Wanna play Smartass?

Now well - seriously - I believe that all the real smartasses will have my back on this. I don't know what else to expect! If I had to do all the things I see, little by little, being taken from my hands, on my own - its not a matter of which of those things I could accomplish; But a matter of what types of moron I had to deal with. And this I just get to see "after the fact" - if I can believe that shit is happening as I'm writing this and not just something yet in the future. But so lets assume it is in the future - then as of yet I'm still pretty much surrounded by "these types of Moron" that can't count to three on their own unless it helped them (a.k.a. 'you') to proof some shitty point!

Do you know how a nuclear reactor works? I think - the vast amount of "shitty morons" do. Its not that hard. Some radioactive material boils up water which turns some turbines which create energy. And I wouldn't even doubt that you could tool some turbine together. So, the part where the turning thing excites some electrons in some wire which then generates current. Not that big a deal. And so - when it got to it, you'd certainly also agree that actually building a nuclear power plant is not all that simple.
But 'technically' it is! There is just some amount of stuff you have to know so nobody who's gonna work there is going to die and ... stuff. Stuff like ... what would I know? There is stuff I would know, but I'm sure there is stuff I got no clue about. No matter how smart I tried to be about this - no matter how hard I tried to conceptualize an actual power-plant from what I know - I wouldn't trust myself because I don't 'really' have a clue about it!

There is an interesting Stargate SG1 episode, where "spoiler", Daniel Jackson died. The idea is that some alien race that the SGC tried to ally with developped some nuclear device but they didn't want to believe the SG people about protection against radioctivity. Pretty much like ... republicans and climate change. Which is an interesting topic, since, what do you actually know about it? I've been running the facts I know of through my mind and figured: It would actually by hard to proof climate-change when starting at zero. How to proof the greenhouse effect is real? How to proof that it is as real as actually happening to our atmosphere right now?

Because I believe that climate change is a thing I've been just shooting in my own foot sotospeak. And that why I'm stupid?!
But by which stretch are you smarter than I am?


If you happened to work in the field and worked out how to answer my questions you didn't get the point I've been trying to make! And if you don't get it - yet - its just too high for you at this point. Its simple, but laying it out isn't all that simple. Its a naturally complex topic - and so I just came up with a new term; Which as far as I can tell - as far as I'm prooven over and over again - a rampant problem of our days today. We thereby rely on our language to communicate ideas. And if someone ever tried to convey an idea - its either done by fancy one-liners or via volumes and volumes of text. Take algebra. At its base the logic is simple. Everyone gets that! 1=1. And with linear algebra it doesn't get much more complicated than that either! But I'd be damned (to say: I'd be flabbergasted) if you could come up with a way to get the intersection point of two 3D vectors from just that! I don't even know how anyone might come up with that - but well - I'm not a mathematician. And if I were - its still ... amazing enough.

But to simplify it: I'll give it to you here - I admit it - that I'm an idiot. I'm a complete moron! So if thats your point, you can quote it and be done with it. Yet there is stuff I definitely know. Eventually I'm still an idiot and moron and I can't really formulate it cohesively enough for you or anyone to get it - but there still is truth within what I definitely know (duh) - and simple plattitudes won't undo that! So if your point were that I'm a moron - in principle - you're the moron!


For instance have Atheists ("apparently") unanymously assessed that all the believers are wrong when it gets to the "Is God a wish-o-maton?" issue. Its however a generally glanced over thing because its easier to argue that way. Although secretly ... I think Atheists are smarter than that. I would even argue that most Atheists are more god-fearing than most of the ordianry believer. They just say: "If I'm not good enough (yet) - screw it!". And here I can do the same. The ... 'glancing over facts' part. No matter how hard Atheists would try to assure me that "no" - they really just don't believe - its easier for me to argue this way. Such is just a fact. Simpler logical constructs have that inherant property of being simpler. Compared to whatever isn't that simple.
Eventually however, if we were to forever and always just stood on those simple grounds we wouldn't be making it very far as a society. Co-incidence: Bill Maher just quoted - as a comment against the Bible - "If a woman has sex before she's married, stone her to death". And this Bible guy he just interviewed couldn't give that very simple response: Thats the old covenant. Uhm, OK - now he did. And Bill Maher can't help but LOLs around at that point like the Bible guy couldn't possibly give a rational answer.
That fits into what I wanted to get at - because this is the type of silly nonsense we'll always never be able to resolve if we "keep it simpler". And the problem is right there! People are ignorant. Why? Thats just how it is! And Kyle Kulinsky added to that: Its impossible for someone to have short and long hair at the same time! I get what he's saying - but its nonsense! Let me shave off half of the hair on my head and I'll have both!

So, everyone is big on the point of being 'nuanced' - but when it gets to the other side 'nuance' is a big nono. And by these standards God could say good stuff about me all the way - because I'm a moron that just had to be wrong! "Infallable Logic!" ... .

Yea - why protection against radioactive radiation? I can't see it! And those clicky noises this weird box is doing, why should I trust it?


We could build a furnace room that turns on whenever someone is in it and the doors are closed; Call it "the sacred chamber of purification"; With the intent that if someone is charged of a crime that person is going to go in - and if the person is getting incinerated that person was actually guilty. Atheists wouldn't like it - obviously. Christians ... or Muslims ... well ... Christians could at least say: "Don't put the Lord thy God to the test!". But if we had any good reason to believe that God exists - this device could be considered rational. But there is one big flaw in the concept: This isn't a world intended to be "our place to be". Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden, stuff happened - and we can either take it as that or we don't. If we don't - we give credit to the Ahteistic oppinion which is that because God doesn't sufficiently care for us there is none. And along those lines this furnace would also be a good idea! Because now that we have a reason to believe that God exists - this 'is' "still" the "place to be". God being 'there for us' is however fundamentally different. This world is out to kill us and God made it so - end of the Line. In that line of argument there is no reason to expect that this furnace would function as intended. It'd just burn everyone who entered it. And while God made it so - it'd be 'our' fault still.
We could also dig a really deep pit and argue: We have no evidence that the people we throw into it actually die; Therefore they'll live!

So in order to make a step forward we, in this case, have to assess the nature of physics properly. Will God care if a bullet is zooming our way? And whatever the answer to that: Would he stop it? It gets trickier if you asked that question on me. If I were the one to die. Yet either way - you'd still be guilty of killing (attempted murder) me - whether I survived or not! "But the Bible says ..." - yea - "But the Bible also says ...".
"Disappointing!". Yea - if you have to keep moving in circles!




