[stuff about Clarity, Law, Freedom and Individuality, Religion and Order, ... privileges, marriage, ... and Sin]
"They say, that what we propose is a means of escapism" - or something like that - is written in one of them books where I got that Unification stuff from. It sounds like what any other sect/cult would tell its followers about its teachings, providing something of a refuge for the irritated individual. And well - nothing is going to change 'that way' when entering the true Religion; And why? Because it are those principalities of existence we prolong that eventually make us want to stay. Its like family. By such superficial arguments, families are cults. Who would deny that?
So, when entering the big family of God, what would be different? The issue with this "real world" and "real life" thing is - escapism. We would try to deny it. The bible tells us that Jesus came to bring the sword, to part family members from each other. So we would go and seek to keep contact to our family members "because" - yet we traverse the world on our own, seeking as much distance from them as genuinely possible. Some there have a closer attachment to their parents than others.
Even incestuous ones.
I cannot tell or claim that such exists outside of fantasy, ... but I've ... read stories. Apparently it happens. And apparently those situations that would seem that they could only happen in fiction, ... do actually exist here and there. But maybe usually less pretty than an artist might envision. Either that is how it is, ... or it is just so in the Media. Who knows?
Of course press is biased either way. It tells the stories - and woe the public opinion finds distaste in the positions these take.
So would incest seem to be the direct opposite to what Jesus claims there in the Bible. But that also only ... from certain perspectives. I mean, the issue is that we all have something of an attachment to our parents. In one way or another, ... family is family. So - OK - good, I have my new one now. Apparently. Though - apparently not. First of all, choosing God to be my father is an ideological choice - based on the or some ideals of idealizing God in His/"its" fatherhood. #TheCreator. But also so within the Bible God is endeared to us as Father, ... and when getting beyond the strictness of His, ... that is when taking the reasons for Him to be strict/"grim"(harsh, rough, angry, ...), then there is God as God is within which there is a Father aspect that is quite pleasant.
It is through this invisible hand that I learned ... of the ways, or some of the ways, of this world.
So in a manner that truly shines out from beyond. As anyone would ... well, maybe its a thing, ... easily explain stories about God through natural means. Its ... "in there". Like in the Matrix thing, ... cosmic flow issues.
First it was the Matrix for me, then it was Joe, ... then I tried calling it Cosmic Flows, ... while Cosmic Convergeances would make more sense, but ... that term would also cover a lot more than just that.
Same could be said with Flows, ... but whatever.
So I would be delusional, or ... somewhat, ... overzealously interpreting stuff into stuff.
Well - I got a mindburn from some weed now. But ... thats part of the story I was going to tell here.
We introduced escapism and implied that within it, we find a lot of what we actually want. Or may want. It was issued that we yet seek to escape, ... seeking ... the distant. This is a cultural paradigm, ... in that "back in the days" families had greater value. Its so that from within the roots, ... traditions would be kept within families. Father does this, Son does the same. There so is that issue of privilege. If your dad had something built up, it is of privilege to be able to work and learn there. From that would come a higher standard which 'ordinary peasants' could not have.
Nowadays however these boundaries do not exist anymore. Through our educational system we can all have free access to information of centuries and that in a wide variety of subjects. You don't need to be the son of a biologist to ever learn about biology. Fiction only adds to that in that it sparks/sparked our imaginations for what there might be.
Whether 20.000 miles under the ocean now inspired explorers or just movie makers, ... well ... who cares?
Might be interesting.
So we're in this society where the bonds of family loose meaning. Actively so, probably. The "old generation" is that which has come forth from those ancient roots. I however remember my Gramps (no longer alive) who used to take us to Bohemia for hollidays once or twice showed us his old 'home'. It was a hat in the middle of the woods, or ... what remained of it. Just a few barely recognizable walls.
He told us stories about eating his first Banana. I though barely remember any detail of any of it. But the gist of it is that civilization was a bit off. Out of the way. He had to walk through school essentially on pathways through the wilderness. I don't know how wild ... but well, ... it was family. Quite a few live here in the area. Also part of my granmas. Which is ... as after the war ... my Gramps eventually however ended up nearby, ... and two of his brothers live around here too. So - of course families would look for each other. Gather in camps - and from there on out it was living on food-stamps for a while.
