Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00116)

Hi. Here is my book. It is too long so I send it in 4 parts, this being the first. Please skip over any boring or complex parts. Thanks.

 

Chapter 1/INTRODUCTION

"Nurture"

 

GROWTH OF GROWTH RESOURCES, WHEN WE WANT MORE

Some of us like our work; some of us like parties, food, drink, sex, religious expression, exercise, good music, etc. But to be able to enjoy any of these, we must be alive. (Inanimate objects are incapable of these.) The actions which bring us life/resources; aren't necessarily the same as the actions of enjoying-these-project-things, (with that life). Thus to be able to enjoy all these good projects, we need a balance between actions that (a)supply us with life; vs, (b)enjoying our projects with that life.

I think most would agree we can't make much of a life by ourselves living totally independently; and that we need to join some group or system to have any form of decent life. The big question is; which system? In one, growth is destroyed. In the other, growth isn't destroyed.

When a boss expects one to produce something and work; aren't they expecting one to grow? -to provide/produce something that wasn't there before? (Why sure.)

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.

We live in a world with both good and evil. Why couldn't we have had a world with good only? The reason we have evil along with the good in our world, is because evil is one of the POSSIBILITIES -that living things can do. (Without life, no actions (good or evil) are possible. But with life; both good and/or evil are possible actions from that life.)

Given a world of both good and evil; our actions thus then contain (both) some good -(growth) as well as some evil -(destruction). Thus when we do actions to obtain a desired thing, we as life usually do some of both good and evil, in obtaining this thing.

There is usually more than one way to do a thing; and many of the possible ways include evil (harm) as part of them. For us to obtain this thing without evil; our actions would have to be free of harm; and this would eliminate many of the possible ways from consideration. To obtain the thing without harm, we'd have to neutralize the harmful parts of ways containing evil, (Or, we could severely limit our possibilities and reject all ways containing harm). This would require more effort than if we did the thing the way it came naturally -(with both good and evil). Thus it takes more capability-power-life to obtain things with a purity in our actions (that is, free of harm). Again:

-The limited selection we have when we reject ways containing harm, often means we loose the easiest ways, just by probability. -Plus, it takes more resources to neutralize a harmful aspect of a way and do a complete job, than to just let the harm happen.

So we can do much more individually with what little we have when we're open to all possible ways irregardless of the harm they cause (in our search for the most productive way), and don't 'waste' resources trying to neutralize the harm of our ways. So when we're short-on-resources, this often forces us to use ways containing harm. When short-on-resources we may not have enough resources to do a thing evil free, BUT we can still usually do it if we lower our standards and allow harm in our ways. (Because we can do more* in the short run/individually/locally if we allow harm in our ways; (*with our scanty resources).)

Unfortunately, this harm we allow catches up to us. As a collective group we find ourselves trapped at being short on resources because the collective harm from our ways lowers us all and keeps us short-on-resources; since harming destroys resources. The harm we allow as we strive to be the best, win the competition, and produce the absolute most; catches up to us, collectively.

When someone builds up life, but then another person knocks it down: and when life/things keep(s) getting built up and knocked back down over and over again; a system of stagnation takes form. And this stagnant system traps us, because collectively we cannot get ahead. Like a process may make a good product and income for a few, but also pollute the environment, and overall cause more harm than good.

We can usually do more and be a bit more productive in the short run/locally/individually if we allow harm in our ways. But this harm we allow, keeps us all short-on-resources in the long run. ((Statement #1;)-And being short on resources forces us to accept ways containing harm.) And doing this harm destroys resources and collectively keeps us all short on resources. Go to Statement #1. As we can see, This is a trap. That once fallen into, cannot easily be gotten out of. So we should not be so concerned with winning in competition and who can generate the highest production as a sole criteria. We should more importantly look at how evil free a 'production' is.

So we should nurture life as much as possible, so we are at as high capability as possible and are not short on resources, so that we do things with much less harm in our ways, -and thus avoid this trap of evil. It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high capability to have the extra resources needed to grow evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil free way); that we do advance and grow overall. We thus overall provide escape from the trap and system of destruction, which is the stagnant system.

EVIL FREE GROWTH VS GROWTH LADEN WITH EVIL

Since you are always growing, (You are alive.); there is a property associated with 'growth': -That there are always areas of you at present that are lacking that you need to grow into, to gain approval in this area. It takes life and living things to achieve growth, and the growth that is required of you. You are a living thing. The thing you MAY have chosen to nurture the life that is you, is the 3rd party stamp of approval.

You need life to cause growth. You have chosen the 3rd party reward to nurture your life. At a present moment the 3rd party requires a growth from you(r life). But you don't have the 3rd party approval for this as of yet. Without this approval, your life is not nurtured, and thus you're less alive. WITH LESS LIFE YOU PRODUCE LESS THAN ADEQUATE GROWTH. You thus fail to receive the reward or approval. Your counselor or boss, bitch at you for doing such a lousy job. Without nurture you cannot hope to produce the growth requirement. (Abbreviation: fogoHC = force of good of High Capability)

Let's look at an alternative: When you depend on the natural meaning of (good) things to nurture your life; what's important isn't the inanimate objects or meager skills you posses or can manipulate, in doing things on your own, outside of a program of expectations; (independent of rewards a 3rd party gives for those actions; but instead, valuing the actions for their own merit). No, it's the life you can join with (that is the fogoHC). It is life beyond what you ever were in your undeveloped self. And from this abundant life comes abundant growth.

Joining with the fogoHC changes reality, and your reality. The more powerful a being, the greater changes in reality it can make; and nurture all of you. The unconditional love from the fogoHC nurtures you and puts you at high capability. Growing in the fogoHC is success achieved, because the high capability growth is evil-free. This is unlike the success you must achieve (and thus lack at present). That type of success has growth laden with evil, because it expects growth before it dispenses the nurture (of its reward). Without the nurture, one has less life, and is at reduced capability. At reduced capability; necessary evils must be done to achieve the same growth. The necessary evils done, destroy gains made, and stagnate the group. (This is the trap of evil you are in.) Again:

Joining with the fogoHC nurtures your life and puts you at high capability; so you can do evil free growth, (instead of being forced to allow harm in your ways to achieve the required growth).

Love yourself and one another. Pat yourself on the back. You have already succeeded. In Love you have success welling from inside your heart. Success is a gift not an achievement. -A gift freely given by the fogoHC. Let us now love.

It is important for us to be well nurtured (loved) and at high capability to have the extra resources needed to grow evil free: -to neutralize evil parts of our ways, and to use ways that may not be the most productive (or are more complex) but that are evil free. -So when we produce and do things (in an evil free way); that we do advance and grow overall. There's no destruction destroying the gains we make. And so life just keeps on growing. This is the alternative system and it's not a stagnant system. (the tortoise and the hare story?) The reward system thus looses the argument counter argument, because it forces us to grow at reduced capability, in the trap of evil.

Since it is important for us not to operate at reduced capability, we should depend on the fogoHC to fill the function of whatever we do, and not depend on what we can do or produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC to full the function and our needs, doesn't mean we stop or reject what we ourselves can do. It's just that we do not depend on it, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can do. That still exists; is valuable; and represents growth. But it is no longer burdened with supporting us, and is now free; free to grow evil free.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

"The Beginning"

 

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter proves the most probable existence of a benevolent "God", or that there will be one in the future if there isn't one now. It points out some basic and inherent differences between good and evil. It proposes a way to defeat evil for all time (for good). It shows some basic natural philosophical laws existing in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capability is a very general term. What I mean by it, is being able to do something -anything. Something that gives you capability, is something that enables you to do something. Lack of capability then, is not being able to do something.

If you think about it, capability is what separates living things from non-living things. Living things can do a lot, whereas non living things cannot.

Expanding on this area (because some have questioned it): The living world is more powerful than the inanimate world, because 1) A volcano is big only because a human has conceived in their mind that it is big -it takes life to give it its largeness. 2) The growth potential of living systems (which the inanimate does not have), allows life to someday control, manipulate, and harness, the inanimate: therefore which is more powerful -the powerful inanimate volcano/nuclear reaction, or the future civilization which harnesses that volcano/nuclear reaction, to do its bidding 99% of the time (less 1% for accidents)? I have to go with life over the inanimate in the long run in a life system that is not stagnant. Note that pound per pound, matter associated with living things, can do more than matter associated with the inanimate. It takes evolution (ie: the inanimate) millions of years to form a human being. It takes a living mother 9 months to do the same. Men are also quite able to kill each other, whereas inanimate objects find this difficult.

One point touched upon that I wish to make clearer; is that there are two reasons the force-of-good has an edge over the force-of-evil: 1)That although there is a 'bottom', where one absolutely can't go lower than nothing in terms of the level of capability; there's no absolute limit or ceiling to how much capability/life can be put into a piece of matter. Over time as we advance, we become able to put more and more capability into a piece of matter. (Who knows if there's a limit to how much we can put in, as we continue to advance.)

(This represents quality.)

2)That, capability is the key to crossing barriers. It enables one to cross barriers to reach new supplies of raw materials (to make improvements upon).

(This represents quantity.)

If a force of good is stopped by a barrier it can't cross, it builds up the quality of what materials it does have. It puts more and more capability, life, and power into the matter it does have, until it can bridge the barrier, and get in touch with raw materials further away or otherwise unavailable due to the barrier.

An abbreviation used in this chapter, is fogoHC, which stands for force of good of High Capability. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

We can categorize the universe into that which has capability/power/life; and that which lacks capability/power/life. For example, a person may be capable in some areas, but may lack capability in other areas. So, we can divide whatever we're considering (a person, the world, etc.) into capability vs. lack-of-capability.

We can divide the universe into capability vs. lack of capability and make a record of this. But the universe does not stand still, and after a time, our picture of the universe would change. Some things would have gained, and other things would have lost, capability. What I want to concentrate on then, is change in the universe in terms of capability; and not (so much) on a static picture of the universe (in terms of capability).

And there are two directions of change possible: there is increase-in-capability; and decrease-in-capability. I want to state that only CAPABILITY can cause these changes. Lack-of-capability cannot cause either change. For example, a living person can either help or hurt; increase capability or decrease capability. But a dead person can do neither. Has empty space or nothingness done anything? (to help or hurt you)?

(If it did, then it would be capable of that. This thus also reflects the definition of capability./ But whatever capability and life is; if we destroy that, then what is left over cannot do anything: neither helping nor destroying. -(Don't you find this to be true?))

Not only do we have 2 directions of change (increase and decrease (in capability)), (which I will now call forces); but we know that these changes (or forces) have capability behind them. They are caused by capability. The lack-of-capability cannot support or cause either (change) force.

Next I want to establish is that capability is the key to crossing barriers. For example, if you are on an island, there is the barrier of the ocean that keeps you from the rest of land. But if you have more capability in the form of a boat, then you can cross the barrier of the ocean. I hope you will agree that capability is the key to crossing barriers. Certain capabilities allow one (us) to cross certain barriers, but in general, capability is the key to crossing barriers.

Now we are ready to consider the 2 forces (increase and decrease in capability) in different situations. The situations are: 1. The force-of-increase only; 2. The force-of-decrease only; 3. Both forces are present.

