Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://wmawest.zoomshare.com/files/invite.htm

You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://sweettern.zoomshare.com/files/msg.htm

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
who 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 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; 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).)
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.  As 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. 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 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.
Let me rehash this 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
any
one person really have the right to all of another person's attentions?
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 set aside the attraction
they feel, as being hopeless, or if in the case of the conservative breeding
program, as being poison (to us all), and to see these people who uphold the
conservative breeding program, who won't share their partner sexually; as party
poopers and spoilers of fun, and even more so, ultimately as the ultimate
terrorists who act to bring about the apocalyptic end to the world.  What I mean
instead of asking us to set aside our attraction, is 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.)
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GOOD VS EVIL:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx 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.(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.  xxxxxxxxxxx
      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 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 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.)
(2nd insert: 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. Xxxxxxxxx
Another complicated scenario that can occur, goes like so: first the sogp(or
Jesus representation within us) generates a human need(first in a rarified way,
then after concentrating the rarified 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 rarified 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.
For our high, all good parts to be separate from any 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). 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.
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.

Let me go over my latest structure
concerning feeding gray hungers and casting out evils:
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 endevors, 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 does not do/include 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). 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 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. When the sogp isn't responding to gray area
hungers, it can put
itself at fairly high ability level, but when a hunger pops up, the sogp needs
to come back to generating at medium level.
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 that is working
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. Now, casting out
evil doesn't involve any moderate intensity non cycling material; and the
response sogp is mostly done full bore without much medium frequency/bore
cycling -to medium ability (unlike the satisfying of a gray hunger). 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 if 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.  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.  The
casting out evil acts may circumvent all this cycling (and be a separate entity
from the high good parts just by doing their action), but the satisfying hungers
does not, or not for long. Note that action 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 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.

In this insert, 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. )
When the joint venture of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping on
itself; there's a circular feedback created that produces tremendous quantities
of growth. When forces of good are producing capability; they can either produce
new forces-of-good; or new neutral-capability. Forces of good are made of
capability. And for one force of good to produce a second force of good; is a
force of good producing a force of good. A force of good can also be a force of
good, by producing neutral capabilities. There are great advantages for forces
of good to produce more forces of good, as opposed to neutral capability. For
one thing, the newly created force of good can in turn produce force of good of
its own; and an exponential increase in the production of the force of good will
result. Whereas, with the increase of neutral capability, only a flat rate of
capability increase is achieved, and no new force of good is produced. For
another thing, the forces of good are protected by the fogoHC, while neutral
capability is not. Thus forces-ofgood 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.
B) it could advance in its abilities to first become alive; then advance in
intelligence; and finally become a fogoHC. it continues to advance and
eventually becomes a fogoHC itself. With possibility A, more and more neutral
capability is produced. The amount of it increases exponentially. But the fogoHC
becomes no larger. There is no growth in the fogoHC because no lower
capabilities are allowed to become fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more of
itself, it can replicate itself. But this is taking lower forces of good and
advancing them to be a fogoHC. This is not
example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do this. It finds itself with an ever growing
supply of neutral capability to make contact with. It might get swamped by the
size of it. It needs to
grow in size to match the growth of the neutral capability. It could try and
make itself more powerful and become of higher capability within itself. But
whether it could do this or not is uncertain; whereas the creation of itself has
been proven possible by its own existence. The fogoHC must increase its own
power at an exponential rate just to keep up with the neutral capability. But
this is unlikely as the fogoHC would be increasingly more busy trying to handle
the exponential growth of the neutral capability, that it would have less and
less time to work on its own advancement. Also, it is into uncharted areas, as
it has never been that powerful before. It is a driven and desperate fogoHC,
that is forced to keep up a growth output and is driven by growth needs, if it
can
keep up at all. In this picture of a universe, it is easy to see how a fogoHC
could become overextended and how the marginal force of good and neutral
capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and eventually become
unmanageable. It could cease contacting the neutral capability, but that would
make it vulnerable to evil. Thus the force of evil would step in and stagnation
would result after some point of expansion.
  Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe where the basic forces of
good produced, do advance to finally become a fogoHC. With possibility B, there
would be more and more fogoHC to keep up with the more and more neutral
capability being produced. There would be no problem of the fogoHC getting
swamped. Here, the contacting of the ever-growing neutral capability is provided
by a fogoHC that is also growing exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to
grow in uncharted areas; only in the replication of more of itself, which by its
existence, has already been proven possible to do. So it's very probable that
not only does the fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and turn them into
marginal force of good capability; the fogoHC also advances these marginal-good
capabilities to be very intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be forces
ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is another insert:
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 capabilitypower-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.
End important inserts)
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?)This is why 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
are 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 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.
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 (B) 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 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.
When life material (containing both goodness and destruction, due to these gray
actions) is fed into barren areas of desolation and destruction, then neither
the goodness nor destructiveness in them is able to escape the destruction and
nothing is saved. When fed into rich areas, this life material containing good
and destructiveness is preserved, because both the goodness and destructiveness
are well off; -even with destructiveness being an incompetent force, -in the
rich environment it can mess up all it wants and still get by: thus the
destructiveness remains alive and together with the goodness, in the rich
environment. (Also, the good here can't get away from the evil here due to
evil's fast growth in a rich environment.) But when the life material is fed
into areas at medium level of ability: here the goodness is able to outperform
and have that out performance count, and (is able to get away and) become
separate from the destructiveness of the material of life due to goodness being
superior to destruction (when forced to survive alone). Hence 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 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, not only does this 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 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 of 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.