Well - according to him, for those whom it matters, the sentiment after the war - or starting with the loss at the front of russia - the sentiment amongst the soldiers began to shift and in prison camps ... jokes about Hitler were ... certainly a thing.
Maybe its wealth. Overpopulation even. So, the more people there are, the more work can be done. Businesses grow - and a lot of business just revolves around money. There is no resource other than that - as - what is bureaucracy? And ideologistic complex of nonsense, just there to ... keep us busy. It seems.
When we're dealing with Incest however - we got to ask ourselves the question: Is it rape? I don't mean to ask: Is incest Rape? I meant to wonder: Is "that particular" case of Incest rape?
So, that is in about the goodest angle on the topic of clarity I found so far. To start off by asking the question: "What about Incest?". Which - I would assume in this case - you would want to ask me at some point, ... had I mentioned nothing of that sort. Now, how to take a proper apostolic position to this? Can I tell? Well - I didn't learn anything from any apostles. And if I did, I didn't know they were that. Maybe I assumed something of the sort ... or 'somehow knew' ... but ... got it?
Anyway, ... it has been a personal issue of mine. I wondered. So, because after Christ left the Apostles there, ... they were left on their own and much of the Bible itself is ... well, even just on behalf of them. They didn't create the New Testament themselves. The new Testament is a report from others - so, as a letter that: "This is what happened and I have come to the belief that it is true". Does tell.
So, whatever 'Christian Knowledge' there is - we got to wonder. Where is it? Or, where has it come from? How is the duty of an Apostle? They were asked to go out and preach, yet apparently left clueless about what to do or say. Until ... enlightenment came to them, ... or something.
We learn from the Bible that the Law is naught, but not naught. "Not a yota will be taken from it". So, the law is valid - but then, whats all that Sacrifice "nonsense" about? We got to wonder. Some would have an answer that sucks, other would think they know it better. That seems to be the case there. So - I got to 'ask' as there is no unity about it - it seems.
And that is the issue.
What would an Apostle tell?
And why? Or how?
How are we supposed to know anything???
So - I wondered, totally different subject, about this Force thing, ... within the Ninefold - ... how it works, or ... how to describe it when inevitably I have to. I would usually describe as something ... 'beyond'. Something ... that isn't in the Eightfold. Its ... that way hard to actually tell ... in which way it is different because ... it just is different.
It occured to me from time to time that people were wondering, or might wonder, ... suggesting that in some way it has to be comprehensive within a form. Which Form does the absolute and infinite take though?
The one thing I would say now is that it seems that it is the 'knowledge' itself that takes 'phase' with infinity, 'reflecting' of infinity its own intimacy about a thing, ... thus adding a certain 'shine' to what is "rendered to us" within the spectrum of limitations.
We could take this in a naturalistic way, ... but should not forget that God can also ... think for Himself. Thus, the matter here is the spiritual aspect of it. As we have emotions, those are based on spiritual capabilities - things the spirit can do. Therefore God can. The issue is that ... speaking. So, God can generate these "fields" of information that is dear to God, coming in form of a message to us. It to me makes however most sense when speaking of a sacred relationship between two people - which God holds dearly and thus it reflects to us as truth. In this there is also the harsh contrast between the soft and the hard. On the soft end we can find God dearly caring about a given relationship, though on the other we must face the hard facts "of legality" - whereby this endearing care is effectively to happen on the infinite scale, on the absolute plane. So - which is where Unification happens as how it happens. We get to grow familiar with the infinite - realizing just how far ahead of us it is - how small we are in comparison - which is why we "give it to Him" - though we rather must say that there is nothing we could give Him.
Suggesting that there is space for negotiation is suggesting that God didn't think of all possible concerns already, ... and how do I know that again?
It was however ... time to return to the topic of clarity.
The argument against any claim that would open up for sexual possibilities ... would most basically be stuff around it "leading to no good". So we can therefrom derive the "prime issue", which is 'the worse case scenario' - basically - of that 'no good'.