Let's consider the situation where only the force-of-decrease-in-capability is present. What this force is, is capability used to destroy other capability, (or even itself). Well, the force-of-decrease goes about destroying capability, and there is less capability. Where capability once was, there is now a lack-of-capability (a hole). Since forces are made of capability, (and not lack-of-capability), this force isn't a growing force because it destroys what can support it. And if it destroys the specific capabilities making it up, then it is a shrinking force. Pretty soon all the capability in the immediate area is destroyed and there is no more capability left to destroy. When this force runs out of capability, it can't destroy (capability) any longer. Thus it ceases to exist in an active sense. But this force could continue to destroy capability, if it could get in touch with that (capability) which was further away. -or in some way separate from it. To do this would require the crossing of barriers (to reach the more distant or not-so-obtainable capability). The force of decrease in capability, however, cannot cross these barriers, because it destroys the key to crossing barriers -capability. The force of decrease thus boxes itself in and ceases to exist in an active sense. So, this possibility of just the force of decrease alone, is unworkable.

Now, let us consider what happens when the force-of-INCREASE-(in-capability) is by itself and is the only force around. This force takes lack-of-capability and produces capability in its place. Pretty soon, everything is so capable, that this force begins to run out of improvements to make. -Lack of capability becomes in short supply. If no more improvements can be made, then no increase can be done, and this would stop active existence of this force of increase. This force could keep on existing if it could get in touch with lack-of-capability that was further away or in some other way, separated from it. To do this would require the crossing of barriers. Since this force produces the key to crossing barriers -capability, it does continue to exist in an active sense. (-Whether it be barriers to putting more capability/life into a piece of matter, or reaching more distant raw materials; the force of increase has the key to crossing these barriers, in capability/power/life.)

›It is easy to see that one can go no lower than nothing in terms of the level of capability. What is not so certain in my mind is; is there a ceiling, a limit that you cannot put anymore capability into a piece of matter? Being of higher capability would allow one to put more in. Well, maybe there's a limit and maybe there's not. But no matter.› (-See chapter introduction.)

So, the force-of-increase can exist in an active sense, when it is the only force around. When alone, not only does it exist, it grows and builds itself up to very high levels of capability. It is a growing force, because what it produces -capability, is also the stuff that forces are made of. And with nothing to knock it down, it just keeps on growing. (It can always cross barriers so it keeps growing (forever).)

Then there is the situation where both of the forces exist together. Here on earth, this is the way it is. When the two forces are together, one produces capability and the other destroys capability. The force-of-increase doesn't grow because the capability it produces is destroyed. The force-of-decrease doesn't shrink because it has a continued supply of capability to destroy. This type of setup can go on indefinitely, and the force of decrease does not burn itself out here. But the 2 forces oppose each other in what they seek to accomplish, and a medium or mediocre level of capability results. The force of decrease can exist indefinitely, even forever.

The force of increase exists here also, but only to supply capability for the force of decrease (to destroy). It exists in a cramped or limited sort of way, as it doesn't grow.) For example, suppose there is a man trying to build a house, but vandals keep destroying it. And suppose there is another man building a house but who is separate from any vandals. With the time and effort and resources that the first man puts into trying to build his first house, the 2nd man can build many houses. So, from the force-of-increase's point of view, it's not so important how much capability it starts out with. What's important, is being separate from the force of decrease, the force of destruction.

Even if a force-of-increase starts out very small, it will grow to very large size and have lots of capability, IF it is separate from the force of destruction. The reason is growth. (Here it can grow.) The largeness it obtains is dependent on the degree it is separate from the force of destruction. And as it grows in capability, it can use that capability to obtain greater separation.

Speaking of evolution: if a small amount of capability develops out of the muck and mire, and both forces are present in equal amounts, then it will stay small, and not grow. If more of the force of decrease makes it up, then it will consume itself and disappear. But if more of the force of increase is present, it will grow to be large and very capable. So, if at any point in the past or future, a force of increase no matter how small, appears from the muck and mire, and is separate from the force of decrease in capability. -or if a force of increase at any time and no matter how small, escapes from a system where there are both forces:: then it can grow, and grow to a very large size. Because of this, it is very probable that there exists now, or there will exist, a force of increase (in capability) that is of high capability, an infinite amount of capability, and that is completely separate from the force of decrease (in capability). And also, that this force is a kind benevolent loving force, not a stern vengeful or mean force. So, I will include the existence of such a force in my considerations. This wraps up my thoughts on the 3 situations involving the two forces. The conclusions are: that the force of decrease cannot exist by itself, while the force of increase can. And when it does, it builds itself up into high capability. When the 2 forces exist together, things stagnate. -The force-of-increase ceases to grow and the force-of-decrease ceases to shrink, and the situation can go on forever. The advantage of the force-of-increase, is that it can exist alone and do very well, while the force of decrease cannot.

The force of decrease-in-capability has specific characteristics of its own, which cause problems. These characteristics, problems and solutions are what I want to discuss next. An important idea that fits here, is that being at mediocre capability forces one to destroy and decrease capability in some areas, to obtain increases in capability in other areas. Whereas if one had more capability and was at high capability, they would not be forced to destroy capability (to obtain these increases). For example, we have to eat to survive. Having enough to eat increases our capability. But we must kill animals or plants to obtain food, which decreases their capability. Now, if we had more capability and technology, we could synthesize our food chemically from the energy of the sun. -And no one's capability would be decreased. The reason we are forced to destroy and decrease capability, if we are at low capability, is because we are incomplete. Let me explain.

In obtaining a good, or increasing capability, there is a task at hand. The doing of this task requires a certain amount of capability, and certain types of capability (depending on the task). If one has enough of the needed capabilities, they can perform the task period, and no capability is destroyed. But if one is at low capability, then they probably don't have enough capability to perform the task. Now you would think that the task would go undone, and that would be the end of it. But not so. If you have a collection of life forms all at low capability; if you consider the total capability of them all, then (if you have the right collection of life forms); there is enough capability to perform the task; but it is divided amongst many life forms. For the task to be performed, the capabilities must all be together, in one unit. -And not divided up. If the many life forms cannot merge into a single life form and assemble their capabilities into one unit (which is doubtful since they are all at low capability); then the only way to put the smaller amounts of capabilities together into one unit, is to remove them from the individual life forms and put them together. -The act of removing the capabilities from the individual life forms, is where destruction and decrease in capability/power/life occurs. Also, the less capability one has, the less complete and the smaller the task, one can do. Like, to burn coal does not take much equipment. But to burn it cleanly does take a lot of sophisticated anti-pollution equipment. So, if one is at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do destruction to obtain some increases in capability. But if one is at high capability they can obtain these increases without having to do destruction or decrease in capability. The situation of both forces together, results in mediocre capability. And being at mediocre capability causes decrease and destruction to be done, which keeps the group at mediocre capability; so that the force of evil is not easily eliminated from this situation.

There is one unfortunate result or symptom of the fact that being at low capability forces one to do destruction to obtain many goods. -That is, a circular process that keeps one at low or mediocre capability. For example, if a group of life forms are at low or mediocre capability, they are forced to do destructions as part of obtaining many increases in capability. These destructions balance any increases obtained, and keep the group at low or mediocre capability. Being at low or mediocre capability, forces them to do more decreases in capability. This keeps on and on, and there is no escape to high capability from within. It is a trap (of evil). Outside action is needed to break the cycle (on any kind of a regular basis). Let me describe an example. Let us take a group of life forms, that are all at high capability, but are also ignorant about many things especially destruction. They are learning about life and the universe (from a vantage point of being at high capability). Then along comes the idea of destruction. Here is something to try out. So, one of them tries it out and clobbers one of them over the head (or themselves). Now one of the life forms is at decreased capability. Being at decreased capability, this person can no longer obtain many of the increases-in-capability without doing destruction. This person does not give up these things, but obtains them now with an accompanying decrease in capability. Other life forms have their capability decreased and are now at less than high capability. They in turn must decrease capability to obtain the good things they have been used to. More life forms fall from high capability, and this keeps snowballing until all life forms that are in contact with the system fall from high capability, unless they get separate from this system. -The interesting thing is that high capability in itself, is no protection against this. And once everyone is at mediocre capability, they are trapped there, and cannot get back to high capability. So now, these people know about decrease-in-capability, but the price we pay for knowing about it, is being trapped by it. Some of the properties of decrease-in-capability, is that it is very infectious, -that it spreads through a set of life forms that are within each others grasp. And that once it traps us, we cannot get out.

Some of us like decrease-in-capability by choice. Others of us are against it by choice. But no matter what our choice is we are forced to do it, and are trapped by it. When we must decrease capability to obtain an increase-in-capability, this kind of decrease is forced upon us. It is not by our choice. An increase in our capability would allow us to obtain the goods without destruction, and we would then cease to decrease capability. I would call this 'necessary evil'. But there is destruction that is caused by choice. I would call this 'unnecessary evil'. Destruction can be shown to be 'unnecessary evil', by the giving of capability. This type of destruction is not caused by lack-of-capability or being at low capability. -Because the person already has the capability to avoid doing this destruction, but does the destruction anyway (by choice). (It is interesting to note that the doing of one unnecessary evil causes a long chain of necessary evils to be done, long after the initiating unnecessary evil is gone).

If all of us liked the force-of-decrease-in-capability and chose it as what we wanted to do with our lives, then it'd be OK to let the force-of-decrease feed off of a force-of-increase, and we'd live this way forever, with the 2 forces being together in our lives. But that's not how it is. Most of us don't choose the force-of-decrease But even so, it traps us. How shall we get out? Who will help us? Well, it would have to be a force-of-increase, separate from the force of destruction, and thus of high capability, that helps us out. But I submit, that just helping us out will not solve our problem. For example; say that the force-of-increase-of-H.C. (High Capability), is helping. He is giving everybody lots of capability and bringing us up to high capability equal with him/her self. But the force-of-decrease is present also; and now has access to much capability. (Those with the force-of-decrease, use their lots of capability to do lots of destruction). Thus the force-of-decrease becomes nearly as powerful as the force-of-good-of-H.C. that is present here, helping out. All are brought down to mediocre capability in the togetherness of the 2 forces, where we started from.

But now we are minus one force-of-increase-of-H.C.. This force is still a force-of-increase, but of mediocre capability like the rest of us. This does not solve the problem. The force-of-increase-of-H.C. is unable to help until the force-of-decrease is dealt with. What is the solution to our predicament?

Take a look at this plan: First the force-of-good (increase in capability)-of-H.C., divides into 2 parts; each of which are of very High Capability. One of them stays back and remains separate from this whole situation. The other confronts the problem and comes together with us, and uses his lots of capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas of life, and in all areas. (-even if we wanted to, we couldn't separate the 2 forces in all areas, here on earth, because we don't have the capability to. And we never will because we're trapped at mediocre capability.) But both forces-of-good-of-H.C. do have the capability to separate the 2 forces in all areas; and the confronting HC force-of-good DOES, (or at least provides for, in the area of choice). With the force-of-evil (the force-of-decrease-in-capability), alone and separate, it consumes and destroys all capability within its grasp. And because of its infectiousness, and that this confronting-force-of-good-of-H.C. is here within its grasp; it destroys it too. Because capability is life, lives are lost and people are killed. The force of evil thus self destructs and brings itself to an end; but everybody is dead, or many are dead -even the confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who came together with us and did the separation of the 2 forces, was killed. What occurs next, is the other 'stayed back', 'stayed behind' (represented by '*') force-of-good-of-H.C., who has been away and separate from all this, comes into action. Since the force of evil is gone and has burned itself out, there is no danger to this *force-of-good-of-H.C.. And this *force-of-good-of-H.C. sorts the remains of those who like increase-in-capability into one place, and the remains of those who like decrease-in-capability into another place (and gives them what they want). This *force-of-good-of-H.C. then does what forces of good do - that is to increase capability, and brings these people back to life. And not just to mediocre capability, but to high capability. The confronting force-of-good-of-H.C. who provided for all this and was killed; was brought back to life of high capability too. Those who like decrease in capability are in a place where they can do that. (This is what makes hell so unpleasant -everybody goes around hurting each other with their high capability (that keeps on being replenished). -This is what they like to do, and thus want.) But they are kept separate from us who like to do increase-in-capability. This solves the problem. -Those of us who know about the force-of-decrease and who don't like it, are no longer trapped by it. We are at high capability, and are not forced to do it. -And since we know about it and have decided against it; we don't do it. So now we see that the force-of-good-of-H.C. has a sure fire way to defeat the force of evil for good.