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. 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. And if this earthly life experiences such an environment that it
naturally produces for a time, the forces here will separate and good will
separate from destructiveness. And this earthly life will not be preserved in
its present state of togetherness of goodness and destructiveness, but will
allow its goodness to go free.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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.
  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.
   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.
  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.
And 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.) 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
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 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 some of 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 the 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. The
small one way gift of us is what gets it on in the gray areas, so that it is not
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. In other words, 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 not-human high-good parts of
ourself, and our one way gift, to keep the high parts completely separate/ away
from these impure(contaminated with destruction) imperfect human hunger
satisfying actions. Whatever part of us is made of evil-free-high-good 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. 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/.
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 Scott 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 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 that
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. You see, 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 George 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.
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?

I created a profile with my pictures, videos, blog and events and I'd like to
add you as a friend to show this to you.

http://rockhanger.zoomshare.com/files/photos.htm

You are invited to join my social network, check my friends list here:
http://stallsp.zoomshare.com/files/myphoto.htm

I recommend you take a look at this... Check it here:
http://monabil.zoomshare.com/files/chicks.htm

I read your profile today, I thought I would drop you a line and hope to become
your friend! Check my personal page here:
http://shfdjgfjh.topcities.com/friend.htm

I want to meet you. Give me a chance! Click here to chat with me online:
http://klsbgr.zoomshare.com/files/chat.htm

Let's Consider that goodness, growth, and being kind to one anGOOD
VS EVIL
other, is a superior force over the force of destruction, death, and
being mean to each other. (To do this, we consider all
possibilities)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's consider a universe with only the force of destruction. 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 scarce, 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 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 growth/goodness.
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. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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, nothingness, 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences
what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,
but instead, grows. So that 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.

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 all are treated by those economic
forces that rule over us all.
   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 who are different from their parents to
some degree.  So, sexual reproduction generates differences between
each of us.  Now, if we were all to have sex with each other in
unrestricted sexual reproduction, then 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.  So that the differences generated by sexual
reproduction are preserved and compounded over each successive
generation; so that different groups of people are developed each
being good in one particular area, while not so good in the other
areas.  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 as a 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.  Sometimes one
may resent being part of this conservative religious breeding
program that has made us to be not free, but slaves to those who
rule over us.
TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, SEE THE LINKS AREA of this group for
anger management, sex, and religion.

