detailed elsewhere in this writing).)

Let me reiterate this in a different way:

Some actions are human gray actions

which contain both good and

destructiveness inextricably intertwined.

And around our human gray actions have

grown up rules governing the expression of

our human gray actions. These rules do not

eliminate the destructiveness in our gray

actions, but instead just rearrange where it

is done and put a structure to where the

destructive part is done. These rules

themselves then also tie to themselves the

fact that they are not totally free of

destructiveness either. But not all

actions/areas are these human gray actions.

-Some actions CAN be separated

completely into that which is good vs. that

which is destructive.

And in these non-gray areas exists a purity

of action in that they are either all good or

all destructive, that does not exist with the

gray actions. (As we know, when an all

destructive area is generated, it soon

consumes itself and disappears; thus

leaving only pure all-good areas.) Thus

there can exist structures with an absolute

purity in their action, and also other

structures which are always impure and can

never be pure in their 'human' actions. For a

human gray action say of satisfying a

human hunger, to join with these NON

gray areas would be a pollution of the pure

good area and a torment as the evil in the

gray action would grow rapidly in the rich

environment of the all good area. But the

rules over the gray actions are also likewise

impure, and for them to join the all good

area would be the same result. Human

sinners know that they are impure and

know better not to join the pure all good

areas. But rule enforcers over gray areas

may mistakenly aspire to be godly and see

themselves as joining the all good, but they

also must be separated away from the all

good to maintain the purity of the all good,

as these rule enforcers are as impure as the

sinners they enforce against. Yes, there are

areas that are non gray and are absolute

good within us. And we keep these separate

from every(all) destructiveness, including

destructiveness of our gray human hunger

satisfying, as well as the also destructive

enforcers of rules over the gray areas.

These all good areas are not only separate

from destructions, they are also our engines

of growth into perfection. These all good

areas are even in addition to this, are also

givers of goodness unto only medium

ability in a one way gift to the gray areas,

in order for those in the gray area to work

their way out of the gray and into the all

good. But of course, there is no gift of

medium ability to any all destructive part.

-only to where there is some good is there a

gift to medium ability.

Now when a human situation exists which

needs the intervention of the all good to

supply a one way gift to bring to medium

ability; the all good then splits a small part

off. The reason the part split off is small, is

to represent that the all good is to be kept at

high ability, while the one way gift is only

for bringing to medium ability. And not

only is the splitting done; the smaller one

way gift also must leave and become

separate from the all good area; since it is

to enter an area where there is some evil,

and that the all good area must be kept

separate from. So, although the small gift

part leaves and separates away, and in the

arena containing some evil, brings things to

medium ability, where the life there darts

about and avoids and tries to run away and

to obtain separation from the evil; the main

part which is all good, remains and stays

and holds its ground and does not run away

because it has already obtained freedom

and separation from evil.

xxxxxxxxx Skip this SEGMENT the first read,

-too complicated:

Looking at the human area , in the

satisfying of a human hunger: the one way

gift to medium ability causes: -The area of

human hunger can proceed for awhile in

medium ability. -Then to generate and

share existence with a regulatory action

(also of medium ability) to remove all of

the godly part to God (due to a maturation

process); and soon after that to generate

and share existence with a second regulatory action (also sharing medium

ability from the medium ability gift) which in response to the havoc caused by

the first

regulatory action, to take the remaining

now incomplete matured human parts

which had godly parts removed from them,

to only partially take these incomplete

matured human parts and meld them

together with complete matured human

parts, so as to only partially restore their

function of satisfying a human hunger.

Here is another segment that is best skipped due to its overly complex nature:

Then there are the times when our smaller

split off part is in a lull, where not much is

going on in the generating of human/gray

area parts. It then may turn its attention on

generating all good parts, to the best that it

is able. (Those all good parts are more pure

and more all encompassing of every good

thing than it is). As the all good is

generated, it is generated as also devoting a

part of its new self to also generating new

all good parts, so that eventually, the

smaller split off part has to bear less of the

load of generating all good parts. But then,

all of a sudden, the lull is over, and new

action in the human/gray area appears that

is needed. It is the purpose and function of

the smaller split off part to deal with the

imperfect human gray area, not the all good

area. In this imperfect, impure, and non

absolute area of the human/gray areas;

there is one absolute: and that is when a

new, lull breaking human need appears, the

smaller split off part (which had been

distracted into generating the all good),

then removes all (not just part, all) of the

young all good material that is destined for

all good, but which had not matured into

that yet, away from the human area and

human generating; to the best of its ability.

-However, it must share this directive with

also, in a reasonable time frame, to

generate in the human needs area. -Just that

this smaller split off part itself, doesn't at

all mix the new generating of human needs,

with its distraction generating of the all

good, especially the immature all good that

just happens to be caught when the lull is

broken. -It ejects this away from itself

before beginning the lull breaking human

need generating.

Xxxxx Note that the newly generated

mature all good can break a small part of

itself off to be its contribution to the

smaller split off part, and thus add material

to help this situation here.

End SKIPPED SEGMENTS

When there has grown up around our gray

actions of satisfying human hungers;

absolute rules that bring an absolute nature

to how we are allowed to do gray actions

(ie; as when Christians go about destroying

all things sexual outside of what they have

allowed); then as I have previously stated,

those absolute rules need to be smashed

down to medium, to no longer be absolute,

so that medium environments are favored

over patchworks of rich and barren.

However, such an action to do so, is also an

impure action that also contains

destruction; -as is also, the enforcement of

absolute rules over these gray actions is;

-as is also, the gray actions of satisfying

human hungers itself, are. So that although

the high good wants to fill to medium

ability, the vacuums created by these

absolute rule enforcers; the high good is

sometimes unable to do so directly due to

the contamination to itself that would

bring. The high good, then does so

indirectly by splitting off a small part of

itself in this one way gift mechanism to do

this*; much like God the Father split off a

Son, Jesus, to come to the impure earth,

and smash down the absolute nature of the

Jewish rules over living everyday life,/ the

works of the devil. When there exists a

human gray action (which has good and

evil inseparably in it), the one way gift

maintains it at medium ability, in a medium

environment. But if in addition, there is an

evil/destructive action that can be separated

away; I mean, who is going to separate a

human gray action with some good to it

from a destructive action with no good in

it? All-good actions have separation from

all evil, but a human gray action is

inseparable from its inherent evil, thus any

all-good action would risk being

contaminated by evil if it attempted to save

a(n impure) human action from another, all

evil action.(-the all evil action feeding off

the good in the human action). And of

course, this is where the one way gift of

-and-to medium ability comes in.

Realize that the goal of the one way

gift(also referred to as 'sogp'), is to help the

good in the human action obtain separation

from evil - by providing a medium ability

environment/level, and doing whatever else

is needed for that directive, such as

removing it from other all evil actions that

are using it as food. When the human

action is freed/removed from the all evil

action; the all evil action is then alone, and

without food, consumes itself and

disappears.

Let me restate this. Some actions are human

actions, containing growth and destruction

inseparably within them. But not all actions

are human actions, and some actions can be

separated completely into all good, and all

destructive components. And when they are

separated, the all good components are

separate from the all destructive

components. This puts a hurt on the all

-destructive components because when

alone they consume themselves and

disappear. But if they can find some human

actions, they can continue to survive by

feeding off the good in the human action.

And who would separate an all-destructive

component away from a human action

(which also contains some destruction)?

The human action is inescapably (at this

level) contaminated with some destruction.

No immediate purification is obtained by

separating a human action from an all

destructive action which is feeding on the

good in it, as the human action still has

some destruction no mater if it is separated

from the all-destructive or not. And any all

-good action would contaminate itself trying

to do this. So, this is where the small one

way gift comes in: to not only bring out of

the vacuum of barrenness and nothingness

unto medium ability, but also to separate

human actions from all-destructive actions

that are feeding on them: thereby causing

the all destructive actions to self consume

and disappear: paving the way for the

contaminated but now medium ability life

to work its way out of its contamination

and eventually obtain freedom from

destruction. The evil within human actions

is difficult to separate away.

But the evil from an all-evil action that is

feeding on the good in a human action, is

not so difficult to separate away, provided

the one separating it away isn't concerned

about being contaminated. One might not

say that the rules (religious and societal)

over human gray actions are all destructive

and are feeding off the gray actions,

because no matter what you do to a gray

action (whether destroy it all, partially

destroy it, or do no destroying to it), you

end up with some good and some

destruction. But this is just a matter of

semantics, because the end result is just the

same. The rules act to cause patchworks of

rich and barren; the rich are burned down

to barren by the destruction always present

within gray actions, leaving only barren. In

only barren environments, the good and

destructive are forced to be together.