I would have fortified my argument by claiming that there are safeguards in place, for He who gives us those passions to go forward also takes them away. They come and go. Which is then where we had an argument about what is and what isn't - inside and outside of the Ninefold.
So, to the mind burn//weed burn.
I realize that I must stop. But ... this is a very complicated issue when analyzed in depth. On one simple line however the case is that I'm now getting a sense for that which not smoking it would improve. The case so far has usually been that whenever I had anything, I generally had some excuse to yet do it - or was otherwise encouraged to not be too troubled about it.
Now is weekend - so its fine. The start into the week was botched anyway - so its fine. Ah, the day is as good as over - so its fine. Oh, what a pleasant morning - how could I not?
Thats the inner Momentum there. But - in another subject, my inner Momentum is still in 'defensive argumentation' when it gets to my gender journey. I mean to argue in defense of my own, against some inner voice of oppression. So, seeing that I can try to change it.
And that is where the inner Momentum is ... what matters the most. It is the means by which we come to develop a sense for who or what we are. Our mistakes and accomplishments that define us ... that 'describe' us as individual from the void.
The inner momentum is our own presence as fortified through its past. Our concerns that either vanish or grow. Curiosities, interests, ... all that.
And so I generally used to tell me that I must stop smoking weed - at least, every now and then when I felt like I was just too busy being high. Or whatever. Something ... a sense of not getting to do anything or wasting it while playing Video Games. IDK. The issue is that with whatever good intentions I started into a week - a) the experience of doing it wasn't grown strong enough, but b) with nothing being on or the idea of being done in no time was enough for me to skip it. Well - in my own Momentum of basically sitting down in my chair and thinking about what I could do from there.
Now I do have weed - and now I'm entering a time where I know I shouldn't be heading into ... too high. And however the end of that ... the issue is that there is growth.
Did I mention that the 'I must stop' shouldn't mean that I truly believe that I absolutely have to abstain from it? I don't believe that. The conflict at the core is that of getting some order into it. Some sense of a structure. So, ... as to change the Momentum.
Those times where I wanted to ... well, thought I should stop - those would then translate into moments where I shouldn't have that issue, so, by not smoking too much in the time ahead of those. So - I have to observe more critically when and when not to. Where the issue is that most of the time I don't have a reason not to.
I bring this up because it would be brought up. Regarding ... self-control. I however don't say that self-control is the issue. Or an issue. I don't believe that my weed-smoking habits are the/a problem. Either. Times where I should lay low a little are basically tied into stuff I got to do in this world. And ... other issues I haven't gotten into yet.
Now, what I get as "a reasonable stance" - so you - were that of demanding some ... abstinence. That we all so agree to stop doing certain things and all will be dandy. But do you think that this time its gonna be more than every new year? This time it'll work? We all just got to believe hard enough ... ... and this time we have a real reason and motivation!
I mean, thats sortof my issue with weed. To abstain for some reason of soberness to interact with certain people or entities I have to interact with for some reason. To maybe get my room tidied up, ... or whatever. To just be clean ... ? Well, thats where it goes too far for me!
And thats just me - sortof. I like to smoke weed. If you make it a problem, ... thats your doing!
Well ... how is that?
What are we saying? Going by the Word of Wisdom: Every herb is good! That it be used in right measure. And so I wonder what the right measure of weed is. And so the question is what the right measure of anything is.
So - how can I concoct an answer to the super-imposed question? We can quote the Bible and get into an argument about the core principles of the Gospel. Not a yota vs but the Law. "We can't expect order from enforcing no rules" vs. "The law is written into our Hearts".
Its an issue when wrought out by people of different faith - what can we expect? Eventually the one as the other will have to either change their fundamental beliefs or reject to change their minds. As there is a group which 'can' claim the latter argument, that the law is written into our Hearts, ... and here the argument ... is ... "crazy". ... uh, 'crazed'. In a given setup of powers the powerful unbeliever wants a satisfying answer from the believers which only have an answer that is rooted in their faith, a faith the unbeliever has no part in. So either the believers bow to a compromise or they find a way to have it their way.