So I'll try to once more run through the 'Darkness/Satanism' thing:

This has been a topic going on for quite some time. Technically it even started way before "unholy Christianity" was even a thing, as just and simple: Sexual freedom. And I'll get back to that as we get to step two here.
To be rightfully a smartass here: This isn't scientifically sophisticated or accepted thought. It is how I rationalize these things and it is important for you to understand my reasoning that you follow along with how I rationalize these things.



Step 1: Basics.

Basics are Basics. By that I mean, in all simplicity: We exist! I know I exist and you have reason to believe that you exist. This is as foundational as it gets. If you wouldn't, you couldn't think about it. Being is the primary symptom of existence.
With Sexual Freedom we more fundamentally speak of Love or more to the point: Your own take on it. Thats going to matter in step 2 however.
For step 1 I want to think of it as a circle we draw within a messy room full of nonsense - and within that circle we gather everything that is basic. Emotions, needs, emotional needs, sympathy, hatred, ... and for the case and point: Lets just stick to Love items. Whatever I want, or think is good or right, just and fair ... before it takes on any specific form that someone could object to its just something basic. So in essence, in the center, there is nothing that is anyhow physical. If I think of someone specific, that won't matter either. What matters is that I think of 'someone' - in terms of basics. Whatever I'm promissing to myself - that doesn't matter either. What matters more is that I have that need to promise me anything out of it.

This doesn't include Kinks either. Anything that understands the basics into anything is already Step 2. Or even 3. And that by the way is the big important issue. Its easily overlooked in all this. That there is a 'huge' gap between this and that. The point is that if we reduced everything to the basics we could technically be as happy as otherwise - but not really do anything either. Whenever I emphasize Love, emotions, anything - it can usually be reduced to this. This means that when I think in terms of something that is already more elaborate like some extremely masochistic or sadistic act - it is in the idea just a small step away from being really bad. But there is something that enticed me to be attracted to that in first place. And we can separate the two 'things' - as 'good' and 'bad'. The 'good' in that more elaborate context is ambigous - but once simply calling 'it' 'a feeling of comfort' we're here in the basics. And on that base I can develop a reasonably well/bright/happy understanding of it that doesn't even go as far as involving sex of any shape. Not even kissing. In that sense me and whoever would be with me were just two orbs that got stuck together and everything is dandy.



Step 2: Flavour.

Flavour is about where we, indivdually, would take the basics - for some or any pragmatic purpose outside of being just glowing orbs and the sticky part. So, if I and my implied girlfriend went out and we moved next to each other, we can call that 'basics'. But if we did anything to 'show the world' that we love each other - that is technically already flavour. The basic point is that anyone could object to it - or be disgusted or offended by it. Like ... us holding hands.
If you spoke of "Monogamy" as 'the one and only acceptable way' - thats already flavour. Most definitely. In this regard there are two forms of censorship: There is the way of saying: "I'm concerned about your wellbeing" - we can call that 'intermediate'; And there is the way of saying: "I'm concerned of its effects on soiety" - which we can call 'indirect'. If we for instance take a heroine addict - I think most of us tend to be 'intermediately concerned' of that person. If we for instance take a pot-smoker I think most people tend to be 'indirectly concerned'. So, if we practiced 'free sex' we couldn't be 'intermediately' concerned unless we invoke some idea of God which is against that; If we banned condoms however that changes.

In essence I think there is a general rule there - which is: Anything that goes against the dominant habit is 'indirectly' problematic. That because as it might spread it disrupted society as we knew (and maybe valued) it. Yet if we so get to the basic flavours, there isn't really an objective good or bad. Whether I preferred to live monogamous or polyamourous - there are pro's and con's for either way. I could be considered ignorant either way. Arrogant, selfish, careless, ... . Valuing chastity is 'good' - in the intermediate sense - but looking at our society today, its harmfull ... indirectly. We can argue that the whole reason why "Evil is cool" is because believers, the "good guys", say "no sex before marriage".

There is the 'higher good' argument - next to these things. This is however 'as ambigous' at this point. |weed comes into play| By 'higher good' I mean for instance that 'in theory' there is a higher good in the values of chastity. Its the same within "retro gaming" - in the sense that older games ran on more limitted hardware and these restrictions 'forced' developpers to come up with ... well ... solutions. It may not be too different today - but developpers can get away with a lot more sloppiness for once (which then shows in the games performance compared to ... stuff that got done well) and because the old hardware wasn't capable of so much "things" are generally more visible. At least to the experienced eye. So if you were to force yourself to the virtue of chastity you'd start to 'see' differently, as you'd be more cautious about whom you'd get intimate with. But oppose that by 'intermediate concerns' of parents, or 'indirect' ones such as status quo, wealth and all that (Job might be a good book in the Bible for things like that) - which clearly 'also' has to be done away if we want to be really 'purist' ... and while I ordinary would look for a sentence to quickly steer that back into the other direction, this time this direction plays well with what I'm up into here yet. (Yea, I actually thought these points through beforehand).

We can so look at two different Christian/Theistic beliefs that have roughly the same ethnical standards - even as we went further - but would still exist as two different "sentiments". What was earlier a matter of Status Quo is now a matter of Religion. While in the big picture Believers are outraged against Unbelievers, Believers aren't necessarily one amongst themselves either. And as a believer I have to confess my weaknesses by the way. I've certainly not had my heart and mind together. I thought of it ... briefly ... that it might be good if I could convince my family to become Mormons ... and yet I doubted it in my heart that I could convince them and perhaps gave up too fast. I'm simply not that kind of guy I'm telling myself ... and the same is what I think separates Theists from Atheists. ... in a different way.
Once I'm done with this segment ... I want to get back to that.

So, how did this blow up into this topic again? The answer is simply: Whatever we come up with in the minor has to however come out in the major - and in the major we're evitably dealing with the public perception or "meta". So, if I were gay - ... well. What is it? Basic or Flavour? In this sense its Flavour. Flavour is hereby not less from ones inside as the Basics. Thats the point. And I might have missed that had I not gotten high. So its not 'the' point. That one follows after step 3, but it would kindof come back to this. At the base I just had the wish to get comfortable with someone. And how would I understand that? What I would understand in the sense of 'comfort' - as 'my own personal 'experience' of comfort' - thats 'my handle' to the term - that would have come some way. We might in the more basic sense find us all equal in terms of childhood. We grew up knowing little to nothing in the world and little by little we filled out the blanks until we got confident about what we were in. During that state of infancy we 'should' have all developped some sense of comfort - and this I would generally sort into two general cases. There is comfort by familiarity - and there is 'real comfort' or 'comfort plus'. Comfort plus is that what we have once we subtract the things concerning familiarity from the picture - and by that I don't mean 'joys "plus"' either. In this understanding 'joys' are like 'ecstasy' - synonymous to 'extasy' (the drug) - they are a 'mind-numbing' expense of time.
If you don't know what 'comfort plus' is - and you think 'joys plus' instead - you don't have that experience - and thats generally what I was leading up to. And I'm glad I didn't miss it. You have familiarities and joy then that we might call 'comfort' - those were your handles. And so does the 'base' 'emerge' from 'flavours'. Technically. The base is 'the seed' then - yet - for how we understand flavour. Some like it sweet, others like it sour. Same thing but different. More - simple to observe and analyze however. Some taste sweet and 'feel' 'ugh' - while others taste it and feel 'sweeeet!'. At the basics those are two different things. Good vs Bad. The 'flavour' is however evidently the same. And you don't know how good something is until you taste it. And you don't know 'good' until you know ... 'good'.