Destructiveness has been fed, and its

survival is ensured and there is no hope of

eventually getting away from it. So that

even though it was the destruction from the

gray action that did the actual destroying of

the rich areas created: it was the rules that

formed the environment so that this and

nothing but this would happen. And being

barren is a result of all destructive things

and is what they produce. So that the all

destructive is bred, fed, and grown out of

the human gray actions, and does feed on

the human gray actions; as caused by the

rules.

Because of the rules, the all destructive does

feed on the human gray actions and thus

does not self eliminate. But if the small gift

comes and separates the all destructive

from the human gray actions; then that all

destructive WILL self eliminate. Jesus will

do what the rules (the religious/societal

law) never will.

*Note that rules use destruction, and that

the result of destruction is a vacuum. High

good will not fill these vacuums, even

though it is the input of good, and that the

high good also has the necessary life

making it up; -due to the loss of purity in

this area due to the impurity of the

destructiveness from the rules. But to the

smaller one way gift, this vacuum not only

has its input, (and it still has enough ability

making it up to do good to this vacuum

even though it is smaller than the rest of the

all-good), and finally, this vacuum is no

threat to purity as it isn't primarily

concerned about purity: thus it is these

smaller one way gifts that make use of

these vacuums created by rules. God the

Father does not come down in power to fill

these vacuums; instead, Jesus the meek Son

comes down to fill these vacuums. And the

parts of us that are meek inside of us,

which are split off our high good areas,

should also do the same, in our world. Note

that although some destroying of rules is

done; the majority actions used here are not

the use of destruction, but are the use of

creative abilities of goodness and growth,

to put something of medium ability into

where these vacuums and nothingness once

were. When we start out, we have a high

good area part that is (almost) totally

separate from any human-hunger

-satisfying-gray-action. But this isn't

actually the case, as our gray areas do have

a small one way piece that was once from

the high good area, and still gets small

replenishments from the high good area.

Still, the connection to the human gray area

is tentative at best. But we do have major

parts of the high-good-area-of-us, that are

not newly generated(thus have already

given their contribution to the small one

way gift), that are totally separate from any

human hunger satisfying gray action. These

parts have tremendous growth, but they are

against a barrier in that they don't posses

any of these gray areas, evil free, at high

good, but only have themselves at high

good. And high good is always trying to

bridge barriers and do more growth. It is

the small one way gift of us that gets it on

in the gray areas, so that it isn't fair to say

that the high good has always been aloof

and has no contact with the gray areas, as

the small one way gift which began as high

good material, does come and have contact

with the gray areas. Here, it casts away

absolutely, all evil that can be separated

away in the gray areas, but doesn't try to

cast out evil that is part of the gray actions,

as that is not obtainable at this time. It also

generates material to medium ability for the

vacuums in the gray areas caused by

destruction in the gray areas (doing so first

in isolation, then releasing that material to

the whole of the gray area). The point I'm

trying to make here is that while doing

human hunger satisfying in the gray areas

with the small one way gift part of oneself;

to remember not to draw the established

high good parts of oneself into this, but to

at this same time, keep them completely

separate from this (and to block any impure

or all evil action from trying to get to the

high good).

Eventually, because of the small one way

gift's doings in the gray areas, the good in

that will work its way out of the gray areas

and separate from the evil that was once

unseperatable, and will join the high good

parts. Hence the high good parts will at this

later time, have bridged their barrier, and

will have range over not only their high

good area, but also over the purified gray

area material.

When our gray, human parts plus one way

gift parts of ourself are satisfying a human

hunger, there is simultaneously a

coordinated effort between the high-good

-non-gray parts of ourself, and our one way

gift, to keep the high parts completely

separate/ away from these

impure(contaminated with destruction)

imperfect human/gray hunger satisfying

actions. Whatever part of us is made of

high-good-evil-free parts will be opting

away from any human hunger satisfying,

while at the same time our human parts and

one way gift will be doing the human

hunger satisfying actions/cycle. These two

directives (one of human hunger satisfying

-to medium satisfaction; and the other of

getting away from human hunger satisfying

and not doing any human hunger

satisfying) do not despise each other, but

instead, work and coordinate together so

that each may coexist, mainly (but not

completely) separate from each other,

within us.

(This starts to get too complex) Let me take

this to the next level (up a notch). This is

kind of a recipe for human hunger

satisfying. Keeping in mind that we are

composed of both all good areas, and also

human gray areas; we see that we cannot

apply one set of rules to us, but must

differentiate between what is all good, and

what is gray, in us. The first order of

business when satisfying a human hunger,

is to remove the all-good parts of us from

that. and that includes the purified parts

from a previous satisfaction of that human

hunger. Then we satisfy the human hunger

with our remaining human parts. Here are

some suggestions for that:

Note that the small(er) one way gift (or

Jesus representation within us) does

generate human material in isolation, and

then releases that material to the larger

human hunger satisfying area. The purpose

of this is to limit exposure to the

destruction in human material so that the

gift can keep some semblance of high

capability and limit the compromise of its

purity. Taking this idea to the next level,

we can have more than just one level of

separation, but multiple levels of

separation, like the layers of an onion; and

thereby generate a spread of varying levels

and togetherness of human materials in this

human hunger satisfying.

SKIP THIS SEGMENT THE FIRST READ.

So how do we create the different levels?

Well, this starts with how we, (or the one

way gift), can variably release material it

generates to other less pure levels of the

human area.

There is a difference in how an evil is cast

out vs how we satisfy a hunger. (After our

all good parts are removed and not

participating in this): when the one way gift

is casting out an all-evil, the casting out

action it generates in separation, is totally

delivered to the human area to completely

cast out the evil that can be cast out and

removed from the human hunger satisfying.

But when the one way gift is generating

material for human hunger satisfying, it

need not release all of it to the human area,

but can leave half of it unreleased, still in

separation. The reasoning behind this is

that forces of good like to generate

material, but it is not good if too much

material is generated so as to be at high

capability in this human area. So, if the one

way gift leaves some material unreleased to

the human area, it will still maintain

medium ability, as the extra material will

be separated away from it by a barrier.

And the one way gift will have gotten to do

what it likes to do, that is to generate

material and fill voids. And this can be

carried between the levels. As enough

material coalesces in a human level to allow for increased generation of human

material, some of that material can be released to a new area, while the rest

of that

material can remain behind; so that we

have two levels of medium ability as

opposed to one level at high ability. This is

how we generate new levels. At this point

the two levels are the same. But then the

one way gift, which is of the highest ability

of any of the levels, because it is the most

separate from destruction; generates a

small fragment, which is the next step in

the human hunger satisfying, and releases

half of it to only one of the two levels. Now

the two levels are no longer the same. The

level with the next step as well as all the

previous steps, is now a more corrupted,

and also a more satisfied level. The one

way gift then leaves the half of the

fragment that was not released, so as to

generate another fragment that is the next

step after that which was the next step, so

as to release half of it to the broadest most

all inclusive level of human hunger

satisfying. And the addition of this next

step material causes this level to generate

more whereby it creates another level by

releasing half of itself to another area. And

this keeps going on till the human hunger is

satisfied in only the final broadest level.

This way all the possibilities are generated,

and a complete spread of all levels of

ability are generated, so that if the final

level that had a complete human hunger

satisfied, does burn itself down, or is

purified and leaves the human area to be

with the all good; there is still a human area

at medium ability, which is more than a

vacuum that is left behind. And the one

way gift does leave each of the previous

fragments in order to generate the next new

fragment, so as to limit its exposure to the

destruction in the human action, so that it

can remain at semi high capability, so that

it can generate the needed fragments that

the more corrupted levels cannot due to

their greater exposure to destruction from

the human action.

Note that it is easy for the one way gift to

release, and also to remove itself from

these fragments because they don't

represent what it directly needs; and in fact

their removal and absence DOES keep the

one way gift at semi high ability, (higher

than any of the other levels) and is

therefore a positive thing for it. This is hard

for the more corrupted, broader levels of

the human action to understand, as they

value the final fragments they receive,

which they aren't able to produce

sufficiently on their own due to their

greater exposure to destruction. But, then,

they aren't asked to give up these final

fragments anyway, like the one way gift

does. They should realize that the one way

gift does not value these fragments to the

extent and intensity that they do. The

casting out an all evil from a human hunger

satisfying may be more difficult in some

situations. After the all good is removed

from this, the one way gift then does this. It

can do so by first generating casting out

action in isolation, then half of the one way

gift releases part of its production (say half)

of it to the broad human area.