Yet so asking for what is 'right' within that realm of holy alliance with the Most High, ... the answer cannot be one that doesn't imply God to some extent. And the conflict washes up as ... well ... Gods part could be that of pronouncing a Law we could then give to the Unbelievers to sortof have it that way, ... but the Law written into our Hearts ... well, what is it like or about? Is it the same for all of us?
Short answer is 'no' - and the long answer revolves around it not working like that! It shouldn't be thought of as a written codex, ... a universal truth for everybody. Thats what we have or would say is on the 'mortal end'. Where we need some written doctrine to regulate between rights and wrongs. But there's an example of that in the Bible. In the Tabernacle - as given to the Israelites during their exodus - there used to be a Table with sacred Breads. They were not supposed to be eaten. One day however David was fleeing - and passed by the Tabernacle and took those Breads. Now, ... my Memory is flawed about it - but I think that story is later then referenced by Christ ... and not in a way that condemns David.
Its like the Breads were there just for David to have them.
So there is the written Law, an order, ... but the ways of life on the other end - which is why we generally say that there is an exception to every rule.
Thats a good way to start ... but ... not really enough.
The Law that is written into our Hearts isn't a flashy inscription we could read ... easily. I have to learn of myself and Gods correspondence to that. And therein - within my own individually - where I have those fundamental agreements with the divine - thats where I can start speaking of a Law thats written into my heart. Its totally different from ... "etiquette". I think thats what Mormons would refer to as 'the Light of Christ'.
And what is that Law about? I got to ... well, you got to squint a little to see it ... "sotosay" I think. I got to emphasize a bit more just how much this 'individuality' thing 'mixed' with "Gods confirm-ment" ... is the thing thats really to be seen here.
Its there where 'you' know ... straight from God ... what is 'fair' about you. And yea, many 'outside' may have an issue with that this part is entirely ... "up to the individual" ... sotosay. Like ... I could make up something. Whatever. But if you just take a few steps around that issue, ... you can see it from the more objective ... 'present direction' within it - that the individual rule that God establishes within the individual will start/continue to be(come) present ... and that all on its own. You could say that it just happens to be individuality. No need for any legal terms there. Now the issue with the 'stance against a universal codex' is that of criminality of course. Saying that we have a Law is to create criminality. (Letter to the Romans). Saying that we don't have/want one, is to say that some of us "would be" criminals.
Thats the whole point. To make a law that is perfectly fair - we now would have to go and equate things to each other. So - I do what some consider criminal. I smoke pot. Now I could go and say "OK, I'll stop it" - but at that moment "Divine Righteousness" would have to come in and demand from those that demand me to stop a similar sacrifice. That doesn't mean that they can squiggle themselves out by saying that they just don't do pot. As for me - who I am and what I do, ... what I'm passionate about, good at, etc. - weed has a certain significance. And through this a synergy unfolds ... where how I manage it now ... is the issue?
Well, yea - but not entirely.
The point is that from those few aspects where weed ties in well, the ties to the weed allow the weed to tie into things that maybe don't benefit from it all that well. But how would we know about all that? Social ignorance however ... wouldn't be beneficial to it.
On the other end is the more simple thing - that on a crude basis there are the ways in which it benefits me - while I don't do anyone harm; So - as of which there is this simple good vs. evil angle of me just living my life. Not hurting anyone, not meaning anyone harm, just minding my own business. Which is why the demand on me to give it up is basically without foundation. It isn't 'right' or 'righteous' ... and while I'm innocent your judgment of me renders you guilty where the proper punishment would be that you had to give something up that is significant to you.
Now, there is not a lot to be 'known' here. This just makes sense, and thats how ... my mind works. I mean ... I learned to draw certain conclusions that come in certain ways by some ... 'force' ... . There is a meaning provided to me that I just can't deny. And despite having it I don't think I am incapacitated from looking around and understanding contradicting points of views. Within these 'forced conclusions' there is a clear sense of direction which harmonically aligns around the schemings of a true and perfect God.
Well ... perfection ... what is it?
Asking one of us to be perfect however, is asking us to become robots that have autonomous responses to each and every possibly even just slightly politically/ethically weighted issue ... period. That on the slightest hint of an iniquity we would react with "proper force" to repel it and put it into its boundaries.