I am not gay - and what a gay person needs to know in order to accept you as someone that isn't, is that you proove it to them somehow. Homophonia might suggest that you don't really know whether you are gay or not. Alternatively there's the simpler road - which is to say that you just don't know how to deal with a gay person. Can you look one in the eye? Can you engage with them in a discussion, about anything but the things that separate you? But - what would connect two people with two totally different backgrounds? And end up having entirely different tastes? But if I know anything about gay people that goes beyond the surface, then that there is some feminine vein. Some are like Divas, others are ... uhm, maybe all of them are Divas. But some are more and others less open about it. They are gay - they are into men. You have to consider what that implies. They are intersted in a given intimacy that you couldn't satisfy if you wouldn't be gay! I ... think this is a close assessment of reality.

So - at which point did being gay become an issue? We can look at it in two ways. The one is the "bold" view - the 'theoretical' one - and the other is 'nuanced' - which is the practical one. In the practical one we have the Bible - Christian/Judaic values (are they really christian?) - while in the 'theoretical' we would still assume some culutral habit, and that one not necessarily being magically all good. I mean ... God abandoned Adam and Eve from Eden - due to something that has been Eves fault. Now, who knew that story? Historically. Scientists on the other end describe Religion from an Anthropological standpoint which simply extends the Big Bang and Evolution theories - putting 'Religion' as a human need that eventually had to evolve into Science.
And it also took some time until we've grown to some recognition of gender equality - and the "classical houswife" of today has much more freedoms than the one of not too long ago. Uhm, but still there always also have been women that stood out. Even so in the Old Testament. And they were not all whores! And there is no point here.

The point were now one that takes us over into Step 3.



Step 3: Culture.

So, you may notice, this one is sortof implied within the latter. And so is the latter into the first as the first in the second. I feel like this is a kind of 'separation' of stuff that I should get into a bit further. If I talked about Love you may have understood it as very '1 Dimensional'. Although this 1 Dimension would exist in an arbitrary Vector Space. So you have your idea of Love - and however mine differed from yours it would 'divert' from 'good'. But lets be simple. Culture is this 'big thing' - but it is still a human thing. So - it is a thing of 'us'. Artists - despite ever having been the 'good for naughts' - may in that have had the most significant impact actually. What were Religion without the creative minds? :P - no. Anything that has shape today - and is still marvelled at - had to take shape in someones mind first. Things we are inspired by. We can hereby take a look at Hitler and how he inspired many. An artist in his own right who constructed an idea that many were willing to support. Or Gandhi. On the other end of the spectrum. Think ... Pentagon ... versus Gardens of Freedom.

The big is finally tied to the small. Like magnetism takes shape within the miniscule. And when it gets to setting destinctions between things we can make mistakes. This because reality doesn't follow an easy straight foward 'universally self correcting' set of rules. People have accidents. They don't get magically zoomed out of it to maybe even prevent it. We don't see everything coming. Scientists discover physics that have been deemed impossible. "Black Holes break the laws of Physics". LOL!


But the main question here goes to: Why is this a step? Well - I'm speaking of my own 'sexual freedom' as I was initially saying - so, how is this / ... why is this a question of mine? Thats maybe rather the part you don't understand.

The thing is that Culture is 'yes' a part of "Love"/Flavours as previously layed out - so, it is 'surrounding' Flavours - and in this sense I could continue on the gay example. But this is not how the 'Culture' in this segment relates to the issue. What matters here is that with Flavours there come practices and these shape cultures. Cultures are the foundation for us to experience these Flavours. So does Church for instance provide a foundation for marriage. So in the classical sense - with "Church" and "Pastor" and ... stuff.
And I maybe should iterate on this example at least just a little. As previously "caughed" out, there's the standing question: How Christian are Christian values? A lot of the things pointed out by Atheists, regarding "this horrible God" are Judaic ideas. And some Christians, or very many, do live by those. And - as I previously reflected upon a moment from a Bill Maher interview and was surprised at how "thats the old Covenant" wasn't the first answer, I now have to realize that it shouldn't surprise us. The more a Christian belief-system leans towards Judaic traditions the less 'actually Christian' it is. They assimilate Judaic ideas and thereby fail to properly represent Christian belief to the public. And there are two great Videos about this on YouTube. "What the Bible really says about Homosexuality" by WhatTheBibleReallySays. And the explenation he comes up with also pretty well resonates with the entirety of my belief. By the way.

I apologize if this came over a bit rude. But I'm also a bit at discontempt with myself because I'm a bit thrown off by this 'yet given' connection. The way how the term 'Culture' matters in this and the previous step respectively.
Once I'm through with it, the gains might seem insignificant to you. At least thats my contemporary assessment. I mean - I am supposed to think about what I write. I'm supposed to well inform you. So I have to assemble some idea of how you might conceive these words. And even here - yay - we can do mistakes. Even more so because for the most part we end up guessing. Some guesses are pretty simple - but sometimes its our bias that finally has to make the call.
Whatever. I think that this is - and sorry, but this is just a thing - an Enlightenment specific thing. I have a different relationship with thoughts 'now' - most certainly. I cannot ultimately tell just 'how' different, except maybe at points like this where certain things are brought to my attention.
Lets move on however.