 

The nature of hurt, harm and pain is a strange one. If you cut off and incinerate someone else's finger; you may say that it didn't hurt you, because you are not the capability-and-life that received the destruction. But the only capability and life that received destruction was the person's finger. It no longer exists, and so does not feel anything or any pain. What feels pain, is the remnant part of this person that received no damage, but that (who) was connected to the lost capability (the finger). The only reason you wouldn't feel pain, is because of the separation keeping people as separate entities. But as evil seeks to bridge separations, so as to harness forces of good and burn down capability/life within its grasp (so as to feed); then the pain and suffering will be felt throughout. So when you hurt someone, it will most surely come back on you as well as everybody else who is connected to this system who does not have separation from evil. I hope you see the futility of hurting people, even to punish people (especially non destructive rule breakers/victimless crimes). It just makes all of our lives who are connected to this system, a living Hell. It really doesn't matter whose fault it is or who is to blame. (With the exception of stopping those who are presently destructive, who themselves are more destructive than good. -then it's a tradeoff)

It is not the capability that was destroyed, but the remaining capability that was connected, that reacts to the loss, and feels* the pain -as it tries to carry on, now at reduced capability, now without the help from the destroyed material it had previously depended on. It must obtain the same good it used to get evil-free, now with chains and chains of accompanying necessary evils. It has just been thrown into reduced capability, the trap of evil; from its previous vantage point of being evil-free. And that doesn't feel very good. That's what pain is. *(There has to be something there, something alive to be able to feel.)

 

GOOD VS EVIL IN GREATER DEPTH: ATOMIZATION,, AND STAGNATION'S

PRECARIOUS BALANCE.

There is the 'inconsistency of the trap of evil' in my writing. If the trap of evil traps everything it comes into contact (togetherness) with, because of its infectiousness: How then can anything once trapped by evil, ever get out (to achieve separation of the forces in all areas)? How sturdy is this trap of evil?

What I am trying to examine, is raw evil against raw good; with these forces on equal footing, without outside interference (that is, before a fogoHC is created), to see how they turn out, and how well good fares against evil. We have already noticed that stagnation sets in when the forces of good and evil are together, and that this stagnation can go on forever. I want to examine this situation more closely here.

How sturdy is the trap of evil? Can it be proved impossible to get out for anyone over all time? Well, first of all, since evil (at best) is at mediocre capability, it would not be able to contact and control all the life that sprang up in the universe (randomly). And because of randomness, it is probable that some life systems spring up with mainly the force of good as their make-up. Now, because of the statistics of randomness, they would be in the minority; but that doesn't matter; because all it takes is one to succeed. These life forms of good, do not need to be successful at getting in contact with other life forms to succeed: only to overcome any remnant force of evil that is within them. They need to work within themselves to obtain complete separation from evil (by using (some of) what they've gained from previous separation, to accomplish more separation).

For the force of evil to succeed on the other hand; it must get in contact with all life in the universe. Its success requires this contact of other life forms to make sure no force of good outgrows it and becomes greatly more powerful than it; (and not so much doing work within itself). But the force of evil is unable to contact all life forms due to its own trap of mediocre capability.

Now, let us examine this trap of evil more closely, to see if it really is 100% effective in trapping everything it touches. The thing is, it has to be 100% effective to even have a chance of overcoming the force of good. 99.999% is not good enough. 99.999% means that one out of 100,000 will escape. And all it takes is one.

The trap of evil is that one is at mediocre capability, and is forced to do a large proportion of necessary evils just to survive, or obtain many of the good things they are used to. These necessary evils done, then negate any gains made, and keep the group at mediocre capability. This is how the trap of evil is proposed to work. But there is the area of 'good things we are used to'. If we refrained from some of these good things with much necessary evil; but instead obtained some other good thing with less necessary evil, with the resources, then we might be able to work our way out of this. So what we do, is to expand areas that do not have necessary evils, while we get by with as little as possible in areas that are loaded with necessary evils. (There are some processes that are not diminished by their use, while there are others that are. Like the use of a library does not diminish its ability to be an information center. But the use of a bag of cement for one building, diminishes its use for anything else, (unless you happen to be at a rather high capability).) So we work with an emphasis on areas that are not diminished by their use until we build up enough capability to get into other areas in this non destructive way.

When we are forced to do an equivalent amount of necessary evils just to survive, what then? But my question is, what is an equivalent amount that will exactly negate the gains produced by our survival? It seems to me that stagnation is a pretty precarious balance: -that we would tend to either go down in flames; or grow larger. ›This train of thought will be continued from the paragraph with the (*) in front of it. But for now I need to explore some background in some other areas; like the tendency towards atomization in systems with the forces of increase and decrease together.›

What I want to state now, is this: it is a conceptual impossibility to do both good, and evil, in the same area at the same time (to the smallest most specific unit of capability). Take any specific capability. What does it mean to increase and decrease at the same time? This is impossible. At any given point in time, a capability is at some level. This level is either increasing, decreasing, or constant. It cannot be both increasing and decreasing simultaneously. There may be a force trying to cause increase; balanced by a force trying to cause decrease; acting simultaneously on this one thing. But there is no movement in the level of this thing. Take for example a rocket ship. The force of gravity pulls downward on it. The thrust of the rocket engines pushes upwards on it. But the rocket itself can only have one direction describing it. We can say the rocket is increasing (if the thrust overcomes the gravitation). We can say the rocket is decreasing (if the gravitation overcomes the thrust). We can say the rocket is constant (if the gravitational pull equals the thrust). But we can't say that the rocket is increasing at time t1, and then turn around and say the rocket is also decreasing at time t1.

›If the rocket rose and fell at the same time, then at t1+5 seconds, it would be in two places at the same time. (It would have to expand to do this.) And this expansion (a byproduct of the togetherness of rising and failing), has no shrinking to counteract it.›

Now, if the rocket blows up, then some parts may go up and some parts may go down; and then we can say the rocket is increasing and decreasing at time t1. But if we are at the most basic and specific unit of matter or capability (in this case a rocket fragment); then there can be only one description of its motion (or lack of motion).

What does this lead to? Well, if we are forced to do actions that contain both increase and decrease, then that increase and decrease must be upon different (separate) areas, to have both increase and decrease be done. An action that tries to do both increase and decrease on the same area is likely to break it apart into smaller units; separate and divide it up. If it is not blown up (divided up), then no increase-and-decrease will have been done. Forces of increase and decrease done on a unit, often act on different component pats of the unit; and have a tendency to blow that unit apart if it is not strong enough to hold together.

We live in a world where both good and evil are heavily together. As we have just seen; systems with the togetherness of good and evil, cause all in their grasp to be divided up, blown apart, or 'atomized'. Since these fragments are all of less capability than the whole, they are less able to overcome the trap of evil (that forces them to do necessary evils, as a result of being at low capability). This isn't where the magic occurs. The magic occurs when these fragments attempt to grow back together. There are so many actions that do both good and evil, that every unit of life is atomized and fragmented. Those parts that happen to have more good done to them, and that are themselves good; are better able to grow. And they are better able to grow together to form groups-of-fragments. Thus the good grows together leaving the evil (and the disadvantaged) behind, still separate. (Separation itself isn't bad, but if something is evil it will consume itself in separation.) So in this coming together of the fragments, there's a tendency of the good to come together; and there's also an element of randomness. I want to state that, that element of randomness cannot completely be eliminated (or even nearly be eliminated) by the ruling forces of evil, Because of evil's mediocre capability.

›When things are coming-or-growing together after being fragmented; this is the problem or barrier of necessary-evil. -The problem of many life forms assembling themselves into a single life form, and thus being able to pool their resources without doing decrease in that pooling.›

SEMI TANGENT: In my description of necessary evil, I suggest the barrier of many life forms being able to assemble themselves into a single life form so as to pool their resources without decrease. But the journey of escape from the trap of evil (necessary evil), contains many barriers and milestones, of which this is just one (albeit a major one). END S.T.

(*)-STAGNATION IS A PRECARIOUS BALANCE CONT.- Although there is variation in the resulting size (of the fragments coming together before they're atomized again); there can be calculated an average size. The ruling forces of evil could then base the amount of destruction they allow, on this average size; so that the evil done, just destroys the gains made; as a way to maintain stagnation. The trap of evil is that on average, as much destruction is done as increase, so that no net gain is made. When low-capability-fragments with more good and growth are coming together; there's an element of randomness that neither these fragments nor the residing force-of-evil can totally or even mostly eliminate (due to their low or mediocre level of capability). This means there's a variation in the amount of capability that can grow together before its atomized again. Most of the time, a certain average size is observed. But once in awhile and more INfrequently, larger group sizes and power are obtained. It's these less frequent but greater capability-groups that can be able to achieve their nearest milestone (to escape from evil), and eventually work their way out and escape completely from evil. You may say all the ruling force of evil would have to do would be to increase the mix of evil (in the actions that contain good and evil) so that not even these infrequent, larger powered groups would be able to grow to reach their nearest milestone. But if evil did that, there'd no longer be stagnation! The smaller and more common group size would not be able to take it, and would shrink/vanish (die). If conditions were such that the infrequent, more powerful group was only able to hold its own; then the more common (average sized) smaller groups, would get blown away by these harsher conditions; and it'd be a shrinking universe with evil on its way to self destruction; (thus making room for some other life system to evolve). All it takes is for one to escape evil, for them to be able to come back and rescue the rest of us who are trapped by evil. Thus if there is not a fogoHC, there's a good chance there will be created one. And if there is a fogoHC, we can depend on him/her to rescue us from the trap of evil.

What we've just seen, is that due to variability, randomness, and that some do better than others; a few will be able to escape the trap of evil. It may take a long time, but a few will be able to escape. Once this has happened, things do not continue on like this with only a few escaping evil over a long time period. Now, with the existence of an escaped and powerful fogoHC; this fogoHC then does the plan to rescue all of us who want to be rescued; and now, everybody who wants to, escapes evil!

›A tangent: Given an action that has the togetherness of good and evil closely knit together within it; the results of that action, have both good and evil present, but the good and evil are now separate from each other to a greater degree (when this action blows something apart). So we see that the natural result of actions containing the togetherness of good and evil, is that they decay to produce good and evil that is more separate.› End tangent.

As an aside, I might note that atomization is a way of providing separation. The acts that contain both good and evil together; are a way of doing and providing separation. (This argument might be posed.) But this type of separation doesn't separate (just) the forces. It divides up whatever is in front of it, into little pieces. This type of separation does harm, and traps its subjects in the trap of evil. There is one unfortunate problem with using this way of separation: it never achieves separation (complete), because it depends on the togetherness of good and evil to provide it (just what separation sets out to eliminate).

Once free from the trap of evil, we no longer need to depend on the uneven distribution of resources to enable some to escape from evil (to come back and rescue us). Equality can then be instituted without the detrimental effects of stagnation.