What it means to me - by some spontaneous measure - to have a submissive clarity is that for once dominance becomes possible. But also do I feel the "those that exalt themselves shall be ... err ... "humiliated?" - and those that humble themselves shall be exalted" bit in a ... strange way. Submissiveness is in part of my being - thats just a thing. Thus it blends into sub:dom/dom:sub oriented society - however does that also always impose the questions of wealth. So there must be some compensation for the submissiveness. So the individual isn't punished just for being ... how it is.
Further though is it in deed so that on the other side its monkey business. Saying that I through my being blend into a given society, the same is true for everyone in it. So, we all there have that inner synergy with ourselves - in that theoretical environment. So, an immediate reward - in some sense - were it not for given social pressures and tensions ... that so come with hierarchy.
So, on one scheme we can draw an axis as a mirror axis and see two sides, the dominant and the submissive, unfold as neutral in their measured worth. The submissive person is in better harmony with itself when in the submissive, ... while the dominant is in better harmony with itself when in the dominant. When we get to talk about weed - the issue is similar - where now either the pothead imposes the pot, or the "lawhead" imposes the law. When however talking of communities whereof we can think of "sufficient distance" is a more lightheaded way - it is clear that the one is invading the other, ... in whatever which way now.
Those are however struggles that emerge ... between now sacred grounds. Thats the big difference ... where now comparisons to 'criminal environments' ... fail, logistically. What comes first is the sacred ground - so, Gods "warranty" in a sense, of him saying: "This is you and I'm fine with it!". When you then go and build a legal structure around it, it must not contradict to it.
What we then however get in-between those grounds ... that is where a recognition of what these grounds are happens to become important. That so that once we want to impose something such as a middle ground, there are always those closer to it than others - and that ... is an issue to balance. So, these grounds also first have to ... be ... a thing. Otherwise I can only speak for myself - and there are those places where I experience my 'submissive harmony' - from my own situational perspective which then also comes with sufferings and satisfactions ... without anyone around me to basically 'stabilize my equilibrium'.
So yea - basically this all is just theory, but basically ... already is spelled as jurisdiction. Recognizing true human nature will help us craft a jurisdiction that is fundamentally bound to its interest. Err ... know what I mean? So to realize the inevitability of individuality can become a thing - where then, well, 'duh', ... we have to become more specific. But with individuality being a right, ... school systems would have to change to accommodate for the individuals best interest. And the jurisdiction here rather says that those things have to be in place, rather than what must and mustn't. Err ... yea, ... sortof.
The way I figured this out is less by reason, but more by how the thoughts were tainted. Or how they would and wouldn't snap to each other.
And that somehow is a skill similar to talking.
How the mind moves and juggles with thoughts - to generate something from the sense or meaning of a thing.
Which comes in two "forms/ways". The Light of Understanding involves the Aeons of Wisdom, Peace and Perfection. The Light of Level-Headedness involves Image, Love and 'Understanding'. These two Lights appear a lot in tandem with the term 'Pistis Sophia' - which as by descriptions is about the deeper rationality behind their contextual drive with each other. In comparison the Lights of Mercy and Perception are in perception different. Mercy is the thing that is perceived while Perception is the thing that is perceiving. We can describe them as interwoven from where we can derive the suggestion of a similar situation between Understanding and Levelheadedness.
How the mind moves and judggles with thoughts may also seem to at first involve Wisdom. Perfection being the intention that comes from the peace within Understanding ... does what? It applies Image, Love and Understanding to generate a thought integrated to a given 'sense' or Wisdom. Wisdom then however is the Form we perceive within a constellation of words for instance. These constellations enter perception and beget meaning, where we by our desire can similarly generate constellations ... 'pre-perceived'.
Involving God into our cognitive processes adds that these emergences can get properties of divine intelligence, ... thus reacting in ways to each other that behave in accordance to a higher wisdom.
So there are concepts I come up with that are aimed at getting it right, but end up being wrong to some extent whereby I then go and re-arrange things until they fit together ... a bit better. Sometimes there's still some ... shivers of discomfort, ... but getting that right would be a whole different magnitude of things.