First the thing that Cultures emerge from Flavours is a thing - and in a fair assessment of the facts we must accumulate some idea of trying to fit different meanings of the idea together into one 'Super Culture'.
This is however the direction this Step has to take - and my concern thereby is in first place that of my own. In order to for instance move on from 'simpler' to 'good enough', Cultures are a great tool. Through Cultures, ideas are 'cultivated' to meet social needs. And there is a lot that I had on mind to write at this point. Think about school kids for instance that lean towards "fringe cultures". Aside of friends ... what do they have? They have celbrities to look up to and places to go to spend time at. And what this looks like differs widely. People that like to study and become good at school will find most of their quality time at home. But if your culture is vastly defined by "offshore" elements - I would say that people 'tend' to cultivate around music; And eventually there is no place to go but discos. Thats how it has been for me - mostly - so in regards to what most of my friends were doing aside of smoking weed. They might have been different individually - but my experience was pretty much just that. I spent my quality time at home - and eventually my brother dragged me out or I had other friends that pretty much vibed on that same frequency. Usually 'weed' was my 'baseline' - so - and some of them pursued goals while others just used to hang out. I was amongst the latter - and I wouldn't want to excuse myself from what I did ... but I would.
However - in hindsight - I learned to be at ease with myself and tell me: Thats just how I am. I did stuff with my time. But had I always lived up to other peoples expectations, I wouldn't have ever been able to do the things I did. I couldn't spend 12 hours writing some text - not easily however - ... and that I'm pretty chill about everything - maybe thats just how I am - ... in the broader sense. As from previous lives. As of my total relationship with God. I mean, I started this life with no memory of a previous life. I mean, as I grew up, I even started up without memory of how I got 'booted' into this world sotospeak. What is my earliest memory? I would think that prior to 8 years, everything is just a weird smush of images. I did what I was told to do, ... I mean, I went to school, I preferred watching Cartoons rather than going to church though. Bionic Six, Power Rangers, ... or was that later? Well, we didn't have cable or satellite TV for some while. Therefore I was rather invested with the NES and SNES. And Legos. And various Books. ... And with this I somehow faded into a conscious existence. I mean, navigating around the world - that was firstly my own macrocosmos ... so, my room, toys, stuff in the world that I was excited about, ... dreams ... - and throughout school ... I first was a N64 and then a PC/Dos kid. That so as I got into my teenage years I had the N64 to look forward to and through a friend got into PC games. Or had access to them, lets put it that way. I wasn't familiar on my own with what there had been. I was able to navigate around Windows, but at some point something stopped to work. The CD Drive ... I ... don't know. It didn't make sense to me and I got no clear recollection of it either. But this friend helped me fix my PC, but ... it was running DOS only. So I got used to the DOS prompt - and thereby got to some more in-depth understanding of how the damn thing worked. And as you may have read elsewhere, I totally didn't understand how to play X-Com at that point. And as you may have read elsewhere, it was a game that had magically attracted me since way before I had access to a PC. I mean, I basically didn't even know what it was. I knew my cousin had one - but to me it was just a weird type of Super Nintendo - and I was happier with that. I knew someone who had a commodore 64 - and as being used to a NES and Zelda, that was pathetic. But I was totally into Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem. I spent a lot of time with Wolfenstein because it worked and I understood how to use its Level Editor. Which I found while being familiar with how the System looked in DOS. It was later when Duke 3D ran and I read a PC Magazine (PC Games) that I got into modding and coding. Building Duke 3D Maps and writing QBasic programs. Then at some point there was Half Life ... and then there came Deus Ex. And then I also got a Nasirite.
So, whats the point? This is what I learned to do. What fascinated me in life. And X-Com is one of my best examples there. It was around the time where Secret of Mana came out. I had my eye on that as it was coming up - and was sunken into it for some time after I had it. There we used to go to a certain super mall, ... and in terms of what I remember about that mall ... there are a few things that are familiarities, like that ice cream store, the general layout, but then also where certain stores have roughly been. Oh no, I got something mixed up. But its in the stream of 'Memories' - so, things that ... I mean, the important part are the 'items' in focus. I remember looking at the Super Metroid Game Box ... and I wasn't really interested in it but this picture stuck around. And I remember the X-Com box. In that particular store where I remember the Metroid Box, I also remember staring at the X-Com box. I didn't know what it was but I was drawn towards it. And after I saw a friend play it, I understood how it worked and I sunk tons of time into that. That was a bit before I started to understand QBasic I think, but well ... yea, my basic mental growth basically occured within those games ... and movies and stuff like that. By the time I had a friend who was himself into coding I was really invested into QBasic while he was already planning stuff in Visual Basic or Java ... which I totally didn't have access to. I was like ... dyslexic. And while I got used to writing in QBasic, I had ways to further express my Fantasy World. I created it while I was walking home from School, or sometimes daydreaming in school. Cliche? ... ` ...
The point is that in some sense I've always been a retard ... but I had my own journey ... and it first has always been centered around my fantasy - and then around my religious understanding. And so we come back to the point.
Culture. Whatever Cultures I have been associating with - they were what I had. And when it gets to weed - I never really had much of a choice. I consider myself lucky enough to ever have been introduced to it.

Well, this leads up to the obvious critique about this "Flavour:Culture" development. But its rather on the safe end to say that this is a naturally occuring thing. Its natural 'purpose' were to ~equate~ the 'individual' to its environment on a "Basics:Culture" arrangement. So, when we wrap this up - it is in my 'inherant understanding of existence' to do this within the realm of the divine. It wasn't always like that. I either way had to grow up - and within Unification, that I'm sure about, I got to grow into it in a very ... Unification~ish ... way. I can only suppose that this was my destiny. I mean, I found Unification somewhere that ... it was beneficial for me to be german, as to have had privacy to study the scriptures, ... where I specifically remember that on my 21st birthday I had a sense of that moment defining where my life would go. I was breeding upon Religion issues, Scriptures, ... and that was leading up to my Baptism as Mormon. In another sense was my life in a state that would have embraced those types of books - I ... had no clue ... no real in-depth clue that is ... about Apokrypha and thus was hunting for all sorts of Books about Apokrypha - mostly thinking of it as a collection. I mean, the real way to get into them is to read them themselves. But surely it is also helpful to read of other peoples insights. I wouldn't know that - but - I soon enough grew a bit suspicious about one book in particular, ... and I had no way to say whether those Apokrypha were real ... but soon enough my attention got drawn onto the Nag Hammadi Codices. This from a book compiled by some Wilhelm Schneemelcher. It is possibly really really deep insider stuff. "Duh". The big riddle. The 'Sealed Scriptures'.