 

 

 

Chapter 3

Dependence on God, the Nesting Problem, and Time"

 

Since its important for us not to operate at redued capability, we should depend on the fogoHC (to fill the function of what we do), and not depend on what we can do/produce.

But just because we depend on the fogoHC (to fill functions and needs), doesn't mean we stop/reject what we ourselves can do. Its just that we don't depend on IT, but instead depend on the fogoHC. We still do what we can. That still exists/is valuable. But it's no longer burdened with supporting us and is now free to grow evil free.

There are the things we can do. And there's the fogoHC. The fogoHC can fill in for and substitute for our actions of these very things. This creates a dual structure.

When we depend on the fogoHC, that itself is an action too. Our depending on the fogoHC while letting OUR doings go free -not burdening them, is itself also an action, and a 'thing' (#1). We treat this 'thing' (#1) do different than all the other 'things' (A-Z), so we also depend on the fogoHC to supply the function of this thing(#1). But our action to depend on the fogoHC for this, is also a 'thing' (#2).

Thing #1 and thing #2 are very similar in that they both involve depending on the fogoHC; but there may be some slight difference in that thing#2 is part of a nested, repeating set of awarenesses that is one order higher than thing#1.

But it is mostly the fogoHC Himself, and not our action to depend on Him that gets things done and actually fills the function (of everything we're depending on Him to fill). It's the versatility of the fogoHC that allows Him to do this (His infinite versatility comes from being at high capability) Though, its still true that the action-to-depend-on-the-fogoHC-to-fill-functions remains a bona fide action.

When the fogoHC does an action, that action is a part of Himself. These actions by the fogoHC (to fill the functions of things) are at high capability growing evil free because they are (part of) the fogoHC. They need no additional action of dependence-on-the-fogoHC to provide this because they are (part of) the fogoHC. It's only actions not done by the fogoHC that need the help of the fogoHC (to escape reduced capability the trap of evil). The action/awareness that we are to depend on the fogoHC, is the closest an action can get to the fogoHC while still being an action done by us. All the other actions and things done by us are further from the fogoHC. So all these other actions often come by this dependence action in their path to the fogoHC. All things make their journey to the fogoHC (or the fogoHC to them). And this may or may not include additional actions/awarenesses of dependence on the fogoHC. When (if) it gets to nested actions of: depending on the fogoHC, (to provide dependence on the fogoHC for, the providing dependence on the fogoHC) for, filling the function of all our other actions; -it is usually easier for a dependence action to finally find the fogoHC than to create another order of nesting. (another order of nesting doesn't add much of anything new.)

What I kind of mean by 'the journey to the fogoHC' is that these things grow so they have an awareness that the fogoHC is filling their function and to depend upon that and not themselves (so as to grow evil free). What I really mean by the 'journey to the fogoHC', is that these things grow eventually to become part of the fogoHC themselves.

The bottom line is that things experience evil free growth. The fogoHC plays a prominent role in this, as it is He who provides it.

A disclaimer:

I have no love for organized religion either. In the past they supressed Galelao. And they still heavy handedly suppress those who say what they don't like. For all the concerns by the Church against violations of human rights: they themselves lack a very basic human right -freedom of speech/expression.

As for belief in God, I am perfectly content to have you believe how you see fit concerning God; and also to have me believe how I see fit concerning God, even if it means that I believe and you disbelieve, or whatever.

The Bible it is said, is divinely inspired. Do not settle for second hand inspiration. Demand your own personal inspiration from God. (Why would God change His method -of personally inspiring people, in mid stream? by then leaving people to rely on 2nd hand inspriations) I think that God would reveal himself to you clearly, and that you would not have to strain to percieve Him. I would recomend that you search for God only when you want to, not because of any idea that you should or are supposed to.

Let me list a concrete fact:

We know for certain that if God exists, He has taken a hands off approach, and has not directly, visibly, absolutely revealed Himself to us.

What if someone wrote some stuff about God, and claimed it was inspired by God, but that was in reality, inaccurate or even a lie. Would this be enough to cause God to break His silence and set the inaccuracy straight? Well, I can see the possibility/probability that such a God would continue to be silent. So that just because the Bible is a book aboout God that claims to be true and from God; doesn't actually make it true (It doesn't make if false either. It could also be partly true or partly false). If God inspired these men who wrote the Bible; then He is entirely capable of inspiring each and every one of us in the same way. To accept anything less than your own personal inspiration from God, (such as second hand inspiration), is to allow possible inaccuracy in how God is really like. Each and every part of a writing about God, then requires an independent confirmation from God (in order to eliminate the possibility of human error/deception). Anything that involves men, I am suspicious of. In my experience, men lie. Men deceive. Men can be inaccurate. And the Bible has man's influence, as the hand of God did not visibly come down from heaven to pen the Bible. Man was involved in its writing, so much so that God's participation in such is visibly obscured. So that I have more problems with interpreting the Bible, than with the existence of God.

I had at one time asked why should God need any help in spreading the Gospel. But I think I overstepped my logic. Actually, it is OK for people to express their human desire for a God yet to be. Or it is also OK to help God in the area he needs help -that is in communication with humans without revealing himself completely. However, I was just dissapproving because of the great harm that has been done by nations of old taking along the mission to spread the Gospel, but what they actually did was to stamp out the native cultures they visited, and commit genocide.

 

 

THE NESTING PROBLEM

There is a central recurring problem I keep stumbling on; especially concerning common actions needed to be done to all things. In general form, the problem is: "Given things need to be acted on to fix or empower them; the action to do so is also a thing, that also needs to be acted on likewise. And if we then so act; then even this action is also another thing that too needs to be acted on likewise. Etc. etc.. This keeps snowballing with an infinite chain of nested actions each regulating the one before it. It's impossible to completely finish this task, and attempting to will exhaust all resources in useless, nested, regulating of regulation actions.

In my previous writing, I sidestepped the issue by saying a thing becomes part of the fogoHC and no longer continues in these nested actions. (The idea is not to bother wasting resources trying to accomplish an impossible task.)

Now, my final thinking concerning this problem:

When we're successful at something, it interests us, it generates new material, and we tend to work with it. But when we fail at something, we may tend to be frustrated and work all the harder; but eventually if we keep failing, we loose interest and don't do anything in it but move on to other things. We tend to let go of our failures, not wanting to remember them (and also unable to work with anything new in them because they didn't grow anything new). We'd much rather dwell on our successes and work with what we do well at. But whether we succeed or fail, it's wonderful to realize there's an almighty God (fogoHC) out there who loves us. Given such a God who cares about us; we can understand how He might desire we grow and advance in power and love, to also eventually be forces of good of high capability. To be able to advance and grow like this, a basic requirement is that we are able to make good choices for ourselves. If we're unable to think and decide, but need someone to do this for us, then we haven't grown much (above inanimate objects or instinct driven animals). Some believe we should be as little children in that we let someone else think and decide for us and blindly obey (although little children never blindly obey anything). That's not what God has done. Look around you, at what is self evident. God has for the most part, stepped back and allowed us to have our way with this world. God hasn't interfered with man's will. Just look around you and on the news all the pain and suffering and all the wrong things in this world. Why has God allowed all this suffering? Do you see a throne in the sky, or a glowing building where you can talk with God and here Him talk back audibly, and where He enforces his laws? (No, God deals/talks with each of us in the unseen ways through His Holy Spirit.) This world around us is not the finished work of perfection wrought by an almighty God where we are all living in harmony and love. No, what we see around us is dirty rags: a world in travail waiting to be born. Obviously, God highly values the development of our ability to think / make good choices; because He has let us have our way and our freedom (to screw up and make a stagnant mess of this world). An almighty God could step in and put a stop to this. But a God who loved us would value our development and advancement to grow in life and to think and choose well. It's like the non interference directive on Star Trek. Look around you. Has God stepped in visibly to rule here? It's obvious, that if there is a God: He has stepped back and let us humans have our own way. He thus must value our advancing into the ability to choose well and think and not just blindly obey.

So when we're working with things, the fogoHC may be able to do so much more, but He stays out of it, because He doesn't want to violate/interfere with our will or what we're trying to do here.

When you try something; just by the law of probability, sometimes you're going to succeed and sometimes you're going to fail (even when doing the same thing repetitively).

When we fail, we realize we can't hope to depend on or succeed in what we've done (for we've done nothing). Since the things we fail at are permanently out of play (they can do nothing on their own, and are so far gone that only the fogoHC can do anything with them); then there's nothing to interfere with the fogoHC's workings; for the fogoHC to gain permission from, or be free from evil from. Thus the fogoHC has a free hand here and creates wondrous results; far greater than the successes we create. We thus depend on our failures for the mainstay of our existence.

Since we've no preoccupation with depending on what we've done, (neither are we presently working with it): We thus have no hesitation to removing our will from most-of-us (giving our will-resources to a small-part-of-us); so that the Lord will have a free hand over this most-of-us, and can then come in and do wonderful things with it.

The reason we take resources-of-our-will away from most of us and give them to only a small portion of us that's most likely to succeed, is two fold. First, as just discussed, such an action clears us out of the fogoHC's way as we turn that part over to Him. But secondly, this action concentrates resources upon what small part we do give our will to. This is important so what we do, isn't at reduced capability, but is at as high capability as we can muster.

The purpose of our successes, isn't to be depended on for the mainstay of our existence, but to provide new ideas, new areas, and new growth for the fogoHC. We ourselves are the new growth. WE are the product. The fogoHC is advancing and developing US as living thinking intelligent beings able to handle more freedom and make good loving choices. However, we only need a small part of an area to do this. We don't need to take up the whole area. Our successes and our will only represent US, not the supplying and satisfaction of OUR needs. We depend on the fogoHC; not our own strength. (Look at your hand. It's made of meat. But you don't eat your hand even though it's meat because it's part of YOU.) If you try to put more of a burden on what-you-are, than just being you, you'll drive it to reduced capability. Remember, it's just barely making it being YOU, and pales in comparison to what the fogoHC is doing right beside you.

We should move out of most of an area and inhabit only a small part with our will. We need this degree of concentration into an area, to put US out of reduced capability; and to allow the fogoHC to produce as much as possible (since the fogoHC can do so much more). In any case, there's a fixed proportion where we move our will out of most of an area and into a small remaining part.

When we do this action (called the #1 action) to take free resources of our will from most of an area, and give them to only a small part of this area: this is also an action/area. Who does this action? Well, this area is treated as all other areas; and free will-resources are taken from most of it and given to only a small part of it. The end state (just like in all other areas) is that the fogoHC oversees/does most of it, while our name's only on a small part of it.

We're always growing and new parts of us are always being created. When a thing is first created (MAINLY FROM WHAT IS THE FOGOHC'S): When it is first created, it is all US 100%. Then 'we' do an action to move US out of most of this part and into a small fraction of this part. (This I call the #1 action.) Once the fixed proportion is achieved, the task is complete and no more of this #1 action is done on this part. When the #1 action is complete, each part of us has 2 representations. One is run by the fogoHC and is very powerful -a source of power for us; and is always free from evil. The other contains our will and just barely lives up to the glory of God and is often vulnerable to evil.

The Nesting problem: It is the fogoHC representations which are powerful enough to create and grow the new actions we do. But the new things created by the powerful-fogoHC-representations, aren't powerful because the #1 action hasn't been done to them yet. Only after the #1 action has been done, do newly-created-actions join the fogoHC representations and become very powerful. So all newly created actions need the #1 action done to them. But the #1 action is also a newly created thing that also needs it done to itself. So if we create a #1 action-(1) (from our powerful fogoHC representations) to be done upon the #1 action we did upon some other thing; then that #1 action-(1) is also a newly created thing that also needs the #1 action done to it. As we can see, this goes on and on and we'll never be able to catch up and do the #1 action to all newly created actions. This is the nesting problem I had spoken of earlier. What shall we do? Any solution first recognizes that the task of doing #1 action to all newly created action, will never be totally completed. But we can't live all our life at once either. This gives us a way to keep time, as we live out our lives.