But before it releases all of it, the one way

gift then retreats to isolation again (to

generate more casting out action). -(Then at

this point, the other half of the one way gift

comes out of isolation to release its half

part, so that the retreating part no longer

has the heat/burden focused on it. -Note

that this second half of the one way gift

that is now coming out of isolation and

releasing its half part; also releases (to the

broad human area), the half part that the

first half of the one way gift failed to

release because it was instead retreating to

isolation again.) And the two halves of the

one way gift cycle back and forth between

release from isolation to the broad human

area; and retreating to isolation.) This way,

the casting out action is mostly all released,

as is what the all-evil deserves, but in such

a way that the all evil can't get to the one

way gift very well, because the one way

gift is shielded by casting out action that it

is retreating from, with the unreleased

casting out action between itself and the

all-evil. But that the unreleased casting out

action isn't wasted because the other half of

the one way gift that is coming out of

isolation at this time, uses its released half

to also push into release, that previously

unreleased material from the other half.

Now, with the satisfying of a human

hunger, things can get even more complex.

Not only do we have the two halves of the

one way gift releasing and retreating to and

from isolation what they produce. (And

note that here, they leave unreleased half

parts as unreleased and do not push these

into release from the other side like is done

for casting out evil, as this is satisfying a

human hunger, which is different like this

because medium ability is sought.)

Not only do we have the two halves of the

one way gift doing their cycle, but they can

start to deliver their production to different

levels that are not the direct recipients of

the production, with these other levels then

handing that production off to the direct

recipient level in a second action. And the

one way gift can in time, stack it back so

that it is quite far away from the recipient

broad human area level. This leaves room

for the one way gift halves to generate the

next step in the hunger satisfying directly

to part of the broad human area, and then to

also work even that production back so that

it is far away; and so on and so forth till all

the steps of the hunger satisfying are

generated. And while this is going on, the

intelligence part of the broad human area is

expanding itself so that different/more

(medium ability) levels are generated;

whereby the one way gift halves only select

part of the expanded broad human area to

deliver the latest step in human hunger

satisfying. Thus the whole spectrum of

human hunger satisfying is generated.

Let me go over this again with my newest

version. I have kind of gotten away from the 'stacking it back' idea.

What I do for human hunger satisfying is,

oh yes, first the all-good parts of me

removes itself/are removed. But then, the

one way gift starts to put into the vacuum

of no activity, some activity, so that a

medium measure of activity is present. (It

of course does so in the two halves, each of

which produce in isolation, then deliver out

of isolation to the broader hunger satisfying

area). But once a medium measure of

activity is present, the one way gift

removes itself from the broader area.

The broader area then goes along, and it

usually takes the activity from medium

measure, to high. At this point, things break

and things give. Some of the material may

become evil free, and is then removed from

here. Sometimes much of the material

becomes corrupted and evil starts to burn it

down. At this point, the broader area's

intelligence has found its limit, and backs

off the high measure back to medium

measure, and it does so by expanding itself

so it is of larger area doing medium

measure, (as opposed to what it was, which

was a smaller area doing high measure).

This intelligence then chooses a part of

itself to split off and become a new level,

which commences to do the next step in the

hunger satisfying, (leaving the rest of the

split to remain as is and to not do the next

step). Usually this new next level doing the

next step (in the hunger satisfying), is

inadequate, and produces insufficient doing

of the next step, and it is at low measure. It

is at this point when the one way gift which

had been aloof, comes back in, and raises

this next step from low activity measure, to

a medium measure of activity. (And during

this time the one way gift part of us

actually does this step in the hunger

satisfying, in medium activity.) It then

again leaves the broader hunger satisfying,

leaving the broader hunger satisfying, with

the broader area intelligence (which was

once a split off part of the one way gift in

the beginning, before so many levels were

generated), to continue on. And once again,

the broader area usually takes this new next

step to a high measure of activity. (Once

the broader area nears the completion of

the hunger satisfying, a larger part of the

material can become all good and be

removed.) Sometimes this removal causes

not much to be left over in the hunger

satisfying area.

This remnant then falls to way low activity

measure. But this doesn't always happen.

Sometimes the remnant is of sufficient

medium activity measure. But when it does

happen, and the remnant is of way low

activity measure, it finds itself unable to do

much. This is when the intelligence in the

broader area is wise to lay still and look to

the aloof one way gift part. Yes, in these

occurrences, the one way gift breaks from

its aloofness, and comes in to replenish

back to medium, these way low parts; and

then thereafter goes back to being aloof

again. Then the broader area grows in area

but stays at medium activity. Again, it

splits off part of this area to become the

next level, and commences doing even the

next step in the hunger satisfying only in

this new level. Once again, this is

inadequate and of low level, and the aloof

one way gift comes in again to bring it to

medium, and then leaves again to be aloof.

And this cycle continues until there are all

stages of levels up to and including the

complete satisfaction of the human hunger

(which often goes to being part of the all

good, and removed from this). This is my

newest recipe /no longer as it is not near

the beginning/.

END SKIPPED SEGMENT.

Then I am hearing on the history channel

how some of the early Christians were

preaching absolute celibacy (especially

towards women) as the only way to obtain

salvation. From what I understand, the

Romans killed Jesus because they were

trying to prevent rebellion by the Jewish

people. And the Jewish people did rebel

(unsuccessfully) several times including at

Masada during that time period. But

obviously, if the roman women didn't have

sex, they would also have no offspring.

And the roman war machine depended on a

goodly supply of offspring to keep it going.

-Hence the roman persecution of early

Christianity. This act by the Christians was

ultimately successful in overthrowing the

roman empire where Jewish revolt had

failed. And in their time under a mostly

evil and cruel empire, the total denial of

offspring was the right course to take. But

in today's world, this absolute celibacy isn't

necessarily the right course any longer.

Note that since women are the source of the

next generation and they are born with that

goodness, they thus become targets of

destructive forces seeking life material to

feed off of and destroy; and some become

corrupted or occupied by such destructive

forces. But it's not their fault. They can't

help that they are born with this prize that

destructive forces of the greater society

seek. Some just need the small gift to come

and separate off these destructive forces

that have found a home here. Perhaps this

is why religion sometimes sees women as

sources of what is bad, and puts them

down.

out of place insert: Consider that the many

gods of the roman empire are replaced by

one God. Consider that the state of having

many gods could not be long lasting. A

world of many 'gods' all powerful and

growing in power, there would not be room

enough for them to be separate, but that

they would need to get together and

cooperate, essentially forming one God, or

if unable to get along, annihilating each

other with their great power. end insert.

But concerning more spiritual matters and

spiritual salvation, we can rehash that the

sexual area is an imperfect area that

contains destruction no mater which way

we go, just in different areas. So that when

Christian leaders/instigators preach

absolute celibacy for salvation, they are

just as guilty of sexual destruction as the

sinners are. However, a case can be made

that the believers who attempt to achieve

salvation under such, are blameless and are

not guilty of doing any sexual destruction,

but that that guilt goes with the leaders who

instigated this behavior. Being free of

destruction, these believers then have made

an all good area in a gray area. However,

destruction still exists in this gray area, and

these believers still suffer its effects, it is

just they are not to blame as its source

(others have taken the blame for them).

Unfortunately, they are under a structured

gray area, due to their rules for obtaining

salvation, so that they generate patchworks

of rich and barren, resulting in ultimate

total consumption of the life in this area

due to the force of destruction. What is

needed is medium ability in this gray area,

and this way hasn't provided that, never

mind who is to blame, who is guilt free,

etc. So we thank the Christian tradition for

overthrowing the roman empire, but realize

that this way doesn't help in the imperfect

human gray area of human sexuality. The

better way to help it pretty much free,

is to do as God the Father and Jesus did

(do), and that is to split off a small part of

the all good area (Jesus), who then

separates from the all good area, and comes

to the impure human gray areas so as to

bring to medium ability. This is the better

Christian tradition.

But rules over the gray areas; what about

them? Since rules contain the use of

destruction (to always eliminate any

alternative path -which is why there's a

vacuum there; (and that destruction is

absolute and not a partial destruction, as

none of the alternatives are allowed to exist

at all) -high good then acts to fill these

vacuums to medium level, so that

alternatives exist in spite of the rules

attempts to eliminate them).

But rules over non gray areas; what about

them? If we apply the action to separate the

all-good from any bad, including any bad

of gray actions; then since imperfect rules

contain/are sources- of destruction in their

action, they are also separated away from

the all-good. Imperfect rules then find

themselves thrown down to the gray

actions and to the destruction only areas.

But as we have shown; rules don't help in

the gray action area either, and are out of

place here too.