Whatever the case with that. I had some time looking into it - and ... it all came down to 'one' lucky moment. I had a thought, basically from reading that book, ... because I remember having read another book on the Nag Hammadi codices and I didn't understand a damn shite. It was confusing as heck - and so I reached out for it. Bam! However that book got there - it has been there. I bought it - thats how it got there, by the way. From the money I earned during my "Civil Service/Military Training". Uhm. Its actually either or. Either military or civil service. But I denied to serve at arms too late and whatever ... I was released after training.
The book contained 'the Apokryphon of John' - and this right away reveals the "first insight", the 3 principles, the 4 Lights and the 12 Aeons. How it goes thereon thereafter is a bit unclear. At first. In hindsight there is a far greater riddle - of which the NHC is just a part - but once I figured out Unification ... thats been it. Thereafter I mostly was puzzled with by the 12 Aeons until in LA I wrote some final piece on that. Well, most if not everything that mattered that I ever wrote I lost. But, that stuff isn't even important.
And the main reason for me to tell this would be to get a bit more specific about my relationship to God. If I came out of nowhere it should be difficult to understand how this relationship comes together. You might even be jealous of me. But throughout the years God and I have been friends. I feel that way, and never has God showed me anything else. He wasn't always there as in the sense of fulfilling my wishes - and maybe it seems irrational to get over seeing it so, but in the end its just a relationship issue. Like children that eventually learn how to walk and get things done on their own; We ... I had to start to learn to be concerned of other things ... at that point in my heart ... and after I've gotten there, God has begun to really stick around. As far as I could tell.
There isn't anything I can remember of my previous lifetime - not as far as I can tell however - but the further I grew up after Unification the more God evoked a deep feeling of familiarity within me - so, how else could I see my relationship with God other than one of long-lasting friendship? Yet I still had to go through all the stages. I was left errorring through my life - but eventually I made my way home.

I had to realize that I was never payed a lot of attention, considering my discoveries. Only rarely someone came up to me in some sense of respect. Apparently one of the Apostles of the Church meant to speak about me - as the story of my repentance had been quite an amazing tale and the Elder was really excited - but ... then it didn't happen. And I began to hear 'similar' stories - as though people spoke of me, but yet of somebody else. Whatever way I thought of going - I always felt there was some obstacle in my way ... and that holds true up until today. The German Military didn't come at me saying: "Wow, you discovered Eden" - and until I became a Mormon I always felt as being the center of ridicule. That didn't really stop. Or more specifically, it really got to me after I was Unified ... and I had amore visceral impression of "how epic" my enemy was. It was like I saw through everything at once, but barely capable of drawing a reasonable understanding from it. There was nowhere to go - but a clear pointer to going my own way.


This also came up after the first Matrix reveal. I had the ... idea ... that someone was spying on me - thus recording all my Matrix gigs and I felt confident of going. I thought that they might be friends and figured how they might recreate the gigs from the sound - so, it'd be recorded and thats important. This continued until "the Door" opened. After I was done, went to sleep, the next day I woke up and it was like a whole new reality. I had to cry even - for joy. But that joy was soon replaced by ... doubt. Something ... strange. And some bit later it occurred to me that I should post it online so that there would be a "first" - but nobody really seemed to give a shit. And I figure the other side could have told: "Well duh, it happened somewhere - and there ...". And they have to make a big deal out of it and yada yada bla bla pffffffrrrrt.
I tried to send mail - and I mean that I 'tried' - believing that those letters would get intercepted anyway. Wherever I could go, they would have some 'nest' of people that would voice oppinions against me or somehow else steer attention away from me.

And this would also be the primary source for disagreement about whatever conclusion here could be. Its either 'good for them' and then its 'obvious' or whatever ... so "their idea" ... "in the sense of the greater good" or whatever ... or its fundamentally flawed because they had another idea. So, which side is correct? About what? Where and why? They "debunked" the Testimony ... which should already be a red flag to you! I remember that cutscene from Bloodborne after you beat the Boss in the Cathedral. The one guy tries to convince 'the Big Boss' of something that 'the Big Boss' should ascertain the other guy of - as part of its 'sacred duty' - and then 'the Big Boss' starts to talk in an all creepy voice ... whispering: "You know now that I'm the bad guy" - ... between the lines however. Its the core principle that whatever the Devil may coat himself with - at some point he has to make the 'cut'. And whoever tells you 'not' to listen to something that might as well be God ... its a pretty deep red flag there. I am not here to tell you that all those that aren't God aren't God - I'm here to tell you to take it to 'the' God. Yea - sure this statement would endorse the flying Spaghetti Monster ... that "might as well be God" ... but if you 'actually' think about it you should 'primarily' realize that this isn't your first thought of who or where that God might be! I mean, it would be generally good advise to start at the top.

And what is wrong with that now? "Yea, but ... " - what but? I'm doing it wrong? What am I doing? And how is it wrong? Oh, its "not yet" wrong. We aren't there yet. Aha! OK. Mhm. Well ... lets see how that plays out.


So .... 'Step 3' - Culture. Now again/reloaded.

You get the general 'Flavour:Culture' duality. From there you can take that wherever you want. If I had to anticipate that all of you Atheists will remain atheists and that what I believe is still getting generally denounced, you can take this somewhere and maybe that will even be good. Who knows? But however ... you would have to 'struggle it out' ... just who gets the last say in it. Mumbling something about some representatives not being like the best ... in some sense. Things might change, who knows?

But obviously you're interested in the raw meat. Just where I'm finally wrong. That would be, in first place, that giving the youth the hubs they need to culturally evolve will potentially remove the 'bad influences' from a bunch of equasions. I know from my experiences that the "fringe cultures" also attract "fringe people" - and where 'the edge' is never edgy enough - there are those that keep pushing the envelope and they also spearhead those societies in terms of the bad pictures we get of each other. Whatever "bad group" you think of - they are bad because of the bad extremes you see in them. Right?

In this regard I have the theory - thats maybe where I'm wrong actually - that there is a correlation between how much Bullshit a religion is and how many 'stick' to it - so in terms of offspring. So are there religions where the offspring continues its legacy ... rather than jumping off. So the amount of "Black Sheep" a religion accounts for is relative to the amount of Bullshit it believes in. And that is relative to the truth as the truth is acceptable. Eventually it matters to some that they don't follow Judaic traditions while others get along fine with them. So, the way this would play out is that people of a given age would take it into their own hands to merge with the divine reality - and beyond that ... "what dreams may come".

By this I mean that individuals would first of all connect to the divine on their own merits - based on which they are attracted to a 'cultural expression' in terms of which they socialize with those that resonate with it. Or how else to put it. In other words would they then agree to join a community 'if' certain things are guaranteed and that would matter in regards to their Flavours. That I haven't properly concluded yet. That atheists are atheists because of ... something. A slight shift in how things matter. Being informed about the world for instance - that is difficult if religious groups desperately try to advocate the opposite. Of that there is no space to cultivate religious belief that is different - and this further increases the divide.


But woops. Now to the real part that I'm wrong about - as now we get to the part about Satanism.

Satanism is one umbrella term for a variety of cultural orientations to grow within. Simply put. Its not just Rock'N'Roll. For me it isn't that at all. No matter what sort of appreciation I might muster for that type of Music ... its simply not my thing. OK, Pink Floyd is obviously something different. And however people will 'Rock On' - I'm not immediately a part of it. If that goes into Satanism ... well ... I suppose so, strongly, ... but not necessarily. If that is your thing ... I think you can vibe with "Satanic" ideals without really being a Satanist. I'll try to explain that in terms of an ordianry Christian municipality.