The solution I propose, is to carry some over from the past. We need to realize there'll always be carryover from past actions. So what I do, is create a desired project action from my powerful fogoHC representations. I also simultaneously create a new #1 action(a) upon this newly created project action. And I also create a new #1 action(b) upon all past actions that have not yet had #1 action done to them (which happen to be old #1 actions themselves, in this setup). Note that #1 actions (a) and (b) are new actions, but that I allow them to go without doing #1 action upon them AT THIS TIME. When #1 action(b) is finished being done upon all past actions; I make a mark here in time by creating a new #1 action(b) (now free from #1 action upon itself) and is directed upon all past existing (#1) actions ((a) and (b)), that before I had let go without #1 action upon them, but now am doing it to them. All actions which had been allowed to go without #1 action, now have #1 action done to them; with only the newly created #1 action created after this point now being allowed to go without #1 action.

This goes in cycles. Each time #1 action is finished on the old 'past' actions, a new cycle is started, and all which was free of #1 action up till now, is now the new 'past actions' and now has (b) #1 action done to it in a new cycle. 'I' or (my powerful fogoHC representation), can vary the time it takes between cycles. By adjusting the proportion of project-action-and-#1-action(a), to, #1 action(b), that 'I' create, 'I' can change the cycle time. When I do lots of #1 action(b), then the past actions have the #1 action completed upon them much faster, thus spurring a new cycle much sooner. (This I usually do when evil is around and I am dissatisfied.) But when there's a project I have interest in, which takes a certain time, and there's no evil attacking; then 'I' can do more project actions-and-#1action(a) and less #1 action(b). With less #1 action(b), it takes it longer to finish with the past actions. And 'I' can adjust this so when my project is done, then my cycle's also done. But if my good project of interest has no time constraints and can be done in any quantity in any length of time, then 'I' can just do equal amounts of project-and-#1-action(a), vs, #1 action(b).

PERMISSION

Before the #1 action is done on a newly created part of us; that part is still US, and the fogoHC needs to get permission to do the #1 action on it. Since the fogoHC representation created this part; it creates in with it, the permission needed.

When our will is moved out to make fogoHC representation, none of our will is found in fogoHC representation. So 'we' never act out of our fogoHC representation (as an individual will).

Our fogoHC representation is balanced as it includes all non evil things. If we focus on something of interest, we may leave out things. This action is OUR will, and not fogoHC representation. So what we create, doesn't automatically have permission created with it. WE must also create permission via 'our' meager representation. And we must emphasize creating-permission, until our complete obsession has permission; so we can then return to the (balanced) fogoHC representation's way of creating.

The permission we create within what we do, has its permission for itself right there, and doesn't get into the nesting problem. But the permission we must create in our already-existing-self (for present actions), does have the nesting problem. (Since the person and the permission aren't the same entity here (the person was created long ago: the permission for a current event has just been created); then distinct permission actions are needed for each of them.) The permission we create as part of each new action, can keep an instantaneous tab on things. And since this permission doesn't need any complex past/present cycling, we can carry on quite simply for the most part. When we periodically update permission in our main self, just remember to also do some of this permission for past permission not yet 'permissed' for.

In 'our' representation; or US before the #1 action has been done to us, we can easily be too overloaded to do these complex things. Note, I no longer consciously do this mental cycling. I include this only to illustrate a solution to the nesting problem.

 

 

CHAPTER 4

"Gripping"

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION:

This chapter is the one referred to as 'the chapter on gripping' at various points in the book.

This chapter describes a struggle between good and evil as to which will get to neutral capability first. After this, we spend a lot of this chapter on the reasons why we need a balance with the actions that give us life. The discussion is centered around avoiding (the concept of) 'overextension'. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

There is a fallacy in my arguments on the separation of the forces in all areas. First I described what it'd be like if only the force of good totally alone and separate, were present. -That the force of good would grow forever and become very powerful. Then I described what it'd be like if the force of evil were the only fore around. -The force of evil would consume what could support it, and would shrink and burn itself out. It would come to a stop. Then I described how one fogoHC did an action of separation that would separate the forces in all areas. I assumed that action of separation would bring about this absolute separation of the forces, as if they were in universes completely by themselves. I went on to say that only forces were separated, But what about neutral capability? Neutral capability is neither force of good nor force of evil. Do we put it with the force of good, or the force of evil, or in a place by itself separated from both forces? (Forces of evil do not themselves produce capability; and only forces of good produce capability including neutral capability.) We decided the action-of-separation didn't guarantee protection of neutral capability. If the fogoHC were to protect all neutral capability, then there'd be no possible way to have any destruction or force of evil. With evil being impossible, there'd be no ability of choice; no ability to choose between good and evil. Because intelligent life does exist, this would prevent us from having a choice. Our capability-of-choice would be decreased or prevented from advancing. As we'll see later, it's imperative that the ability of choice even in this area, be advanced into; and this is why neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection.

The big problem is: if the neutral capability (produced by forces of good) is destroyed by evil, then what is expected from the action-of-separation (that is, a universe with only the force of good), isn't achieved. -If evil destroys the neutral capability the force of good produces, then the force of good doesn't grow. There is stagnation just like with the force of good and evil together. Good doesn't grow, and evil is fed and doesn't shrink. Effective separation then, is up for grabs.

Since neutral capability isn't guaranteed protection (because of free choice); evil can then destroy neutral capability. If evil destroys all the neutral capability a force of good produces, then there'll have been no increase in capability. With no increase done, the thing here can't be called a force of good. The former force of good is now neutral capability. It can then be destroyed by the force of evil as neutral capability, as it no longer is protected by force of good status.

(In future writings, 'undeveloped capability' is synonymous with 'neutral capability').

FogoHC life may not be aware of what everything is, but it certainly is aware of what it grows into and comes in contact with. Any evil parts it comes into contact with are not allowed entrance. Anything non evil that comes into contact with this fogoHC life, becomes a part of this life, together with the fogoHC, and becomes fogoHC life too. So, this fogoHC life can grow into non evil areas just be coming in contact with them. And when a neutral capability(1) becomes part of a force of good(2) by being in contact-together with it(2); it(1) becomes protected due to its new 'force of good' status.

When undeveloped capability comes in contact with the min (minimum) fogoHC (through the contact growth of gripping), it becomes a force-of-good and fogoHC life. To be a force of good, means capabilities are increased. What capabilities does this new force of good increase? Well, it only takes one capability increase to be a force of good; (but this would mean choosing one capability over another), so all capabilities are increased.

A tighter grip on the parent materials (which produce new capability) won't cause what's yet to be created, to be fogoHC-life before it's created. A tighter grip on the parent materials, however, will put what is created, closer to the fogoHC life, so it is transformed into fogoHC life much more quickly. Let's look at the parent materials that are being held or gripped by the fogoHC life: Since thse parent materials are being gripped, they are in contact with the fogoHC life, and are thus made part of this fogoHC life (#1 action and togetherness). This is then fogoHC life gripping itself. And yes, the tighter the gogoHC life can hold itself together, the more quickly it can come in contact with the new capability it creates.

If an undeveloped life isn't being attacked, then it feels fine and feels no pain. Eventually it is touched by the fogoHC life and becomes fogoHC life (#1 action and togetherness). But if the force of evil steps up its attack, then evil may catch undeveloped life before it is touched by the fogoHC, and destroy it. The response or reaction by fogoHC life is to grip tighter so the fogoHC-life touches the undeveloped-life before destruction gets to it.

We must realize that there's a struggle going on, and that pain is just the battle report for what area needs reinforcement. It's a contest to see who can get to the newly created neutral capability first. We must realize the cause of pain is from the force of evil, which acts independently of the fogoHC. It's a struggle that's not yet over, but that victory is in sight. Effective separation is gained piecemeal, in the play by play, in the 'nitty gritty'.

Gripping is only part of the reaction I've been speaking of, to enact effective separation. What the fogoHC grips (and joins together with), is as important as the gripping itself. All fogoHC life has awareness of what is good, evil, or neutral. FogoHC life grips selectively from the undeveloped life only that which is non evil. Anything evil is not gripped because forces of evil are always separated from forces of good (of HC). This selectivity is actively pursued, and every non evil part is ferreted out and gripped, while the evil parts are not gripped. Even with an individual action or person that contains both non evil and evil: there is found a way to grip all the possible non evil there; while leaving the evil parts alone. This selectiveness in the gripping works hand in hand with the gripping itself to provide effective separation. The action of separation does not separate undeveloped capability. This is provided by gripping and selectiveness in gripping.

Note that the pain from evil need not lead us as to our path of growth. Gripping (#1 action and togetherness) isn't only useful in keeping effective separation when under attack by evil: it's also a pleasurable thing to do even when not under attack. At first contact, undeveloped life becomes fogoHC life and is thus protected from evil. But growth doesn't stop here. It continues on and includes tighter and tighter gripping, and advancement of the new force of good. A by-product of this is that it protects newly created undeveloped life from evil. Also note that forces of good are what produce (neutral) capability. And if the producing force of good is separated far away from evil, then the neutral capability produced will also be away from evil.

When the joint venture of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping on itself; there's a circular feedback created that produces tremendous quantities of growth.

When forces of good are producing capability; they can either produce new forces-of-good; or new neutral-capability. Forces of good are made of capability. And for one force of good to produce a second force of good; is a force of good producing a force of good. A force of good can also be a force of good, by producing neutral capabilities.

There are great advantages for forces of good to produce more forces of good, as opposed to neutral capability. For one thing, the newly created force of good can in turn produce force of good of its own; and an exponential increase in the production of the force of good will result. Whereas, with the increase of neutral capability, only a flat rate of capability increase is achieved, and no new force of good is produced. For another thing, the forces of good are protected by the fogoHC, while neutral capability is not. Thus forces-of-good producing forces of good, is more advantageous than forces of good producing neutral capability.

However, before something can be a force of good, it usually has to have some minimum level of capability. Like, it might help if something were alive, so it could reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so it could rise above random action, which produces decrease(destruction) as well as increase(growth). Thus even though the forces of good may want to increase force-of-good capability right away, they have to go through an increase of neutral capabilities to reach a minimum level, before forces of good can start increasing forces of good. (And, a neutral capability cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it is produced. ›But when it is produced/created; who says it has to be a separate entity from the fogoHC? Isn't the fogoHC in contact with it to create it? Yet this is not necessarily so, if only a f.o.g. (especially if not together with the fogoHC), creates it.›)

When a force of good that is able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact (together) with neutral-capability produced by forces of good; that neutral-capability becomes a part of the fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a picture of the fogoHC going about gripping forces of good and gripping the neutral capability that all forces of good initially produce. After the neutral capability has been contacted and is a part of the fogoHC; it is no longer neutral capability but part of the fogoHC. Being a part of a force of good, it thus begins to increase or help in the increase of capabilities. With more neutral capability being produced; those forces of good who can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC), have more neutral capability to grip, and thus turn into force of good capability. As we can see, there is always more and more neutral capability (to grip) that is being produced. But where does the capability go after it has been gripped and is a marginal force of good?