Why do we have rules? Supposedly to act

against destructive elements in society. But

rules themselves contain (absolute)

destruction inherently as part of their action

(in that they eliminate all alternatives but

the prescribed path). So rules contain

inherently in their action, that which they

seek to act against. And if one doesn't

know it all and get it exactly right, and the

destruction of their rules destroys

something other than just what is

destructive; then the rules themselves

become the source and perpetrator of some

destruction.

One could end up chasing their tail if they

let rules rule their life. If the rules thus

introduce what they seek to stamp out

(destruction), then they never will be

successful at accomplishing what they seek

to accomplish: and to an all good part, they

are impure and a pollution of an all good

part, if joined with it. But the action to

separate that which is all-good away from

any evil, (including that within gray

actions), itself need not be destructive (like

rules are); so that this separation action can

be a part of and together with that which is

all good. It has no contradiction within its

own system like the rules way does. Now it

is possible for perfect rules to supersede

this. But, to do perfect rules, you have to

know in depth and in advance, because

rules detach one from any other alternative;

so that finding perfect rules is nearly

impossible in an imperfect rule ridden

structure, if you don't already have them;

whereas such absolute knowledge is not

needed to use the separation method, unlike

that it is needed to use the perfect rules

method.

--------------Wait a minute: there is no such

thing as perfect absolute rules in the gray

actions, because rules absolutely eliminate

alternatives (attempting to achieve bareness

there); where what gray actions need is

medium ability ie partial elimination of

alternatives. Thus there are no absolute

perfect rules over gray actions. Let me

reiterate that not all parts of us are gray

parts, and that these non gray, all good

parts of us need to be separate and not

participate in the ways of gray parts, but

instead participate in their own ways of

growth and richness.

Also, let me say that in the gray areas,

variability is a useful tool for this area to

change out of its imperfect state. The use of

structure over gray actions, which directs

destructive parts to one area, and good

parts to another area; can be useful in

causing variability. So that instituting

absolute anarchy over the gray areas is also

unwise. Some structure should be allowed

in the gray areas; just that it mustn't be

allowed to be absolute. Neither absolute

anarchy nor absolute structure seems to be

a good idea; but somewhere in between

does. END INSERT.

In another out of place tangent, I wish to

say that I notice that some have taken

objection to the Harry Potter books, saying

that it promotes witchcraft, and that

Christians should be against it. And I also

remember as part of our Christian heritage

here in the U.S. That historically they had a

witch hunt where they actually burned and

killed people on suspicion of being witches

in Salem. And then of course there is the

history of the inquisition where they would

accuse one of witchcraft in the middle ages.

One thing I wanted to point out was to

consider Jesus, the head of the Christian

religion. He was a very spiritually active

and gifted person. He went about healing

people and bringing people back from the

dead and it is even reported that he cursed a

tree and the next day it died. If such a

person had done these things in Salem, or

the middle ages, they would have probably

been burned at the stake or drowned as a

witch; so that Jesus probably would not

have been able to survive among these

'Christian' people. Crucified, burned at the

stake, drowned; they all just want to kill

Jesus (and south park's Kenny).

What I am suggesting is that we should not

condemn people for being spiritually gifted

per sea, but it is what a spiritually gifted

person does with their giftedness, either

good or evil/destructiveness that we should

be paying attention to. There may perhaps

be such a thing as witches and witchcraft

and voodoo where people use spiritual

abilities to do destructive things to others;

but such things are not easy to prove as

regular murders and assaults are. Without

proof, only actions to bring an environment

or person to medium ability where

destructiveness obviously is present, is

warranted in extreme cases; not the

absolute destruction of burning at the stake

or drowning anyone. Christians really have

little new testament basis to be against

witchcraft. -it is not a big concern in the

new testament narrative. There are no

words in the new testament saying to put to

death anyone for witchcraft. And lest their

own Jesus, or even when one of them

speaks in tongues, be considered and

condemned as a witch, they really should

not be acting destructively where they do

not understand. And just because some

assholes who called themselves Christians

in old Salem, and also in the inquisition,

got in a snit and decided to take some old

testament writings/rules literally as an

excuse to kill people and burn them at the

stake, or drown them, doesn't change the

fact that the Bible, especially the new

testament Bible doesn't really emphasize

witchcraft as an impending evil needing

attention. So I would ask present day

Christians who they are going to follow:

-some assholes from old; or the Bible?

Another reasoning that may be at work

here is that Wicca and paganism were and

are competing religions to the Christian

religion, and that competing religions often

are intolerant of each other. End out of

place tangent.

But here is another insert: Then there is that

incident where the man was arrested for

having sex with a dead dog, which some

jokester shoves in front of your face. Such

a spectacle makes each and every one of us

feel like Jesus must have felt when they

brought the adulterer woman to his feet and

asked him to condemn her. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx As repulsive as it may be; this

guy really didn't harm anybody (but

himself). The dog wasn't harmed; it was

already dead, hit by a car. But the greater

society will be guilty of harm for sure, as

locking someone up for years, is quite

harmful and destructive. So here we will

have the greater society being the sole

source and perpetrator of certain

harmfulness and destructiveness. Kind of

makes the greater society out to be no

better than a criminal in search of

correction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx For sure, having sex with a dead dog

has no chance of producing viable

offspring. Just as gay sex has no chance of

producing viable offspring. It seems the

greater society of late has taken to being

destructive to individual's sexual

expression that has no chance of producing

viable offspring. We individuals all have

sexual desires/needs that we must find

ways to slake. But so does the greater

society have sexual needs that it needs to

fill. It needs to have us individuals have

some sexual expression which produces

viable offspring, and a family structure for

raising those offspring; in order that it may

continue past our generation. If the greater

society punishes our individual's sexual

expression, then perhaps we individuals

should punish the greater society's sexual

expression. The greater society's sexual

expression is for us to have and raise viable

offspring through individual sexual

expression. To punish that, we avoid

having offspring. So it seems that we

should slake our individual sexual needs by

entirely expressing them without any

offspring being produced; so as to punish

the greater society's sexual expression;

because the greater society is punishing our

individual sexual expression: -has taken the

position that sexual expression is to be

punished; -or is trying to eliminate

individual sexual expression that steps

outside its needs, and replace it with its

own sexual expression; when it is perfectly

able to let both exist peaceably. Do not

worry when the greater society punishes

you for your sexual expression that does

not produce offspring. Just realize that as a

group of individuals, we shall bring this

societal punishment of our sexuality to an

end by not having offspring, as that greater

society itself thus will be brought to an end.

Speaking of mean and cruel societies that

need to be brought to an end, I had the

chance to be indoctrinated in the ways of

some of today's women. At a lunch table,

they spoke of the upbringing of their few

children and how they were discouraging

them from sexual activity until later in life,

after they had gotten their college degree

and were well off in their careers. Here I

see that these women and those like them

have not only made our country rich by not

having an excessive number of offspring

and by limiting the number of their

offspring; but that they are trying to pass on

this rich way of life so that it may continue.

Unfortunately they focus on stamping out

individual sexuality of the young in order

to achieve this goal; thus spoiling an

important part of any good life. So that the

good life they seek to pass on, isn't quite as

good after all. In fact, if you don't get the

college degree and the good job; life is

pretty rotten for a lot of people; where a

rinky dink boss goes around nit picking and

attacking you while you work your butt off

for minimum wage. In response to all this

rottenness, these women naturally parrot

the overall rotten greater society by chiding

the young generation these days for having

no ambition; for their not getting with the

program and studying at school, and

buckling down. Little do they realize that

they have the power in their hands as

individual women, to bring this rottenness

to an end: by having even less children than

just a few: by having very few children or

no children. And by doing this, they need

not take on into themselves the rottenness

of the overall society by making their kids

buckle down and try to satisfy greater

societal requirements; which can be quite

cruel. You see, the human infant is quite

helpless when born. For the mother to

apply the greater society directly to their

infant when born, would eliminate cruelty

in the greater society in short order, as

human infants wouldn't survive it; and

without surviving infants, any cruel society

is doomed. But no, these mothers nurture

their human infants until of age, and then

cut off that nurture at this time; hence

allowing the cruel society a source of

fodder to feed on (because when of age, the

child is no longer helpless); allowing the

cruel society to continue. By doing this,

they themselves become responsible in part

for the cruelties in society, that they could

have eliminated, but instead acted to

support. And as a child, who happens to be

under bad parents, it is up to us to do

better: to not do as our parents have done,

but to do in ways that eliminate the

cruelties of society. And this has nothing to

do with buckling down to get the degree,

but has everything to do with controlling

our reproduction as individuals, and not

having the greater society eliminate our

control over our own sexuality and

reproduction. It is the way of inherent

democracy that we are born with; -the way

we as individuals decide which societies

we will keep, and which societies we will

scrap. And this inherent democracy can

exist quite well with the young (and old)

expressing their individual sexuality in

ways that do not produce offspring, as well

as in ways that do produce a few

offspring--when that couple is placing their

stamp of approval on their society. So get

out and vote for democracy. Vote

Democrat; but vote Democrats that won't

take away individual's inherent democracy

in their reproductiveness through cloning.