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://brencismt.zoomshare.com/files/chat.htm

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://cowgirls.byethost17.com/chat.htm

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://cowgirls.byethost17.com/chat.htm

I want to meet you. Give me a chance! Click here to chat with me online:
http://deshawndcw.zoomshare.com/files/chat.htm

I would like to invite you to join my circle of frends,Check my album here:
http://shdgkdser.zoomshare.com/files/album.htm

"Individual people matter.
Their differences are a richness,
even more important than their similaries."
-- Lodovic Trema in "Foundation's Triumph"

Frankly, there is never any guarantee that history will never be
repeated.  We can, of course, hope to learn from our past mistakes but
that responsibility lies on each and every succeeding generation.  All
it takes is but one to slip up and ...

We can but hope for the best and that the ball does not drop on our
watch.

Cheers.



suhaw

--- In asimovsfoundations@y..., commolord2001 wrote:
> We (humanity) have rendered science to the realm of Myth in the
past. What's to prevent us from doing it again? The Dark Ages didn't
happen by accident.....

We (humanity) have rendered science to the realm of Myth in the past. What's to
prevent us from doing it again? The Dark Ages didn't happen by accident.....

I'm making a movie based on Foundation with some
freeware/shareware 3D animation programs. I <br><br>need voice
actors for (in order of appearance):<br>Trantorian
Officer, <br>Gaal Dornick, <br>"man at the desk" at the
Debarkation Building, <br>Taxi Supervisor, <br>Taxi Driver,
<br>Sun Room Clerk, <br>Elevator Operator, <br>"Jerril",
<br>Hari Seldon, <br>"desk clerk", <br>"the gentle
inquisitor", <br>Lors Avakim, <br>"guard" ("We will supply you
with one, Counsellor, that does not cast a static
field."), <br>Commision's Advocate (Linge Chen?), <br>4
Unnamed members of the Commision of Public Safety,
<br>"the captain" ("I have been instructed to inform you
that six months will be allowed you for
<br><br>preparations to leave for Terminus."), <br>Lewis Pirenne,
<br>Salvor Hardin, <br>Anselm haut Rodric, <br>Tomaz Sutt,
<br>Jord Fara, <br>Lundin Crast, <br>Yate Fulham, <br>Lord
Dorwin, <br>Yohan Lee, <br>Sef Sermak, <br>Poly Verisof,
<br>Jan Smite, <br>Lepold I, <br>Wienis, <br>Lewis Bort,
<br>Dokor Walto, <br>Lem Tarki, <br>Jaim Orsy, <br>Theo
Aporat, <br>"the admiral"/son of Wienis, <br>a soldier
("Save our souls, your reverence. We are poor men,
ignorant of the crimes of our <br><br>leaders"),
<br>Limmar Ponyets, <br>Les Gorm, <br>"the Grand Master",
<br>Eskel Gorov, <br>Pherl, <br>Jorane Sutt, <br>Hober
Mallow, <br>Publis Manlio, <br>Jaim Twer, <br>"the watch
sergeant", <br>Lieutenant Tinter, <br>Jord Parma,
<br>Commdor Asper Argo, <br>Commdora Licia Argo, <br>Onum
Barr, <br>"the tech-man", <br>Ankor Jael, <br>"the
senior lieutenant of the Dark Nebula"<br><br>I may also
need some people to do background noise and sound
effects...<br>Please email me if you're interested:
Mike@...<br> -

Hello, I think Asimov is the best science fiction
writer of all time. My other favourites are Samuel R.
Delaney, James Herbert and Arthur C. Clarke. But apart
from maybe Samuel R. Delaney - Asimov is in a league
of his own and his foundation series has yet to be
matched.

Some say that Asimov's Foundations are too old. His Ideas are aged and the
Mythification of Atomics is rather funny. I don't think that, but what would you
say to something like that?

taken from :<br>
<a href=http://www.delos.fantascienza.com/delos47/asimov.html
target=new>http://www.delos.fantascienza.com/delos47/asimov.html</a><br><br>look\
s like a long write-up of the man, but i do not
understand the language. would appreciate if somebody can
help out.<br><br>cheers.

it was about 8-9 yrs ago when i read some of
issac astronomy books 4 the first time, and 5 yrs later
i read the first sci-fi stroy of him , it was so
interesting that i could not stop reading even in school ,
days and nights , yes i have read almost 20 books of
him includin foundation , robotic , and some elses ,
and i really feel them,<br>the foundation books r
really magnificent , specialy that all of his books like
foundation and robotic ones relate to each other , 4 example
when i read the last book of foundation seriece
<br>and when "R DANEEL OLIVAW" remind the name "elijah
baley" i really feel proud of my self that i know what
exactly he was talking about ...