Well, there are 2 possibilities:

A) it goes no further and serves to produce neutral capability for the fogoHC. it

remains at about its original level of capability and fails to advance: being frozen at some

level of advancement so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it advances no further.

or possibility B

B) it could advance in its abilities to first become alive; then advance in intelligence;

and finally become a fogoHC. it continues to advance and eventually becomes a

fogoHC itself.

With possibility A, more and more neutral capability is produced. The amount of it increases exponentially. But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There is no growth in the fogoHC because no lower capabilities are allowed to become fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is taking lower forces of good and advancing them to be a fogoHC.

This is not example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do this. It finds itself with an ever growing supply of neutral capability to make contact with. It might get swamped by the size of it. It needs to grow in size to match the growth of the neutral capability. It could try and make itself more powerful and become of higher capability within itself. But whether it could do this or not is uncertain; whereas the creation of itself has been proven possible by its own existence. The fogoHC must increase its own power at an exponential rate just to keep up with the neutral capability. But this is unlikely as the fogoHC would be increasingly more busy trying to handle the exponential growth of the neutral capability, that it would have less and less time to work on its own advancement. Also, it is into uncharted areas, as it has never been that powerful before. It is a driven and desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up a growth output and is driven by growth needs, if it can keep up at all.

In this picture of a universe, it is easy to see how a fogoHC could become overextended and how the marginal force of good and neutral capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and eventually become unmanageable. It could cease contacting the neutral capability, but that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus the force of evil would step in and stagnation would result after some point of expansion.

Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe where the basic forces of good produced, do advance to finally become a fogoHC. With possibility B, there would be more and more fogoHC to keep up with the more and more neutral capability being produced. There would be no problem of the fogoHC getting swamped. Here, the contacting of the ever-growing neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC that is also growing exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in uncharted areas; only in the replication of more of itself, which by its existence, has already been proven possible to do.

So it's very probable that not only does the fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and turn them into marginal force of good capability; the fogoHC also advances these marginal-good capabilities to be very intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)

As forces of good are advanced, eventually they become alive. They develop the ability to think and make choices and have a will. When the fogoHC contacts us in gripping as a human being; that contact creates a force of good self. The fogoHC wants to also contact the neutral capability our force of good self produces. If the fogoHC were contacting a force of good that had no mind or will; it would also contact the neutral capability it produced. But when a minimum level in the force-of-good is reached, so that the capabilities there represent the basic minimal human being, then the fogoHC must now take into account and partnership, this basic will self, for gripping of the neutral capabilities to occur. For the fogoHC to come in and grip the neutral capability that this living thinking force of good produces, without permission, would be a decrease in capability. When a force of good had no ability of thought and no mind; there was no will for the fogoHC to get permission from. So the fogoHC could come right in and grip the neutral capability produced. But now that this force of good has advanced to possess the ability to think and have a will; what then? Well, if the fogoHC jumped right in and gripped the neutral capability produced by this living thinking force of good; then there'd be no choice for evil. Everything would be all good. Goodness would be insured and the only thing available. The reason we have evil, is because some have chosen evil. To be able to advance and develop the ability of choice; it must be possible to actually produce what we choose. The two valid and possible choices are: good alone, vs, good and evil together (with evil feeding off of good). To have choice in this area, it must be possible to obtain either of these as a result of our choice.

Otherwise there's really no choice yet (in this area). The fogoHC wouldn't yet have advanced these forces-of-good to the ability of choice; as they'd never be able to demonstrate a single choice in this most important area of choice: the choice between good and evil. The fogoHC himself, has and exercises the choice between good and evil. For humans not to have this choice means that the advancement of forces-of-good stops short of becoming forces ogoHC. And this is just not so, as it would create a difficult bind for the fogoHC (as we've seen).

When the joint venture capability of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping upon itself; there's a circular feedback that produces tremendous quantities of this specific growth and gripping capability. When the capability-of-growth-and-gripping does growth and gripping on some other area, (or on a whole that contains much in addition to itself); less or none of the growth-and-gripping-capability is produced. There is no circular feedback that provides for greater growth. In both cases (circular feedback, vs, other things), growth and gripping does produce protected groth of what's being gripped.

Growth/gripping done on itself, produces growth, or growth resources. Contained within our growth resources, is our basic self and our ability to choose. Choice and our will come from here.

Concerning 'growth resources': in our real world, we almost never can be so general as to call something a 'growth resource' to start out. Usually it is only a growth and increase of specific products, in a narrow and focused way. For example, a process and equipment that cans tomatoes would be of little use in trying to make nuts and bolts. Only as we advance, can we be involved in producing more versatile and universal growth resources, that have the potential to do increase over a wide range of areas. For example, robots (industrial), can be programmed to do a number of different tasks. But before a society can build robots, it must have an industrial and manufacturing system already in place.

Our ability to choose, our will, and our basic self; is centered here in these potential-growth-resources and the activation of them. For example, if there's something you want to do but don't have the resources to do it, then you can't do that thing. -And you really don't have choice in this area. What you spend your (potential) growth resources on is what your choice is.

The conversion of potential-growth-resources to active-growth-resources; is what choice is. So, the more versatile-potential-growth-resources (and the ability to activate them); the more choice we have.

To have choice we must have not only the potential to go one way, but also the potential to go other ways. --(If we have the potential to go just one way, there's little choice in that.) So the versatile-potential-growth-resources are the center of choice, and are choice.

A SUPPLY OF (POTENTIAL) GROWTH RESOURCES (WHICH IS CHOICE), COMES

FROM A CHOICE TO ACTIVATE GROWTH-RESOURCES TO PRODUCE MORE

GROWTH RESOURCES: (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'GROWTH, OF GROWTH

RESOURCES')

When you spend your growth resources in different areas that you want to do (and choose to do), these areas grow. But these areas of project or pleasure that you want (and that are growing), aren't in themselves your basic self. Remember, your basic self and choice and your will, is your supply of versatile-potential-growth-resources; not the projects you choose to activate. Without these growth resources you'd not be able to make choices. And your projects and pleasures do not necessarily produce growth resources. They just produce the growth of the project or pleasure. Because your versatile-potential-growth-resources are versatile, they themselves are best suited to produce more of themselves. The production of your project or pleasure is more narrow and is not so versatile.

Note that growth of growth resources (which is choice of choice), is also referred to as the growth/gripping done on itself in a circular feedback.

THE CONCEPT OF OVEREXTENSION.

We would think that if a person achieved all their goals and had everything they wanted, they'd be happy. But this isn't the case. Humans go berserk when they actually achieve and receive the good things that life has to offer. For those who are able to obtain what they desire; they find that these things become their torment. It's like Star Trek's garden of Eden where all the fruits were poison.

Because of this, deliberate barriers are put in our way so we cannot obtain much of these things. Our jobs, our government and our system are deliberately designed to frustrate our attempts to achieve any goals or pleasures we might have. This is done not against us, but in compassion to us and for our benefit.

Now, you say, how can the achievement of good, wholesome, kind, gentle and loving things be detrimental to me? Well, good things have to do with growth. Good things are growing things. -forever getting better. So the good and pleasurable things in life, are growing things. Well, something has to grow and increase then. It is our growth resources that grows and increases them.

Growth itself causes no problem. It is our ability to focus the growth on selected areas that causes our pleasure problem. In many cases, that focus is forced upon us; as the narrow range of our beginning 'growth processes', (as mentioned previously).

When we apply our growth-resources to the areas of a project or pleasure, obviously these areas grow. Since there can be much more than just our basic will self, we're often apt to get into projects and activities we enjoy. These areas grow and keep growing. But since we're not focusing on our basic will self / growth resources; these don't grow. The greater size of our projects and enjoyable activities pulls us to do more gripping on them, as they keep growing, needing more attention, resources and concentration to manage them. We thus become more absorbed in our projects / enjoyable activities. These continue to grow but our basic-will-self ›(and our even increase of all non evil things including the uninteresting low levels and that which doesn't benefit us)› stays the same, as we don't increase gripping on our basic-self/production-of-growth-resources. Pretty soon we're so frantic, busy and absorbed in our projects and pleasures, that we don't have a spare moment to grip our basic will self / growth resources. Our projects/pleasures keep growing while our basic self and consciousness stay the same. We find ourselves swamped by the size of it. We've overextended ourselves, and from now on I'll term this state 'overextension'. The torture of it is that we see all the wonderful things that are out there, but we're too small to enjoy hardly any of it. This is a great emptiness that is just hard to take. It's motivation enough to do destruction.

Once growth resources are spent growing the project or pleasure area, there's little left to grow the growth resources, to provide more growth resources. There's no circular feedback that provides a supply of growth resources. With a neglect of the production of growth resources, the growth resources soon run out, leaving the person hanging at a standstill (and at reduced capability).

Perhaps the Growth Resources aren't consumed in their use. Then the application of a growth resource causes a continuing, endless production of what it was applied to. These project and pleasure areas then grow increasingly faster, while the growth resources and the person's basic self grow at a constant and much slower rate, since the focus is toward the pleasure or project; and not the production of growth resources and the person's basic self. It is then the out of balance growth, and our absorbing focus solely on the project or pleasure, (over our basic self / production of growth resources), that causes our problem.

When a person finds themselves busier and busier just to keep up with the expanding project area, they could do some gripping on their basic self / growth resources so that these grew also; but after a certain point of no return, the project areas absorb the person so much taking all their energies) that they can't find a spare moment to do this. One might ask, why don't they put down what they're doing when it starts to overgrow them? Well, once one starts something non evil; to put it down would be a decrease in the growth of that capability. It would be a decrease of a growth capability. This overextension happens in our force of good self. Most of us like to think of ourselves as good people, successful people (growing all the time); so we are reluctant to stop or put down our project area. ›(Doing so would generate Godly parts needing to be halved.)› Also: Because this action is a decrease and all, we might fear that the fogoHC, who casts away decrease and evil, will cast us away. The fact that stopping and putting down the project area interrupts/halts the overextension; is often misinterpreted to mean, evil and the force of decrease is a needed and valuable part of life. This occurs when people find through living life, that doing this decrease and evil helps here, in spite of their desire and idealism to be all good with no evil.

Destruction in the mild form, can be to stop growing the project or pleasure. (This is a decrease of a growth capability). Destruction because it is so unlike pleasure and growth, can be used to take our minds and focus off our pleasure long enough to restore our basic self, (when in transit between pain to pleasure, or, pleasure to pain). Destruction can also be used to cut down the size of the project or pleasurable area so as to be more manageable ›(and at red cap for separation of the forces)›. Destruction can be used to cut down that non evil part within us that keeps stimulating us to do the pleasure or project. This is otherwise known as self discipline self denial or repression.

The presence of destruction causes a world where the forces of good and evil are together. There is a balance between pleasure, joy -vs- pain. Even the person in overextension has the togetherness of good and evil. As their project or pleasure gets out of hand and becomes too large to be manageable, the person is no longer able to protect it from the force of evil. The person grows to some large size, and at that point their growth is stopped, as evil easily picks off any further capability increase (that is of course, when refusing to accept help from the fogoHC). Growth is halted, stagnation sets in, and its a classic example of the forces of good and evil together.

If you have grown up in a structured world where your life is regulated and you have been prevented from achieving much enjoyment or pleasure; you don't know that there's a danger in achieving your desires (whatever they may be -because you've never been allowed to achieve your desires). You would think these people are just exploiting you for your share of pleasure for themselves; or that they are somehow diabolically evil, and why are they doing this to you? But actually they are preventing you from the sad fact that too much pleasure can kill. You see, with too much pleasure, the active working of the force-of-increase is stifled because there are no more improvements-to-be-made in the immediate vicinity. We need to seek out those areas that need help, with our high capability, so that the force of increase may continue.