Cloning takes away from the individual

control over their reproduction and puts it

in the hand of the greater society. Some

greater societies may need to be eliminated

by their individuals because they are cruel.

Do not allow cruel societies to escape the

wrath of their individuals through cloning.

Note that the greater society is stronger and

more powerful than its individuals that

make it up. And an individual has little

hope of success in going against the wishes

of any greater society. The greater society

tells the individual what to do in every

other area; why should the sexual area be

any different? But it is different. It is here

in this sexual area of reproduction that

individual women have the power to

completely annihilate the greater society if

they deem it too evil, no mater that this

greater society may be much more

powerful than they are as individuals. The

greater society may try to take this power

away from the individuals by regulating

their sexuality, outlawing abortion,

preventing them from using birth control

-calling it a sin; but it cannot prevail if

women unite and stand firm. Because

although the greater society may be able to

destroy all or many individual women, and

punish and reward individual women:

individual women can annihilate this

society, even though they be also killed. If

killed, their deaths will not be meaningless,

as they will have accomplished putting an

end to this hated greater society.

Sometimes I hear the calls for those on

welfare, who are taking advantage of the

system, who are not pulling their weight, to

be cut off and made to suffer. A society

that can dictate our economic lives, that can

force us to do menial tasks in exchange for

our survival food and shelter, is one thing.

But what about those people who reject

that, and who disobey what they have been

told, and who don't enslave themselves for

their survival needs? What does a society

do with them? Well, one option is to deny

them any assistance with their survival

needs.

But let us apply our newly learned concept

about putting things that are not all bad nor

all good, but some of both; in medium

ability. What is the right thing to do? What

is the wise choice? For a society to deny

completely the survival needs of

individuals who disobey the burden their

society requires them to bear, is to throw

that individual into barrenness. If that

individual is all evil with no good

whatsoever to them, then this is the right

thing to do.

However, most individuals aren't all evil

with no goodness to them. Even individuals

who shirk at some of the burdens a society

may want to put on them, usually are not

all destructive, but usually are a mixture of

both goodness and destructiveness. In these

cases, the best thing to do, is to put them at

medium ability, not at bareness, nor

richness. For a society that has an

abundance of resources, that can do

whatever, with ease; to deny these shirking

individuals who are neither all good nor all

destructive, is to throw them into bareness.

All this does is show the incompetence of

this society itself, and shows its lack of

vision and lack of realization that goodness

and kindness are valuable, and are a better

way to be than not. Never mind, as the

small one way gift will fill the needs here

to medium ability, and will even partially

destroy elements of a snooty society that

try to prevent this.

Sometimes one can be surrounded by a

societal group that makes a big to do about

the negative aspects of a promiscuous

lifestyle, while being totally silent about

the equally negative aspects of a chaste

lifestyle, especially in conservative circles;

when in actuality, no matter which way you

go there is always some ups and some

downs (just in different areas). The

reproductive area is an imperfect, human,

gray area that no matter which way you go,

or what you do, has negative/destructive

results (just in different areas), due to it

being one of those human hunger areas that

has inescapably intertwined some good as

well as some destruction (at our level of

ability). The negative aspects of men who

violate a woman outside a bar is brought

up. But silent is the pain of all the other

gentlemen whom countless women have

forced not to have sex with them against

their will, and also thereby violated them.

Especially including the unmarried couples

whom in the past have been forced not to

have sex against their wills by the police

enforcing anti cohabitation laws.

And then they bring up the child molesters.

But my question is, which child molesters

are they talking about? Is it the matriarchs

of some African villages who genitally

mutilate their young girls (brought to them

by their mothers) so that when they grow

into puberty they won't enjoy sexual

intercourse so that they won't get a

venereal disease so that their womb won't

be harmed so that they can have lots of

babies with their husband so that we can

hear about all the starving children in

Africa? (I consider this child molestation).

Or is it the pervert who violates young girls

perhaps giving them a venereal disease and

more certainly damaging them

psychologically in the sexual area so that

they can't have a family of their own when

they grow up. Thus spoiling society's

sexually based need for a certain number of

offspring to be produced in a family

structure?

And when you directly violate or spoil or

damage the expression of society's

sexually based need (for offspring), in a

society which is intolerant of even

misdirected sexual activity that is not

directly destructive to the satisfaction of its

need, (and that has acquired the practice of

controlling the sexuality of its individuals),

then you engender the full wrath of that

society. Pity the man who is born with a

sexual attraction to young girls, as opposed

to sexually mature women, as his life will

be short. I still maintain that most sexual

expression has some good and some bad

inescapably intertwined, but these are

extreme cases where there isn't much good

to them if at all. It is just not a wise choice,

if you are able to choose. Sexual

expression, as an imperfect action, needs to

be out from under the control of larger

entities which seek to impose absolute

rules. A child is under the control of the

state and parents. To engage in sexual

expression with a child, even with a willing

state and or parents; just brings that sexual

expression under external control; and that

is not a wise choice. Also, a child is in a

state of creation -of their sexuality in the

process of being formed; so that such

creating entities may not want to be drawn

into the imperfect sexual area any more

than they have to. So, unless you are forced

to, it is better to keep your sexual

expression out of the hands of controlling

societies and parents. Especially since these

often represent a ravening all evil that is

attempting to prey upon this human area

for its survival; when it should not be

allowed to prey on this human area so that

this all evil self consumes and disappears.

Note that there are those, mainly

conservatives, who emphasize the negative

/bad aspects of sexuality, while omitting the

positive/good aspects. Yes, human

sexuality is imperfect. But are we of a

caliper to be able to replace it with

something better? If not, then all the

bantering and over emphasizing sexuality's

negatives, is just a ploy for them to

advance their conservative structure on

human sexuality; which itself acts as an all

evil to prey on human sexuality; causing

much damage. Do not bring up the

negativeness of child molestation (which is

most probably all bad/destructive/evil) to

distract us from the all bad/destructiveness

/evil of the conservative way. They should

both be cast out and off of human

sexuality.

I personally know of no child molesters

trying to infringe on my personal sexuality

nor the sexuality of any child. But I am

aware of many people in the name of the

conservative way who make it clear of their

intent to regulate my and everyone else's

personal sexuality. Thus I feel the removal

of the conservative way from human

sexuality is more urgent. End insert.

Concerning the idea favoring the production

of medium ability environments: in the

gray areas of actually living earthly life,

where there is a mix of both goodness and

destruction: the plan to segregate each to its

own kind shouldn't even be attempted.

-Because it is a gray action, we're unable to

segregate the good parts from the

destructive parts.

But we shouldn't even try to segregate the

good from the bad here. This is because the

good force here achieves that separation on

its own, and no additional (outside) action

is needed. It is hard work for the good here,

yes, but this is what it generates naturally.

So perhaps this is why the bible is reluctant

to have God separate the good from the bad

here on earth until the end of time;

-because he wants to allow the good on

earth to do so of itself, and thus grow here.

So that the destruction (which the force of

destructiveness does here), helps provide

the medium ability environment, which is

so ripe for allowing good to escape that

destructiveness.

The small one way gift does act not only to

generate unto medium ability in the

vacuum left by the destructiveness of rules

(as well as other destructiveness); it also

acts to protect this medium ability material

(as well as itself) from additional

destruction, from rules, as well as from

other destructive sources. This includes, to

a certain extent, destructiveness from and

within the medium ability material and

gray action itself. You see, one of the

results of rules is that it amplifies and

accumulates the destruction within gray

actions to the point it becomes an all evil or

that it can be separated from the gray

action. You see, the thing about gray

actions is that they have some

destructiveness as part of them that cannot

be separated away. But the result of rules is

that the destructiveness (from gray actions)

becomes concentrated to the point it is a

destructiveness that can be separated away

from the core gray action(which has a

destructiveness that can't be separated). For

the one way gift to attempt to separate the

destructiveness within a core gray action,

results in not only a failure to achieve this,

but a similar result that rules result in. So

that the one way gift does not act to

separate the destructiveness from within

any core gray action; but on the other hand,

does act to separate any destructiveness

away from the gray action that CAN be

successfully separated away. On one hand

the one way gift doesn't interfere and it

does nothing and lets the gray action

ruminate; but on the other hand, the one

way gift does interact and does remove

destructiveness that can be separated away

from gray actions, including those that

accumulate from older gray actions

themselves. So the one way gift is leaving

alone, not interfering in, and not acting on

or in a gray action itself. But this leads to a

contradiction when the one way gift is

generating to medium ability out of a

vacuum. When the one way gift is

generating (to medium ability) some part of

a gray action which the other parts of the

gray action need but have none of; then

these other parts of the gray action cannot

use it but must instead wait till the one way

gift is finished generating it and then leaves

it, before it can then be activated and used

by and added to the other parts of the gray

action.