In an arbitrary subset of society it turned out that 'variety' is a generally good thing. And if there are struggles they help pushing things onward. And hereby I would base my argument on the matter that if a functional society is the priority, religious flavour comes second. So if you were a Satanist, first of all, you would be so because of inner ... stuff. Lets keep it simple as that. You might however yet be more concerned of supporting society by other means; And where you see your duty - that would streamline your "agenda" respectively. So in this example the main concern were 'Christian Legacy' - so, hosting a municipality for instance, or being an otherwisely supportive member. And as the focus is on the word of God - the invitation goes out unto everyone. And if that type of community is your priority - your 'Religious Flavour' comes second. To rationalize this I want to say that 'every' particular concept of what a Religious Life involves is a Flavour. That might entail cermon - which at its core is a neutral or universal thing. Where I grew up there have been two Seventh Day Adventist Municipalities nearby. The Mormons on the other hand have a 'full fledged' 'Stake Ward' - a 'capital' if you so will. So, at any rate is exchange going to be a thing as far as my experience is concerned; And eventually certain sub-cultures are to inevitably emerge from there - though to maintain compatibility there is that basis of truth that everyone should be able to get along with.

To compare that to the 'rocker' - the same thing is happening although that person is now less concerned about a ceremonial life; And in a sense on the other end of 'that' spectrum. To the point that at least superficially thats closer to Satanism - the real celebration of that lifestyle has to however take it back to a light side. Ozzy Osbourne would be one figure that comes to mind. Or DMX. Tupac. Even Eminem. Ice Cube. Uhm ... . Yea.

So I had to think about the archetype of the 'organized' person, the one who is the opposite to me. The one who needs structure, who goes to church, who keeps it practical. Such a person would be sitting there, knowing that he/she/it is a Satanist, but not have a rational reason to participate in any such activity. It'd be somehow ... irrational. The way I felt being taken into that mindset was that I felt uncomfortable. Not 'horribly' uncomfortable - but the sitting became an excercise of digesting its stupidity. So the knowledge of what you are is equal to a knowledge of what whould make your life an extensive bit better ... opposed to which that person were sitting there pretending he/she/it is normal. Taken over into that sub-culture the only thing that would realistically change from the situation of just sitting there are the type of activities that make up the Flavours that are the reason for that person to finally be sitting there. And is that now wrong? Or is it just the asumption of something that might be going on there?
And in all doubt there is that 'Married with Children' episode where Al and friends take their wives to the Strip Club pretending that nothing wild is going on there. You don't have to believe shit!
In principle however there are those things that we consider which then beg the question: OK, what can we include and how? Why? But also - in particular: Who is 'we'?

Are you one of 'us'? If not - what can you tell about what 'we' would do? ... Says I ... and ... yet that has to seen through the filters of a reasonable culture. None of what I have told can yet be considered 'practically official'. None of that is pragmatically significant yet. There isn't a real question yet. No reason to ask any of it. When however precluding it to the extents of the extremes that I presume are true ... you yet have to give it to society to evolve to that point. Most of it might even just begin to truely happen in the Afterlife. But for plain and simple reasons we would have some representation of our higher goods in the now. There will be Flavours - and as with sweet and sour - one will stick to what one wants. And if the show is ran by moderate minds - the "kapoofs" will be infinitely less influencial and furthermore given a place to fit into - moderately. And then they won't need to whine about they good intentions anymore.


As it goes for me - its something I yet don't generally trust, but the people I labelled X1 and X2 - those are moderate/conservative church people. I'm still slightly confused about it - they know what I'm up into and so its their decision to make whether or not to get on board. Yet X.1 were the person I feel bound to within the setup of religion. Those would be the people running the Church, which at the very least might be why I am attracted to them. Or in other words: That people like that 'have to be' in charge of whatever were to be going on. On the other end I would have my private life - and is that where I'm now wrong? Hmm ... ...

Or am I wrong already? Well - what might I be wrong about? If I'm wrong about something at this point, then within my assumption of where these things would go specifically. If I were to make the call - thats my standpoint - I wouldn't be making the calls! But if you aren't Enlightened (a.k.a. Unified with God) - you wouldn't be making them either!

And if you make it so that my best option here is that of killing myself - then, why is that?



OK, so - these are the 3 Steps. I rambled off a bit - sorry for that - but now the gist of it is clear. Should be. The basics are where everything is at - and Culture is directly related to the Flavours linked to them. This how culture is part of each individual identity.