I don't think this 'predestination' was a flaw.
In my opinion, it was a central theme of the plot.
It was Gaia that went through all that trouble, and
made all those arrangements just to make it look as if
things really were just smoothing falling into place.
<br><br>What I see as a flaw in this series is the way asimov
clumsily tried to link these novels with all his earlier
ones and introducing a whole slew of contridictions as
a result. When he wrote his earlier books like
"pebble in the sky", he meant them to be just stand alone
books. He should have kept them that way, and not tried
to link it with the foundation series.

i recall seeing many non-asimov robot stories
floating around, but i do not recall seeing many
non-asimov foundation books.<br><br>anyway, you really
should attempt this post-asimov foundations trilogy: it
really expands the possibilities. personally, i would
recommend this trilogy because it corrected the one "flaw"
I felt very uncomfortably with Asimov's
Foundations: predestination.<br><br>With Trevize choosing Gaia
at the end of 5 centuries of Foundations, everything
seems to have fallen in place and there are no
surprises left. the benford-brin-bear trilogy re-opens the
can of worms and re-introduced spice and
unpredictability into this fascinating universe.<br><br>Besides,
this trilogy - unlike most/(all?) other stories based
on Asimov's universes - is authorised by his estate.

I never bothered reading the
benford/brin/bear<br>books, althoug I've read asimov's versions a NUMBER of
times. I did'nt think those 3 could do justice to the
story, the way asimov did. And I<br>did'nt really like
the idea of other authors mucking around in asimovs
worlds...<br><br>How many non-asimov foundation books are there
floating around anyway ?

welcome. hope you enjoy your stay
here.<br><br>now that even the 2nd foundation trilogy series has
ended i am sorely missing a good asimov follow-up to
the foundation series.<br><br>wonder if the
benford-brin-bear trio are planning any follow-up to the new
threads they introduced.<br><br>does anybody have any
recommendations ?<br><br>cheers.

i'm a new member!<br>i'm a big fan of asimov books specially the foundation
series! <br>it's always enjoyable to imagine new worlds isn't it?

hi,<br><br>i m not sure if i understand your
question fully.<br><br>to quote from a good
friend:<br><br>"Using Psychohistory, Seldon discoveres that the vast
Galactic Empire that has ruled for thousands of years is
decaying and humanity will be plunged into an era of
barbarism for the next twenty thousand years. To shorten
the barbaric period, two Foundations were
established: one based on the physical sciences, the other on
the mental sciences (and hidden). In one thousand
years, Hari's calculations tell him, the two Foundations
will build up a new empire that would
endure."<br><br><a
href=http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/2785/book_foundation_series.html
target=new>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/2785/book_foundation_series.html\
</a>

I just joined this club, which I came upon almost
by accident. I am a big fan of the Foundation series
having read all of the books multiple times. The
question that most intrigues me is: who are the second
foundationers? I'm specificly talking about in the original
trilogy, which of the named charecters was playing a
larger part than that actually given?

i suppose u were referring to how he:<br><br>*
wrote the Foundations trilogy and early Daneel/Bailey
stories way back before i was born;<br>* then suddenly
merged the two series starting with Robots of Dawn until
Golan(?) Trevize in forgot-which-book; then<br>* go back
to writing about Hari Seldon's early days prior to
Foundations.<br><br>i seem to recall reading somewhere that the Robots
of Dawn was written because the publisher gave him a
7-figure advance to write another book about
Robots/Foundations and i suppose he came up with this brilliant idea
of merging the two classic series.<br><br>then, the
momentum got going to spur the Master into writing more as
readers got most intrigued about Hari Seldon's
pre-Foundations history .....<br><br><br><br>suhaw