What I'm trying to say is that the gray

action is impure concerning good vs

destruction, while the one way gift, from

the all good, is pure, at least initially, and is

more pure than any gray action. But the

purpose of the one way gift, is to bring the

gray action to medium ability never

minding the loss in its purity. This involves

creating material to medium ability where a

vacuum once was. But if the one way gift

and what it is creating can be segregated

from the rest of the gray action, until it is

done creating in this area; and then remove

itself before the rest of the gray action joins

the new material; then the one way gift can

preserve some of its purity and not suffer as

much loss, due to the inescapable

destruction inherent within the gray action

itself; then the force of good will have done

well here. -Needing less replacement one

way gift; the major all good won't be

drained by this process.

Also, keeping the one way gift separate

from the core gray action, keeps the one

way gift from being tempted to regulate or

attempting to separate the forces here

where it is unable to do so (at this level of

ability). The force of destruction is a

weaker, inferior force. Because of this, in

order to even survive, it needs to have two

tier structures. It needs to have small set

aside areas that are protected, that allow

life to grow and generate a little, before

being thrown into the larger evil arena,

where they are devoured as food for

sustaining evil/destruction. Like the small

nurturing environment of one's family

allows helpless infants to grow up into

something more capable, to then be thrown

out into the crueler greater society so as to

feed the evil/destructiveness therein. Like

going to church to be mindful of God, then

leaving church to go back into the regular

world which is not so mindful of God. Like

collecting all the good, rewarding things

together, accessible with money, so we can

create a second reason for doing things,

outside of the inherent effects of (work)

actions themselves. (ie, of being paid and

rewarded with outside rewards (from

money) for doing these work actions that

we may otherwise not do, if only

considering their inherent, often destructive

effects of these actions themselves. This

seems a little pessimistic, and actually it is.

However, my point is that the force of

destruction absolutely needs these two tier

structures to survive. Note also, that the

structure I have proposed for the one way

gift, is also a two tier structure. It doesn't

absolutely have to be so, but for efficiency

and for minimizing losses to destruction, it

is this way. So that just because one sees a

two tier structure, does not necessitate it to

be a tool of evil. So that the child who is

thrown out of the house when of age, is not

necessarily a bad thing as I had previously

indicated. However, it can easily be a bad

thing. We need to be more precise in

analyzing these situations. You see, this is

just another case of incorrectly applying

absolute judgments to gray areas of life,

that are not at all absolute.

-If a child of age is to be considered

material created by the one way gift, which

is to then participate in the greater world of

imperfect work; then we will have thus

assumed that this whole person is all

imperfect gray action. And this is just not

the case. There are some areas of a person

which are much more free from

destructiveness than other areas of this

person that are much more gray,

-having good and destruction much more

inescapably intertwined. The destruction

free areas of this person represent the high

good. This high good, is mostly not forced

to be polluted with the impure gray areas,

and it is only the small one way gift that

breaks with being holy and separate from

the gray areas, which does come down and

get it on with the gray areas. So that the

parent creators of a young person cannot

throw this whole person into the crueler

greater society of the gray work world; but

only their gray parts and a small piece of

their high good parts (which is their one

way gift): and still be considered to be in

line with the one way gift structure. And

there is the question of violating the will of

their one way gift.

Also, the one way gift creates and generates

component parts to the larger gray action it

will then release it to. For a two tier

structure to release life to a gray area that it

has no relation to and is totally not alike

(just so that it can be destroyed/devoured as

food for an evil), is not in line with the one

way gift structure either. What is released

into the greater gray action, is material that

is a component part of that gray action, as

generated by the one way gift, in order to

maintain that gray action at medium ability,

out of bareness. So that just throwing a

person or part of a person unprepared into

the greater society and told to figure it out

for themselves; is not in line with the one

way gift structure, since what was

generated was not a component part of the

greater society. And any of these two tiered

structures that are not acting as one way

gift structures; are thus acting as what is

left over. And what is the left over purpose

of two tiered structures, is to be provision

for maintaining and feeding the force of

destruction. And that's nothing to be proud

of or to support.

Note that the presence of a two tier structure

either indicates the actions of the one way

gift; or the feeding of evil. Note that in

either case, it indicates the presence of evil

(as the one way gift structure is for dealing

with evil, including gray areas that have

good and destruction/evil inextricably

intertwined). Note that this does not

represent the high all good that is free from

all destruction. So that wherever there is a

two tier structure, evil/destruction is

present, and does not represent the finished

work of the high good.

Unfortunately, the concept that the good

in gray areas naturally outperforms

destructiveness and gets away from it; is in

contradiction to Jesus' exhortation to resist

not evil, and if one smite thee on one

cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Xx

Now, if evil isn't able to smite one on the

first cheek, then one isn't bound to turn the

other cheek by this saying. But in the

earthly arena of gray areas; the good here is

well within the grasp and reach of the evil

/destructiveness here. This apparent

contradiction (between that God won't

separate the good from the bad here on

earth until the end; vs. Christ's exhortation

to the earthly good here to submit to

destruction); is actually a confirmation that

God wants us to play both sides. What I'm

saying is that because God has hidden

himself and not overtly shown Himself;

that He is thereby encouraging us to

consider the possibility that He doesn't

exist yet, and that we must, in part, do what

we can within ourselves instead of just

saying 'I don't have to deal with this or do

anything because I'll just depend on God to

take care of it for me'. Jesus in saying 'turn

the other cheek', is representing the Godly

position. He believes that God does exist.

And if a powerful God does exist; He will

take care of the defense of all that is good.

Just like we in society are not expected to

take the law into our own hands to provide

for our own personal protection against

attack, but are expected to defer that to the

professionals, the police, to call the police

to provide for the defense of our person

against destructive acts perpetrated by

destructive people. Basically what Christ's

position seems to be is that it's not our job

as measly earthlings to provide for our own

protection, and that we should sit back and

let the more powerful God do this for us.

Here in God's world, it is not the

underlings who are expected to provide for

the rich and powerful God, but it is the rich

and powerful God who provides for us

weaker underlings. -Kind of a welfare from

God type of thing. And we should develop

an expectation that God will protect us and

make better any destruction evil does. -that

it's not for us to do this; that it's not our

job. (This is quite different from how our

richer more powerful bosses here on earth

treat us.) But this flies in the face of the

dynamics of how earthly good in these gray

areas naturally outperforms and escapes

destruction. But of course if God really

exists then this minor advantage is of no

consequence and it is actually better to let

the all powerful God handle this. On the

belief in God side, no matter what small

bedraggled remnant is left after destruction

has destroyed is easily made whole,

replaced and perfected by/in God. But even

if the earthly good on the believe in God

side is totally destroyed; any holdback

good parts of us, are thus outside the

believe in God side. Instead they are on the

`we must do it ourselves (in case God

hasn't been created yet)' side. Being on

that side, they are no longer bound by `turn

the other cheek', and are able to take

advantage of that earthly good naturally

escapes the destruction here (more often

than not). And when they mature, being

uncertain as to if there exists God yet or

not; they thus devote a small portion to

God to hedge their bet. Then the godly side

once again has something (and is no longer

totally destroyed), and the whole of the

Godly side is thereby recreated by/in God

from that small part again. Thus if you are

playing both sides (as I am), then with the

earthly good of your Godly side, you resist

not evil and allow it to be destroyed by

destruction. But not so with your earthly

good in your do-it-yourself side. Here you

don't let destruction destroy it but instead

allow it to naturally escape destruction.

And as it produces and generates new

good, and when that new good matures and

part of it chooses the Godly side; then your

whole Godly side can be recreated from

this small part even if a destruction had

completely wiped out your Godly side

earlier. (This is a change, because usually it

is the Godly side that is the engine of

growth. But here in this one instance, the

earthly side saves the day.) And if

destruction wasn't able to completely

destroy your Godly side, then the whole of

it is easily recreated from whatever

remnant remains, without needing to go to

your earthly side for this.