They balance pleasure with pain so that you may survive, to carry on just about the only existence possible: a very meager and ragged existence. History and societal evolution has proved that other paths are out gunned.

Human minds have the marvelous ability to provide solutions to problems much quicker and much more efficiently than evolution can. "Human life can transform the single celled egg into a living human person in 9 months: where it took evolution many millennia and a lot of waste to do the same." Being aware that there is a pleasure problem; that there's a problem with pleasure; allows us a better chance of solving the problem in ways that improve the quality of life, as opposed to us being unaware of the problem and stumbling through life, allowing evolution to solve this problem for us.

A problem with overextension is the problem of focus. The action of focus contains inherently within it, both a decrease and an increase. When we focus our growth; we take growth away from everything but the area of focus (this is a decrease), and deliver it only to the area of focus (this is the increase).

Any overall growth of everything the human is, (including the growth of their basic self and their growth resources); would eliminate the unbalanced growth of overextension. In other words, if we refrained from focusing growth, and did non focused growth, then we'd be OK. But often focus is forced upon us because of poverty or our beginning. And there are also advantages to focusing. If we did not neglect the growth of our growth resources and devoted an equal focus to them, as well as our pleasures; this would solve our problem. Now that we know about these things and these solutions, perhaps we can enjoy life without being harmed by such enjoyment. These ways of providing for balanced growth are much better than some of the solutions developed by societal evolution. Some of the archaic solutions provide for our survival but leave an undesirable quality of life as the only option. It almost seems that we need pain and suffering and destruction in order to survive; and that we can't do without it. (Our projects are not alive. If we produce too much project without also producing life, then there won't be enough life around to enjoy the project; and so what's the use of producing so much project?)

Before we get into the solution to the decrease of focus that allows us to do focus without decrease, and neutralizes focus's intrinsic decrease; and also why we need focus at all and what useful benefits it provides: I want to discuss some of the coping mechanisms societies have used to combat this very same problem of overextension. I wish to continue on with my discussion of these coping mechanisms.

What good is pain and suffering in solving the problem of overextension? We can choose to live a life in the absence of pain or pleasure; or we can experience pain and pleasure. The more pleasure we do, the more pain we receive to pay for it.

Because children are ignorant about the world, they will outgrow their toys many times. What they like to do will change many times, as they grow and learn about the world around them. Because of this constant change, they do not have time to become overextended in their pleasures. Thus childhood is a time we can naturally be happy. Anyone who spoils the happiness of a child is cruel indeed. Anyone who sexualizes a child is also cruel, because that is one pleasure that will not change, and leads to early overextension.

This is also why we have so much change in our society. The action of change is a mechanism where we can deal with the problem of overextension in a positive way and a way that doesn't involve much destruction. If our projects and constructions become obsolete before we put them to much use, then we may not accomplish much as we keep switching from project to project; but at least we save ourselves; using this change as a tool to deal with the problem of overextension. Even when change does not represent any change (advancement or decline) in the technology, but just a different way of doing the same thing; it still helps us over our problem of overextension.

There is much more pain in the world than pleasure because it's easier to get overextended by pleasure than by pain. Pain has inherently in it something we don't like. Since we don't like it, we won't do anything to overextend ourselves in it; and when we're not forced to do anything about it, we drop it. (It is self ending.)

This overextension problem is why we have so much senseless violence and unfairness. The violence and unfairness takes our minds off our pleasures for awhile.

Take a look at the societies around you today, and then look at history. The societies in existence today are the result of many generations of societal evolution. Only societies with a balance of strictness, pain suffering, and a prevention of pleasure, have survived.

We duck in and out and between buildings so as to protect us from the beauty of nature. We sleep indoors every hot summer night to protect us from the beauty of the heavens at night. We pollute the environment to eliminate some of the beauty to make room for us to have a place to live. We wear cloths to protect us from the beauty of our bodies.

This paints a pretty bleak picture of human life on earth. We cannot enjoy life only, and survive. If we are to survive, we must live a life without much quality.

But good news. There's a solution free from destruction and suffering that also allows us to survive and prosper. Now that we realize the problem of overextension and have a better solution to it, we can live our lives with better quality and we don't need the makeshift solutions anymore. So when we encounter stress or a stimulus for growth, we get more into gripping on gripping (as opposed to gripping on a project area). The tremendous growth produced in the circular feedback of gripping on gripping, in our will self, will then overflow into our project area, and provide the growth we desired. And we'll be in a position to enjoy it, as our basic self will be big enough to enjoy what's around it. Well, of course we must test this new and claimed-to-be-better solution, to see if it works. Try it in your life. The alternatives aren't really worth it to me.

Now I return to an analysis of focus; the act of focusing our resources:

In our focused and extremely specialized society; it's difficult for us to get away from focus and do unfocused, universal growth. When gripping is focused; the action of focus, takes gripping from all areas (except the area of focus); and delivers it to the area of focus. The action of focus is thus both an increase and a decrease of the gripping-growth capability (or potential for growth).

When we focus gripping (and growth) on too limited/narrow an area; this leads to our problem of unbalanced growth, or overextension. We've said that if we could do a simultaneous gripping-on-the-growth-resources (which is gripping focused on gripping itself); then we could balance the growth to a large degree. However, a problem with the narrow and sharp focus, is that it doesn't include an intelligence or common mind to coordinate between gripping-on-a-project vs gripping-on-gripping; there's no balance.) Thus the area of focus must be widened to include a common mind in each focus unit. (The focus on project would actually be a focus on project-plus-common mind. And the focus on gripping would actually be a focus on gripping-plus-the common mind.) The common mind coordinates simultaneous equal gripping in these areas so there's balanced growth.

There's a contradiction to sharp focus gripping. Since the intelligence (which did the sharp-focus) isn't in the area of sharp focus; it is taken away from (All the growth goes to the sharp focus). When this intelligence that does the sharp focus is completely emptied by the sharp focus itself; then there's nothing to do sharp focus, and sharp focus comes to an end./

We eliminate the decrease from focus, by putting it in an equilibrium, a tug of war, with itself. If we focus on one area, this takes gripping and (growth) from the surrounding areas and delivers it to this area of focus. But if we simultaneously do focused gripping on all the other areas, then the gripping lost by an area through focuses on the other areas, is returned by the focus on this particular area. Thus no gripping or (growth) is actually lost (or gained).

In a large focus gripping equilibrium, that encompasses all of ourselves, all areas are represented. But the area of gripping-on-gripping is special, because it determines whether there'll be growth or not. It's possible to have an equilibrium that stagnates. But since this is like the result of the forces of good and evil together, it's not a desirable option. Thus the gripping on gripping is given a superior position in our equilibrium so there's as much gripping-focused-on gripping as on all the other focus areas combined. This is needed because all the other areas consume growth-resources, while only the gripping-on-gripping area produces them.

In intermediate focus, we include our mind to direct the equilibrium (and balance) between our individual intermediate-focus units. We may not be aware of the details of other focus units from within our common mind, but these detailed awarenesses still exist outside our common mind as part of the larger equilibrium in the individual focus units. An inclusion into our common mind that 'there's more', might not be a bad idea. But the beauty of intermediate-focus-gripping is that we don't have to be aware of everything to enjoy a few simple pleasures. The purpose of intermediate-focus-gripping is to preserve and enhance the individuality of each individual capability-and-focus-area; so the benefits of each doesn't get lost in the combining together of all the capabilities and areas as a whole.

When we combine individual capabilities together to form a whole, each individual capability often looses something to the group, and conformity to the group norm. The intermediate-focus-gripping is a way to retain the individual qualities, while still reaping the benefit of the group. What's the sense of this focusing equilibrium if it causes no change in the gripping capability for each area? The answer is that it provides separation. There's more separation for each area; and the loss of mixing all these areas together into one unit, is eliminated.

When we mix colors together, they become a drab brown. There is something lost in the mixing.

Consider a chemical production sequence. If we do a sequence of reactions separate from each other, we get the desired product. But if we mix all the reactions and chemicals together all at once, many of the reagents will neutralize and negate each other, and we end up with a mess. Take a look at large and small political groups: In small groups, more extreme and detailed positions can be found. But in large groups, the extreme positions neutralize each other and compromise leaves a more moderate and general platform.

When we bring individual, separate capabilities together to form a whole, opposing parts of the individual capabilities negate and neutralize each other, and something is lost. It's this intensity and individuality of the individual capabilities, that this focus equilibrium restores.

Each of the b.i.f. or (balanced intermediate focus) units, aren't bogged down by the operation of the other b.i.f. units. The whole purpose of these separate focuses (that all include the common mind), was to bring out the individuality of each unit. An individual unit has a link (the common mind) which only contains general instructions of the other units. It's not filled with the intricate details of the other units as this'd hinder the individual expression of this particular unit. The intricate details of the other units are contained in their respective areas of b.i.f. focus. Because of focus; when we're acting out of one unit, we may be unaware of the other units to a degree. We're aware of an abbreviated presence of the other units through our common mind; but not of the other units in detail. This we must 'take it by faith' that these other units are working simultaneously and as intricately as the unit we're in at the moment. (To be intricately aware of the other units would spoil the very individuality we're trying to preserve.) Our mind is divided up into different focus units; the detailed parts of which don't come together.

We have both the abbreviated version of a thing, and the detailed version of the thing simultaneously. There's no need to be confused over which one is correct to have; they're both correct in their respective areas.

 

 

CHAPTER 5

Our Sequences

 

Chapter Introduction:

The first part of this chapter further develops the idea begun in the last chapter, about preserving the intensity (and individuality) of things. These are the segments on unresponded-to-happenings (or urt.happenings for short).

The rest of the chapter is divided into two parts.

Part A develops the concept of choice-from-versatile-potential-resources.

Part B reveals growth of growth resources (or gogr for short) as the source of growth and versatile potential resources; and that the growth from gogr is shared with project. These ideas take the form of the refraining action (representing gogr), and the altering action (representing project). Also introduced, is the idea of our repetitive generational sequences, for gogr and project. END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

THE GENERATION OF, AND ACCUMULATION OF, UNRESPONDED-TO-

HAPPENINGS, IN WORKING WITH OUR GOOD THINGS.

When we're working with our good things; our work has results and those good things grow. These good things always remain with us as they're never separated away, like evil things are.

The new good things (that have grown from the original good things); exist as unresponded-to, because they didn't yet exist when the original good things were being worked with. As we can see; when we respond to and work with our good things, they grow and generate more good things that need to be responded to.

There are a number of things we could do with the new happenings that are generated. We could respond to them as soon as they're created. Or, we could, not-respond to them right away. If we don't respond to them right away; we experience an accumulation of unresponded-to happenings.

In working with these accumulated good happenings, we will vary our states: cycling in an accumulation phase, and a response phase. We want to allow these generated happenings to accumulate for a time as unresponded-to; and then we want to respond completely to that accumulation. The reason we want this cycling and variation instead of responding to these happenings as soon as they're generated; is to allow them to come together out of atomization. But if we let them accumulate too long, negation is the undesired result.

As mentioned: our good things never end, and it's up to us to pick a size and duration to respond to.

If we pick too small of an interval and amount of good things, then we'd be doing lots of switching, and would interrupt basic tasks. We would also atomize the generated happenings.

If we pick too large an interval and wait too long to respond to the accumulation; then negation would occur. Opposing motions would collide, neutralize each other, and become spread out and dissipated; thus loosing their intensity and individuality. We want to avoid negation.