What this means for me in particular - well, is that first of all I have a strong feeling that I'm bound to someone already. That there is 'the one and only' - and until I'm with that one I won't really be satisfied. Next to that I would expect to be bound to a community - and could there only truely be happy with some recognition for my basic needs. Flavours. This would to the extent of my desires go as far as our mutual desires would go - at which rate I'm also implying some synergy on the base of Flavours. Without that - well - it would simply take an arch of tolerance. This synergy now, in terms of the divine Light, would exist as all participants exist in sync with each other. So, this is a bit of a new thing. But not really.
So once everyone is in the right mindset - whereby right is determined by God as an approximation of what all those implied want of each other - the very reason they are there - the divine Light can flow within these intentions and stuff as some 'effective' synergy that exists between those involved. So, in terms of a kiss we can look at a much simpler example. A kiss would occur as two people give in to their urges of doing so. If the kiss however deepens it is at the very least clear that there is some synergy going on. This might be fake, but whether or not we betray ourselves - we do what we do. And if two people then consent, there is some general implication - in that case. So, unless differently communicated there is some established intimacy that is to be further explored. Thats what each iteration on that moment would yield. So in terms of Love we speak of some bonding that is going on thereby - and when it gets to marriage its finally as official as it gets. The two like each other. Which wouldn't be possible within some cultural setting. But in all neutrality we can also think of it in terms of emotional sympathy. Spending time in a cafe until someone comes in that you is magically attracted to. Or a blank white box ... or void open terminal in beyond limbo space ... and simply observe the ongoing event as happening in terms of synergies and how it goes on with that. Mutual interest is synergy 1. This might or would involve some of your flavours, but whether it be all of them is something time would tell. Hereby it could or should occur that one is willing to adapt - like, as self-invention is an ongoing thing we could find ourselves willing to change in favour of accommodating another one in our lives. We could speak of 'exponential synergies' - to a point of a 'deep merger' ... whereby God ... well ... enables us to become intimate on a 'sub-existential' level. OK, I just made that term up, but I need it to describe something. Its the thing that matters whenever Seal 1 most specifically, but any seal in general, is the matter of the topic.
First what needs to be copied is that God has his way of 'increasing' the resolution of our thoughts. So, if you look into the darkness of your mind - you're essentially puzzled of how or what or why you are. You should be able to make out some 'fuzz' - while thinking properly of Enlightenment could awaken some ideas of what 'the veil' is. Maybe there will be some guiding Light, I don't know. It was the case for me though. So this 'fuzz' - this by the end of some time - approximately 5 years - will get to a point that I ... think I have to call 'the God interface'. Think of the fuzz as tents. All you see is black sea of flames - essentially - while on the other end you can proof some concepts of spirituality to yourself. You can establish that you can imagine a glowing point. You can establish that you can imagine three glowing points connected by lines. You can establish - possibly - that you can assign an individual label to each of those points. You can establish from me saying "3 points: a, b and c" some random configuration of three points connected by lines. In this case you received a 'set' however, a 'package' that your mind unfolds into a picture. So, now think of the 'black sea of flames' projected as a surface. An even, plane surface and each peak were a point on that surface. Lets say they arranged as a grid of squares - there is a given space between adjacent points and respectively an individual square size, ... the resolution. As this voidness of the black has it there is no information whatsoever. Although if we look at our hearts and what moves us inside we get some reflection of a deeper underlying self.
What happens between this and what happens is something I must speculate on. So, why, how, the fudge - all I know is what happened. Like in Astronomy. The one moment we're convinced the earth is flat - the next moment we realize it might be a sphere. The one moment we see in the sky something we name a star, the next moment we have to conclude that its a planet.
What God can do - first of all - is to add substance to our intentions. He can make things visible to us that we on our own fail to visualize. Thats - I think - the so called 'mangle'. There ultimately is the point, regarding depth, that we can no longer rationalize. Thats 'the weirdness of the eye' we might say. The most fundamental theory in this regard is I think that our minds do at that point rather function on rules of causality. (We can influence that causality ... so it makes sense. It can be established). So God can go on and visualize how things come together and this way one can more cognitively get adjusted. The God interface comes into place once one has a coherent feel for its own intentions - how the own will comes together - which I now must suppose is already a construct of the Force - and God then shows to you how he can mask up as your own intentions.
Hereby the squares 'open up' - and instead of being 'zero-space' voids they emerge as labelled constructs that can magnify in wealth. So, as earlier mentioned with the 'triangle set' - think of each point of one square as an idea, and based on that our own mind would have to make an effort of understanding them and maintaining an image. And I guess this is why people tend to write books. Or, do stuff. Once we're continously exposed to something we get an experience of details that become memories and enhance our understanding of 'the big plane'. But God can hereby establish structures of idea while maintaining them as themselves by supplementing the realm with impressions that establish the 'grand idea' as a starter.

They however don't magically become super detailed at an instant. There are some ideas we may or may not be able to wrap our minds around - but the force establishes them anyway as part of the structure. That part you understand of it first is the part that is ultimately going into it first and through the given plasticity some given consequences leave a resonating idea of what the whole is about.

As our minds operate with the Force on some Level, there is the evident comparison to the body. We experience our body over time ... growing up ... as we first learn to operate it and then learn to react to what our senses tell us of the world around us. Or however in which order. This starts to grow at some point, but essentially its just an abstract. Whatever God is 'deepening' is yet just a way of visualizing those depths to us - and being there to help us manipulate ourselves to the desired outcome. So if we took a rod to measure all depth, from the black sea surface to the bottom "cling"-void - they occur to us on a Level that is comprehensive to us. The intersection with infinity is one of the more outstanding ones. Experiences. So if it goes 'beneath' that - it goes beneath what our rod can measure - which in regards to the 'body' simply is to say that there is that part we control, and that part wich is deeper than that. This in the end is a sense of continuity, "the gist" if you so will of an order that your manipulations follow. The 'inherant abnormality' maybe. But rather so the 'primary riffles' and first structures of which they bounce off of. Here the rod is a thing, and it measures that space that we connect to the surface, the outer world. Halfway down we have our deeper feelings - and at the bottom there is just the 'chink' - cut - beyond which simply put infinity shines through. This is the outward existence for all that we are concerned - the space into which our perception is bound and the base wherein our understanding/will is capable of acting. On the other side there is us which passively reflects our foremost ideals. So, those Seals that exist for me on this 'sub existential' level make a great example of why we might want to have that there in the first place. Or one example of how it happens to be practical. Marriage - most simplistically put. If you really want to be with someone, you might as well conclude that you should be fundamentally setup so that you will forever value this relationship. Once that is mutual then 'bingo' - locked.


What Satanists now do - or what I discover is going on in myself - is now what would, we might say, occur if some teens got their hands on that thing and figured out that ... hey ... they could do stuff with that.
Hmm - ... well. Without a lot of speculation there is that Nag Hammadi text that is called 'the Authentic Teaching'; And if you replace the initial terms of the relationship between the declared entities into a sexual context - the whole text will make an amazing lot of sense. In this regard it all started so that a couple of entities enjoyed making Love with each other - and thats as far as I want to go with that for here because its enough to ask the question: If that now already concluded within exponential synergization ... how far can we expect those individuals to change?

I mean, their mutual consesus is already established within a bunch of given 'startup synergies' - anchored as sophisticated by each other - and therefore woops already close to something resembling a culture. Now we can change the perspective onto step 3 even, to the question of how free we ultimately are in settling what those are.

What has to now be considered is that 'fundamentally' a given relationship like that - in this basic context - can be visualized as a pool that is made up of a bunch of vertices (points) connected by lines (curves).
Here the pool is a riffled liquid and the structure of those vertices creates a resonance within the liquid that causes those vibrations which stimulates the effective reality of the whole. This liquid resembles the bottom ground of any detectable presence of this synergy - and while effectively being composed of individuals that are individually interested into a kind of synergy with the rest ... those individuals make up a whole based upon concepts they agree upon. This I experience in terms of conditions wherein a given 'climax' seals a fundamental condition that in the experience exists there as the 'high spike' of the whole ... and this includes a personal awareness of the own selves resonance to that - whereby now knowledge of the own self is what dictates the given alignments. Intention can at this point not alter someone elses behaviour - and this is really the essence of what this liquid resembles. The 'zero ground'. There is however a link on given terms, as that of 'being' the one who one is within that given space.