Concerning the attraction members of the

opposite sex have for each other; what

purpose do you think it serves? Consider

perhaps that without it, many life forms

wouldn't take the time/effort it takes to

have and raise offspring. Even though we

are above the animals, and know in our

minds that we must reproduce, to maintain

future society (because we all eventually

die off); we still might not do this, because

we'd want to shove this burden off onto

someone else, and might try to avoid the

expense ourselves. But if we come born

with an attraction for the opposite sex,

well, problem solved. Or sort of. Some

might consider that sexual desire is an

imperfect method to provide for our

societal reproduction, and that human

reasoning might do a better job. And this is

entirely possible. Consider that when

animals have sexual relations, there is only

one result: -that offspring are always

produced. But that when humans have

sexual relations, offspring need not

necessarily be the result. With the use of

birth control and condoms, sexual relations

can be for fun, and not have anything to do

with reproduction. This is something that is

uniquely human; and is not seen in the

animal world. Consider that if sexual desire

can be diverted into an avenue separate

from reproduction, consider that something

else (such as human reasoning) can have

say over human reproduction. But no.

religion won't have it. And wants sexual

desire to be for human reproduction only.

Next represents some very interesting

material, but not necessarily completely

what my current position is.

Jesus states his commandments are not

burdensome. But to package and make

absolute rules over the reproductive drive,

is actually burdensome. But what Jesus is

actually saying in the reproductive drive

area, is not what people believe today.

When the bible talks of marriage, adultery,

fornication etc, we then go to the dictionary

which is not a holy book, to learn their

meanings. But Jesus, the head man himself,

has defined what marriage is, in the bible.

And from this we can infer the other things.

He has said of marriage, that the 2 become

one flesh, and what God has therefore

joined together, let no man put asunder.

Well, think about it. Can married people

prove that they have become one flesh?

Flesh is something visible that can be

touched and seen (unlike the spirit which is

invisible). And, yes, we can say that in

married people, the two have become one

flesh. Not that they morph into a shape

shifting mass (outside of when making

love), but in that married people have

children. That the two have become one

flesh in the form of their child (children).

So that marriage is defined by Jesus as

having children exclusively: -not as having

sex exclusively. Now if we were like the

animals, this would be a distinction of no

importance because when animals have

sex, they invariably have offspring. But

with humans, the use of condoms and birth

control, etc, having sex doesn't necessarily

mean having children. And we can infer

from the definition Jesus puts forth of

marriage, that adultery involves having

children with someone other than your

spouse, not necessarily having sex with

someone other than your spouse. And that

fornication is a person with no previous

children having a child with someone who

already has children by someone else. This

Jesus based definition and regulation of our

sexuality upholds the family unit, as the

family unit is one source of goodness. And

it does so without basing it on a shaky

foundation. And I tell you, trying to base

the family unit on suppressing the sex

drive, is a shaky foundation. Whereas with

basing the family unit on the child

connection, the foundation is firm. The

additional rules over our sexuality that

insist on sexual exclusivity, are not from

God, but are from men being led astray by

the forces of destruction: doing the work of

destruction by their added rules. Have you

heard the latest gossip? Have you heard so

and so was seen cheating at the Bar X

motel last night? Sounds like someone is in

non compliance with a rule directed

towards human sexual behavior. This is the

thing about rules. -You're either in

compliance or non compliance. There's no

middle ground. -Everything is either black

or white, all good or totally evil, ones or

zeros. Rules force you to make an absolute

judgment about something with no room

for middle ground. So that inside your

head, what something is, exists as a black

and white representation. But in our world,

few things exist as absolutes. We are

dealing with humans not Gods. So if you

see the human animals before you in the

light of compliance vs. non compliance to a

set of rules and regulations, then what they

are in your mind is not what they are

outside your mind. Because in your mind

they are splotches of black and white

whereas outside your mind they are

something in between all good vs. all

destructive; in between rich vs. poor: they

are middle class. So, through the light of

compliance vs. non compliance to rules and

regulations, a fantasy world can exist inside

your mind. Fantasy worlds can be

entertaining, but don't expect me to take

them absolutely seriously. So that to me, a

person's human sexual behavior is neither

all good nor all evil but is somewhere in

between regardless of whether they are

faithful or cheating.

Thinking of this another way, we see that

we are humans and that we live on this

earth, and that a lot of what we are and do

is neither all good nor all evil, but is

somewhere in between. But that when we

apply rules to these gray areas (areas which

are far from absolute), that forces us to

make absolute judgments about these areas.

That in reality, over a large range of what

we do or how we are in these human areas,

we produce some goodness and also some

destructiveness. And that this just shifts

around (the goodness and destructiveness

shifts around) to different areas as we do an

area in different ways. So that what we

produce is some good and some

destruction. But when we are classified by

rules over the human areas (as either being

in compliance or non compliance); we are

treated as being all good, or all bad as a

result of that classification. We should

receive the reward of what we produce, and

that is neither all goodness nor all

destruction. But we don't receive that but

instead receive either all goodness or all

destruction based on how we are classified

by the rules over the human area. And

when we humans who in reality are some

good and some bad are treated with either

all goodness or all destruction, neither of

these environments helps us change out of

our state of being half good and half bad.

Only when we receive what we produce,

that is being rewarded with some good and

some bad, will we be in a medium ability

environment which is the only environment

where our good can outperform our bad

and where we can thus change from being

partly good and partly bad, to being all

good. Otherwise we are forced to remain as

part good and part bad and are prevented

from changing out of this. In this aspect, I

know who I am. I'm a human being, who

over a large range of what I possibly could

do; does neither all good nor all

destruction, but does some of both good

and, due to the fact that many of the actions

available to me produce both good and

destruction (in destruction different areas)

out of the same action. This just restates the

previous paragraph:

But when the large range of what I could

do, gets carved up into absolute

classifications; and depending on which

classification of this range I'm in, I get

treated as either all good or all evil as a

result: neither of these treatments helps me

change out of being partly good and partly

bad, but instead preserves me in my state of

being partly good and partly bad.

Now, since when the forces are

separate(alone), they find it harder to find

input raw material to work with (with both

forces: -of good, and especially the force of

destruction); there may be some room for

delaying the separation of good from the

bad in us humans. But not to the extent of

perpetual delay. So then, if we apply the

concept of seeking a medium environment

when evil is present; to whether a woman

should have children: I see this: woman

who are in an absolutely evil society with

no goodness, may act to not have any

children, and thereby put an end to this

destructive society similar to the doing

destruction to destruction concept. And

men who are supposed to work, can do no

work and also thereby not feed evil. But in

a society that contains some evil, but also

some good, women in this society can have

a limited number of children (not an

excessive number of children (rich

environment)), and so help create a

medium environment, where the evil can

separate away. And also, men who are

supposed to work, can do a little work (not

an excessive amount) and thereby help

create the desired medium environment.

And of course, women in a totally good

society can have many children and men

can do much work; as here, the rich

environment won't be burned down by

evil.

Oooops I have made a mistake. I no longer

think that women have the unrestricted

source of inherent democracy within them.

You see, I no longer think it is a good plan

for women in an absolutely evil society to

stop having kids. Because even though this

will eventually bring about an end to this

evil society, in the interim, it will make this

evil society rich (because they no longer

have to afford resources for the care of

children). This richness in the presence of

evil, will just feed evil and make it large

and big; thus burning us all down in a

firestorm. So I no longer think it is a good

plan for women to use their childbearing

(or lack of it) as a tool to root out evil. It

still remains a useful tool in good societies

where there is no evil, to give women their

rightful place and for them to gain equality.

But in these good societies, women

shouldn't take this to extreme; and should

still have some kids so as to continue this

good society (but not an excessive amount

either, because poverty for a good society

is also not a good plan). In evil societies

that restrict the bearing of children so as to

become rich and also evil (using their

richness to control every aspect of their

citizen's lives), we non evil societies are

forced into an unpleasant situation, of

being overtaken and having our people run

in absolute control over our lives too.

In this situation, we are forced to suffer

through rich evil, because the only option is

for every woman to stop having kids and

eventually end this. But if women have a

choice; in evil societies, they should have

kids and plenty of them. (Pay no attention

to this. ) As you can see, I am unclear in

my advice to women on childbearing. But

at this time, I now change back again to

seeing women as the unrestricted source of

inherent human democracy.

You see, in bad societies run by dictators

who control every part of the lives of their

subjects; people are already divided into

rich and poor. Some are taken from and

have their lives spent enriching the dictator

and his(her) ruling class. These poor

impoverished people have no recourse and

are too poor and powerless to overthrow

the hated government.