AVOIDANCE OF ATOMIZATION AND NEGATION, GUIDES AS TO HOW LONG

WE ACCUMULATE UNRESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING (THAT IS GENERATED

FROM RESPONDED-TO-HAPPENING), (BEFORE WE RESPOND TO IT).

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

urt.happening.

When I speak of the optimal accumulation of urt.happening that avoids atomization and negation: I mean this only in a time context.

If we wait too long in a buildup state to respond to the happening; the happening will have passed. Let's say we light a fire, but show up after it has burned out. All the heat energy still exists in the air molecules that were heated up. The energy still exists and hasn't been destroyed. In a sense, the fire continues to exist. But the intensity of it is gone. This is the negation I speak of. After too long a time, the surrounding elements dissipate the intensity of the fire, and cause negation. So we need to respond to the happening within its own time frame (internal limitations permitting).

Concerning atomization: If we respond to a happening in small bits and pieces as soon as those small bits of the happening are created; then these responses can only be directed at the happening that exists, and not the rest of the happening that's yet to be created. This atomizes and interrupts the happening. The small bits of responded-to-happening start to generate their own small bit size of urt.happening, that are out of phase and not coordinated with the other small bits of urt.happening; (which thus makes it impossible for those small bits at different stages of development to come together out of atomization and share their resources in a balanced and cooperative way). Atomization describes the situation. Now, if instead, we do less response project; each generation of urt.happening would have the time to grow together into its full intensity before being responded to.

One may ask, how does responding to a happening change anything, and stop negation? Well, one of the actions of our intelligent response is to keep individual things separate so that their opposing motions do not neutralize one another. Also; when we respond to groups of the optimal time (that avoids both negation and atomization), then this group of happenings has had time to come together out of atomization and develop its full intensity before being responded to and generating a new group of unresponded to happening that is also in phase.

PART A

IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING; WE ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE CHOICE.

I may choose to live in a castle. But if I do not have the versatile-growth-resources to make this happen; then I cannot obtain this choice. -I really don't have choice in this area. Thus choice is the presence of versatile potential growth resources and the activation of them. Before we do anything, we need versatile potential growth resources; before we can activate those potential growth resources. Thus choice comes first. We have choice before we have anything else. Thus we are always able to do choice choosing choice, if we are able to do anything. (This assumes our growth resources are versatile.)

THE CASE WHERE OUR GROWTH RESOURCES ARE NON VERSATILE,

DOESN'T ENTER INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF CHOICE; BECAUSE THE

FOGOHC COMPLETELY HANDLES AND ADVANCES NON VERSATILE AREAS:

SINCE NO PERMISSION IS NEEDED WHERE THERE'S NO WILL OR

CHOICE, (WHEN GROWTH RESOURCES AREN'T VERSATILE), THAT IS.

Without versatile growth resources we have little choice; although we can act narrowly. But without a will or choice there's no intelligent life to get permission from, so the fogoHC comes in and runs this completely. There's no unbalanced growth here. But the fogoHC advances this state in versatility so it develops a will; which could then choose unbalanced growth if it wanted: it now has choice.

PART B

GOGR IS SPECIAL.

Gogr is the source of all growth. This means that everything else, as projects, aren't the source of (versatile) growth. This means things you are told to do may not be gogr or sources of growth. You have a mind and can think. And already have some idea as to what gogr are within you. Only you know how you feel and It's your feelings that effect your life. And only life causes growth. When your environment requires growth, run to gogr, not these other things that are claimed to be the solution to your lack of growth. If your environment requires growth from you in an unfriendly way; since gogr delivers growth; why not do a little more growth and cast out the unfriendliness and overthrow it?

If we place gogr and the fogoHC in the position of supplying growth, then we need not put Mao, our boss, or some technology, in that position, or depend on them for our growth. Note that only gogr and the fogoHC delivers the growth sought for. Mao, our boss, or some technology all fall short of being suppliers of all sorts of growth (versatile gogr); and fail to deliver.

Realize the connection between gogr and choice-or-choice within you, (that choice of choice within you is a large part of gogr).

Note: there's nothing wrong with runaway 100%gogr because it is self supporting and needs no outside resources. But there is something wrong with runaway project because it doesn't produce the resources it needs to supply its ever increasing growth requirements and resource consumption.

OUR REPETITIVE GENERATIONAL CHOICE, (OUR SEQUENCES).

When versatile potential growth resources(1) are activatied to produce more growth resources(2); growth resources are produced. And when some of those growth resources(2) are activated in a choice to produce even more growth resources(3); and when some of those growth resources(3) are activated to produce more growth resources(4): we can see that we have a growth engine that produces generation after generation of growth resources in an exponential growth. And if we share some of the growth resources of each generation with project, then we have a project 'sequence' that mirrors this gogr 'sequence'. From the exponential growth engine of gogr; we can see repetitive generations of potential growth resources (and choice) being produced from this. I call them 'our sequences'.

A CHOICE TO GROW GROWTH-RESOURCES INSTEAD OF WORRYING OVER A

BLEAK SITUATION (SO AS NOT TO BECOME OVEREXTENDED).

If someone has actually absolutely no awareness; then a person cannot be aware of their emptiness and bareness. But with the awareness of emptiness and bareness; is an awareness of this. We had to have resources and choice to be able to choose this. So we can instead, do choice choosing choice.

There are many things we can do. One of them, is to be aware of our emptiness and bareness. Another thing is, we can worry about not living up to expectations placed upon us. But these actions are not the growth of growth resources. So these actions are projects. This project consumes our growth resources, and we can become overextended in it. Since we are able to do these actions, (since we are able to activate potential growth resources towards these things): we are also able to NOT do these things. We are able instead, to choose choice with these potential resources.

THE 'REFRAINING' ACTION IS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE ACHIEVE A

BALANCE BETWEEN GROWING GROWTH-RESOURCES, VS. GROWING

PROJECTS WHICH CONSUME GROWTH RESOURCES.

The simplest choice we could have (even with non versatile growth resources), would be either to do, or not do something. But the choice not to do something, isn't much of an option by itself. There is something they can be activated to. These potential growth resources can be activated in a choice-choosing-choice action (as choice is always present first), instead of for project.

What is done then, is to have a balance between what produces growth resources, and what consumes growth resources. We do not completely shut off our project activities, but make room for more growth-of-growth-resources-choice-of-choice, by only partially shutting off (new growth in) these project areas. This I call the 'refraining action'.

Even though we transferred resources intended for project, to instead grow growth-resources (via our 'refraining action'): in the long run, there is no decrease in the project's new GROWTH; only a decrease in the PROPORTION of those projects; (as well as the increased growth-of-growth-resources). The greater growth-of-growth-resources proportion provides for greater actual GROWTH of the projects even thought he project proportion is smaller.

This transfer action of refraining, is also a project action. Thus to be consistent, we also (partially) refrain from refraining. -As this refraining action can also get too large in proportion, and needs to be applied to itself and also rolled back. We move ALL our projects back to make room for choice of choice and growing the growth resources.

STATEMENT AGAINST CANNIBALIZING OUR OLD ACTIONS.

Let's not do new actions over top of our previously established actions. When we cannibalize our old actions to do new actions, then our old-established-actions have suffered decrease. The addition of new action then, wouldn't represent growth, but just rearrangement. So it's best not to cannibalize our established actions, so our efforts won't be lost in rearrangement. We often need to depend on our established actions along with our new actions; and if we cannibalize them, they won't be there for us. (Of course sometimes we can't afford to do this and must cannibalize.)

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

"Important Concepts"

 

 

 

Chapter Introduction:

Here's where we enlighten the (early) important concepts of this book.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

 

A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT: OUR INDIRECT METHOD OF RESPONDING

TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT REFERRED TO

THROUGH THE BOOK.

When we want something, or when we want to respond to our environment, the simplest most direct thing we can do is to just DO the project thing or (response) that we want. But as we've seen; doing this direct method brings us to overextension when we go overboard with it.

A second method, is to indirectly seek what we want by doing something else, in order to obtain what we want. This is the category our balanced way falls into. There are many things we can do instead of what we want, in hopes it will indirectly get us what we want. Like we could work hard at a job, saving every nickel, to be able to go back to the blue bijou vacation spot. However only one indirect-action delivers on the hope of getting what we want; and that is growth of growth resources. (This is because everything else is project; and other projects have enough trouble finding resources for themselves when on their own, let alone provide for some other project.) The only action worthy of commandeering the new growths of other (project) actions for its own purpose; is the refraining action for delivering new growth to gogr; because gogr is the only action that delivers, (and produces versatile growth resources). And we will be replacing a lot of project-new-growth with 100%gogr, as a means of responding to increased intensity in the environment. This is our indirect method of doing more gogr, to produce more response project.

TWO DIFFERING METHODS OF GREATER GROWTH THROUGH INCREASED

PROPORTIONS OF GOGR: A FAST INCREASE IN GOGR, VS, A GRADUAL

INCREASE IN GOGR. GRADUAL IS BEST.

Now, there is another factor to consider. If we put all our action into producing more growth through increased 100%gogr, then we wouldn't have any left for project. If we all of a sudden made a large increase in the gogr proportion (say from 50% to 99%), then it would take a long time for the greater-growth (produced by greater gogr) to translate into greater project new growth, at the 1% delivery rate. This would leave a long period of time we'd be unresponsive to our (project) environment. But if we increased the gogr proportion GRADUALLY, so the greater-growth (from '100%'gogr) was able to produce greater-actual-growth-in-project (in spite of the lower percentage delivered to project); then we will be able to increase growth of both 100%gogr and project. -Greater growth of project does occur even though a lower percentage is delivered to project because of the much greater overall growth from increasing the 100%gogr. The greater growth from gogr outweighs the lower percentage of that growth delivered to project, after a certain amount of time. After that point in time, both 100%gogr and project experience greater growth. SO if we gradually increase the proportion of 100%gogr, we cause both greater growth of project and gogr. We are thus able to respond to increased intensity in the environment. And we don't have to wait long.

Whereas if we suddenly increase the gogr proportion drastically at the expense of project-new-growth, then, although a higher growth rate is obtained; that growth is not shared much with project for a long time, and project growth and output suffers markedly for a long time.

Thus it's best to do only a short pulse of greater 100%gogr and then bring it back to normal. Once greater growth is produced from this pulse, it gives us something to work with, to then gradually increase 100%gogr.

INCREASING GOGR TOO FAST, INSTEAD OF TOO SLOW, AS THE WAY TO

SLOW OUR PROJECT'S GROWTH.

This is extremely important: All through this paper, I have implied that the way we slow our (project) growth rate and relax, is to do a greater proportion of project (down to the minimum gogr proportion). However, a better way to slow our project growth rate, is by doing TOO MUCH gogr.

The idea has been to gradually increase the gogr proportion in order to speed up. There is an optimal rate of increasing-the-gogr-proportion that causes growth of both project and gogr. If we deviate either above or below this; the growth of project suffers. Now, if we deviate by increasing the gogr-proportion too fast, we end up with a lot of gogr as the byproduct of slowing the project growth. While if we deviate by doing greater project proportion, we not only cut down the growth of project; we also cut down the growth-of-growth-resources. (With the doing of too much gogr, we have an excess supply of gogr to show for our efforts.) These extra gogr can grow unregulated and bridge barriers within us. (There are two ways to relax and slow our project growth).

WE INCLUDE EVERY EXISTING NON-EVIL THING IN OUR INCREASE SO

AS TO BE AT HIGH CAPABILITY (AT ALL ANGLES), AND THUS OUT OF

REDUCED CAPABILITY.

An important action secondary on