This is now in the intended context 'not' equal to Step 1 terms of 'basic' - since these now inherantly imply flavours that are basically 'the echo' of those riffles as ascending to the higher planes of existence. We can at any rate impose some existing pre-condition however - as simply derived from retaining a counterstance to implying that each and everyone is already baked into a final relationship. This is so a step 0, in the sense that a 'bigger idea' is acquired to govern the general tenants of our individual intents of existence.
So the things we would do to get what we have ... sortof. We are however free to arrange ourselves however we want. In the society of today this may mean that you end up lost - and to which extent we can improve things for each other would in some terms need to be answered by some mutual effort to find out.

Taking this into a Step 4 - we got Family.



Step 4 - Family.

So that. :D V. Like, what could Family in the infinite afterlife mean? There is a) continued randomization and b) infinite arrangement. And stuff in between. Such as contemporary, semi contemporary or whatever.

So - what I get from this is for once that any time we can confirm two individuals as recognizedly wed by the divine - we can essentially get an insight into a cultural cell.
On the other hand can we find macrocosms if we think about generalities.

Those are things that come to mind first. This so the aforementioned privacy too. Being.


So - in that case - in terms of the fundamental principles of existence and synergies, there is now this aforementioned 'stream of consent', lets call it that way. This 'God established harmony' - proposedly - and enlightendly - is now what each individual 'floats with' - in terms of "on the rod" or 'bottom rod' experiences - and substancially even sub-existencial ones - however - so the idea at least. On whatever Level now a true emotional exchange were to happen, each individuals contemporary experience of the situation funnels into that realm and factors in as 'shared' by God if we want to see into the enlightened reality. So does each and everyone have fundamental privileges in being unified with God, so, where the Big God takes care of us all - where our fundamental place in existence is anchored within God. This were to translate into things such as, if I weren't feeling too well, I would in some regard be locked out of certain cycles that would violate any of my fundamental 'God given' privileges.

This is then valid for the 'social meta' - as - how I am made to matter I will be conceived. This is something I strongly expect to be true at least.


Admittedly, this is still an issue that puzzles me at some points. Or there is an issue - within that - at least one - that I am still puzzled by. Vastly concerning my expectations of the future. But well, where I say that its 'up to them' because of 'so and so' - I think it doesn't matter because the now of then will happen on its own, sotosay.

But essentially this in terms of extremes means that there were a common ground for consenting adults to make certain things happen - as individual cultural flavours make up more fundamental aspects of one individual unit than others there are inherant cultural lifestyles whereby a flux of mutualities dispersed amongst a variety of depths/intimacies/stuff goes further into cultural development.
And at which point 'can' we here 'start' to make reasonable sense of anything to fundamentally agree upon?



What I meant by all this - going into this - at the start - at step 1 - is that we can separate something we mistakenly accept for 'just one dot' into a variety of things with a great range of causal dependencies and what not.

And taking everything "we valued" away by calling them Basics can within the individual dimensionality of that one single point be a point within a realm full of chaos and stuff - and if we learn to do that we can fundamentally grow upon it.
I mean by that, that within the realm of values - if we can reduce them to what most fundamentally matters - we can grow upon that reduced reality and live without an urgent need for them.

I guess This is important !!!. Just sayin'.

Wait for it.


So, then we get to flavours. To be specific ... well, ... here - I should stick to what you can relate to. Or whats relevant going into this. Culture thereto exists at some far end of wrapping issues up. As we initially had it with simpler-izing stuff - or so desimplifying them respectively - they build up our hallmarks of religious unity going forward. We can here think about the most basic concepts to start with. We would want some ways to interconnect - this is nothing new - but when thinking of how that affects us without Unification we get to similar but in some places out of control results. We could wonder how all of that mirrors onto the other end - and here I think a good and polarizing destinction is to see in terms of 'consenting' and 'dissenting' arrangements. Dissent specifically goes against the rights of other people - which in the divine is most certainly a no go. So there is no reason to believe that any of that has any total value. But consent now can translate from the higher planes into the nether ones - here also, leaning towards 'the Authentic Teaching' (sexualized), between emotional relatives, so to say: Their intimate arrangement as 'culture' exists on the base of invoking certain individuals in certain ways - such as being individually in sync with those around. Uhm, so are synergies like 'from the roots up dedication to something' once consolidated through a society like that, well, first of all consolidated - yet secondly are those individuals that pivotly contribute to the existence of any given associated habit right away 'functional' as that. To say that so the child once born is that individual who expects to be 'from the roots up' embraced by its "relatives" or so 'intimate links'. This in the sense is as a seed - and those are inherantly 'consenting' stuff. So - a Whore thereby is I would say someone who is fundamentally aligned to exist as prostitute, inherantly implying some private roots to that alignment. This just sparks to my head as I realize myself as functionally subjected to my "husbands (plural)" desires. This is constituted as some inherant sacrifice which gives me a strong desire to be owned by them - as in: put into that situation. There at some point went the climax - and this basically echoes throughout my being but has prior to unification not actually been a thing. It in some sense stands there as a misguided direction when thinking in terms of what I have outspokenly been attracted to in terms of gender correlation, while both would also make for general, non-mutable sexual differences. And this would go on to answering the fundamental aspect of one type of thing we have to anticipate dealing with.

So the term is: However God will make it happen/support it. Which first of all demands an individual to personally connect to the divine and thus becoming capable of supporting the divine structure.






Well, I didn't mean to write this much. But one thing that I have to certainly be clar about is the value of Unification. Hehe ... kindof paradox.

But well. Actually I meant to begin with something like "I can't accept it - that ..." - rambling off about no matter how strongly I feel comforted about what my desires end(ed) up being, I get to wake up and fade away into disbelief. This however actually sparked the initial insight. That the general comfort I received was a primary motivator and while holding on to it separating myself from what gave me discomfort. If I had to ever "snap out of it" - well, ... well, how is that? What I describe as comfort in the big picture sense ... or well, what I so far generalized as my 'idealistic' experiences could be described as comfort in the bigger sense. So, whatever is related to clarity, yet further so the outlines, is from this way of beholding simply the fact that there are cultural habits alike that will inevitably happen. At some point. And prostitution is hereby simple a habit of externalizing various social alignments. So for instance. So are there things which "outsiders" can partake of - of the given principality - which is also a factor to the growth and life of a culture. Based upon habitats there then are domestic places - which translates into lifestyles and lifestyles.
And this basically makes up normality. If we thereby took any God given compound out of context - within no relevant external context - we wouldn't and couldn't have a problem with it. And that was what I wanted to end out on. The meaning of Culture in context of Unification and Church. Thereby I have provided you with some reasoning 'towards' understanding the presences of various cultural alignment - and there are various ways of simplifying various things although ultimately those only support the existence of cultures - while those that then do legitimately exist make up the practical sense and meaning of what these things involve.




inherant consensus

CNS.2017.07.11|19:58