What I'm saying is that in these societies,

there is already a division between rich and

poor. The dictator and his ruling class have

already enriched themselves and made their

evil/destructive ways rich on the backs of

these poor people. For these poor people

and those around them that hate this way;

for them not to have children (all the sex

they want, just no more children); is an

expression by them to reject this way and

to bring it to an end. These people are

being starved to death and are dying

anyway: there is nothing much more the

dictator can do to coerce them. And the

enrichment that they will give to the

dictator by not using resources for children

won't be that much more than the dictator

is receiving from them already by running

their lives into the ground in starvation. So

that yes, here in these bad societies; it is the

thing to do for the individual to express

their acceptance or rejection of their

situation (in this case, rejection of this

situation), by not having any more children,

and thus eventually putting an end to this

situation. No need for Bush to

come in and overthrow your dictator; you

can do it yourself within your own country.

In countries with a sharp divide between

rich and poor (with little or no middle

class), the poor can express their

disapproval of their situation this way,

without having to resort to violence and

fomenting revolution etc. But in countries

with a decent sized middle class, and a

good way of life for all; hopefully the

women there would see the goodness of

continuing that situation, by having a

reasonable number of children, but not an

excessive number of children as an

excessive number would just impoverish

what was once a good life due to all the

extra resources needed to raise an excessive

number all at once. Women could still use

`not having children' here as a bargaining

tool to gain equal or slightly better

economic status, but I would warn that they

not take this to finality because they would

eliminate a `good life for all society', if

they did. So, we are back in business with

this women empowerment thing and

women as sources of democracy thing.

-because the counter argument that women

not-having-children would enrich the bad

society is mute because that bad society

already enriches itself on the backs of its

poor; and the extra richness gained by not

having kids, would be quickly gobbled up

by the poor themselves; or even if the

dictator was able to extract it; it would be

just a little more of the same, as the dictator

is already extracting from the people at

pretty much their maximum already.

Also, because extra resources are needed to

power a system of absolute control over

every citizen's lives: the extra richness

gained from not having children, would

cause a move out of poverty and into

medium ability; and not a move from

medium ability into richness. And in this

environment with an evil dictator, it is the

medium environment that is needed, not

either poverty or richness.

Let us now consider the claim that if one

believes on Jesus, he receives heaven, but

if one does not believe, he receives hell.

This applying absolute rewards (either all

rewarding or all destructive) to us non

absolute humans, isn't helpful to us at all,

but just preserves us as humans (in the case

of receiving heaven), and if we receive

total destruction, preserves us as humans

until we are destroyed.

Any of these systems of severe punishments

or absolute rewards for the various ways of

being human, are just preservatives that

prevent us from being anything other than

human. But after asking God/Jesus for an

explanation of this, the resulting answer

turns out just to be a matter of

interpretation of this. The answer I got is

this:

God is an absolute. Not only is God an

absolute, God is an absolute good.

And when God is going about being

himself, he is going to produce a lot of

goodness, and generating a lot of rich

environments. When I as a non absolute

human being come into contact with one of

these rich environments, it is detrimental to

me because I require a medium

environment to function. Now with the

environment being rich, the destructiveness

within me no longer separates and dies, but

stays with me and consumes me in an

eternal burn; and I am in torment. God

realizes that His absolute goodness does

this to me, so He in kindness, provides me

an out: He allows me to put down my old

human ways and let them expire, and

replace them with absolute Godly ways,

that is, when I run into (where there exists)

these all good absolute Godly ways. And

this is accomplished by Jesus providing a

limited path of medium ability environment

where I can let my old human ways expire

without the evil in them getting out into the

absolute goodness to consume me (a

purgatory if you will).

But of course, I have a choice. God isn't

going to force me to do this. If I wish that

the evil in me (from that part of my human

ways) continue even in the presence of the

absolute goodness of God, I can have that

too, by just not reaching out to Christ, and

continuing in my own way. This is how I

interpret Christ's outreach. The

exhortations to love your enemies and to

love all people do act to create rich

environments, and this may cause

tribulation. But that is just from the effects

of absolute goodness.

Absolute goodness is one of the

possibilities, and for us to not be able to

deal with absolute goodness represents an

innocence that cannot last forever,

especially with the growth potential of

absolute goodness. Absolute goodness can

exist and if so, should not be expected to

give up its existence just because we

middle ground humans don't know how to

deal with it. So that when we are

confronted with absolute goodness, we can

accept Jesus to guide a smooth transition

from non absolute human ways to be

replaced with absolute good ways.

But when there are no absolute good ways

yet, and the only way available is the

human ways, we can continue to have

human ways (otherwise we'd be in

barrenness -also a preservative) until such

time as absolute good ways can replace

them. (As we are not preserved eternally as

human, but advance into absolute

goodness)- we can thus have the presence

of both absolute good ways and also human

ways in us. (For religious leaders to shame

our human parts, puts them into barrenness,

which prevents them from also advancing

into absolute good.)

It is the presence of both absolute good

ways, and human ways in us that can take

on a similar structure as the playing both

sides structure outlined in other places of

this writing -that being based on whether

God exists now vs. that God is yet to be

created and we need to do it ourselves now.

You see, whatever we do can be seen as

God in us doing it (that we are extensions

of God). Except when our actions are

imperfect human actions which contain

both good and destruction. These cannot be

seen as God in us doing them. So some

actions can be placed on an absolute good

side with God, and the human/gray actions

are on the other side. The object then is to

place human ways in a medium

environment. When we feel a need to do a

human/gray action, we can separate off a

smaller portion of ourselves to do it, so it

will be done in a medium environment and

not a rich environment.

Also, when we remove godly parts as some

of the actions mature to become a mix of

human and godly fragments, we can

Incompletely repatriate human fragments

(left after removing the godly part) into

being one with complete human actions:

-for the purpose of maintaining a medium

ability environment. And also not

completely separating away outside

destructions that enter in; also for this same

purpose of maintaining neither a rich nor a

desolate, but a medium environment. In

such a way, the good of our human actions

is able to escape their humanness and join

the absolute goodness. So that we just wait

and let the goodness of our human actions

purify and find their own way back into the

absolute goodness of the major part of us

that we left behind to do the human action;

as they will do.

Let me go over this in more detail:

(This segment can easily be skipped. What

I'm saying, is it is OK and good to skip this segment.)

When an action is first generated, it goes

along and goes along until eventually it

matures and half splits off to be godly and

the other half humanly. The perfected

godly parts generated then (after an initial

place marker) are generated as devoting a

partial percentage of their activities to also

generating new action (which also must

wait to eventually undergo maturity itself).

As the perfect-like new actions generated

from the mature godly side are maturing,

they may (or may not) be under need to

satisfy earthly desires and do earthly

actions. If not, they just mature to the half

and half split off of maturity; as an

immature action can rest as temporarily

devoting itself in the godly direction but

still able to change to the earthly direction

if needed.

In the generation of new actions in the

satisfying of new earthly needs, As some of

these immature actions mature in the

earthly side, they split off half and half

also. Now with mature parts in the earthly

side that are now for godly; unless these

parts are removed, their presence in the

earthly side but being unable to act in most

earthly directives will halt the functioning

of the earthly directives in satisfying

earthly hungers. And even after being

removed, some fragments of the earthly

side are totally crippled because (half of)

what did function for the earthly side when

immature, now as mature, is unable to

function for the earthly side. It is then by

the Partial repatriation of crippled remnant

fragments previously spoken of that

generates the medium environment which

is neither barren nor rich that is needed

here in this earthly situation. Also, note that

when earthly parts, both mature and

immature find a moment when they are

done with earthly concerns and needs; and

not busy and without anything to do; they

can align themselves in the godly direction

(as best they can). True, they are not built

for that, but in whatever limited way, they

can do this, to also (help) generate

perfected godly material. Then when a new

earthly need arises, they can switch back to

earthly concerns.

End skipped segment.

When I drop the phrase `the creator'; who

or what am I referring to? One could think

I'm referring to almighty God. But

consider that I'm also referring to all the

human creators here on earth. And that the

human female is in part, the creator of new

life here on this earth. (This makes them a

target for evil to corrupt that which is good

and growing.) Now, if we as a people,

don't treat the human creators who we can

see, with dignity and respect, but instead

treat them as second class citizens, then I

don't see this as welcoming to an almighty

CREATOR who we can't see; but who

shares a kinship with the many human

creators who we can see, through the

common link of being a creator. It is not

enough to believe in God. If we believe

God exists, but also mistreat God, then any

religion that does this, I think we can see,

won't be well received by God. And isn't it

a waste of our time to practice a religion

which will be rejected by God/Allah?