Like, from sea to space travel.
So is there however a "fantasy world" - which in the sense truest to the term emerges from the individuals contemporary "composure" as abstraction from the 'hard facts'. Which are or can be ... "fractals" in and of themselves.
But while all that is just more or less certain - certain things do 'stand tall' - by being established through a clear enough word and/or meaning - and with them comes a sense of universalistic order.
What is not to be missed here is that these sacred grounds are no permission to anyone involved to impose their norms onto others. So - what I regard as true for me at that Level is also first of all just true within this 'bubble' wherein the 'we don't harm anyone' rule is established.
And sure, while for the start everything is crude - we all have to take it that what we get 'here' on that end of things is most likely crude to begin with and therefore have to expect certain inconveniences. But ... while there is nobody to enforce any of those rules ... well, who cares?
Oops. So, where were we?
In the beginning there's just the simple question for "whats allowed?". And the end of the story is that this isn't how we should think about it. That further opens into field of larger complexity, which, to a point, is there to answer just that question.
How much can and can't be justified by individuality? Well - individuality shouldn't be an excuse. Hence there is etiquette - and slandering it comes with punishments of unworthiness. ??? Sortof? Well. Smoking renders me incompatible with the Church of latter day saints - sortof. And more. I can't fully abide by their standards of worthiness - and thats a ... very impressionable experience solely based on certain spiritual perceptions.
Where your first experience with the Force may as well be that which comes of baptism?
Well, ... I think thats ... an issue - of getting things twisted. There is the one side of the force which also manifests in any sense of anything, where experience in general is "the Force" - but isn't that 'fully' as the shift into the Ninefold makes clear.
But yea, ... almost forgot, ... one branch to all this is that once we acknowledge our individuality, ... we have to understand that it doesn't work like that, ... entirely. It can't. Its just ... an issue of society. In any random collective of individuals nobody can be certain of the others 'origins'. But even in a perfectly "harmonic" environment we can't make sure that we can all have it our ways always. Its as saying as that one can only be as loud as others allow them. And some people who are quiet can get quite loud at times too!
Rights and Righteousness. Are rights entitlements?
Sometimes the issue with Laws just is that ... they naturalistically can end up standing in the way of individualistic judgment.
So, we ultimately need God to work with us. The quality of ones individuality is then basically in equivalence to that persons synergy/"depth" with God. So, clearly we can't derive a solid law or rule from that in this sense.
But we can get a sense of "the Law of the Holy Spirit" - as where there is a specific rule that God embeds into our Hearts which we find hard to transcribe we can refer to that as equally mysterious by given nature - which basically should breed a certain kind of respect for handling those kind of issues.
The way it stands for me - the final answer will be certain religions that offer different perspectives on certain conditions, ... conditions that set individuals into places where nobody can truly 'scam the system' to get more out of anything or to exploit others.
Well ... as one can only be at "so many places" ... "at once".
Well - individualities that converge within any society that can be described as different other is so distinguishable by words of which some are dedicated to ideology or normalities. While in some sense the positivitualistic perspective assumes that there is a good common norm in all of them, the same is true for the opposite. A foundation as simple as 'respect the other persons life' can however appear in a variety of ways. Respecting a Slaves life due to its worth as a labor force might be one way - not speaking of anything sacred though.
The more 'detail' we want, the closer we get to 'hard differences' - and if we then were to apply certain criteria ... we can filter out certain things. So, there is a sweet-spot, we might say, where any society would either fail as abnormal or pass as normal - though, subjectively so. We can for instance go and oppose Christendom to Buddhism - yet we can also go and unite them. If we oppose them we breed individualistic ideals that "stick out to the eyes of preference". While we oppose them, we ignore what binds them together - which we can imply through our "preference" - saying that its the same thing although maybe not truly understanding the depth of this statement.
On the other side there is culture, ... a totally different "beast".
Understanding the middle-norm as something thats purposefully sterile ... neutralistic ... we can individually relate to it and describe our differences to 'it'. Thats ultimately how individuality works. It is some difference from some unifom ... something.
And so there are things to me as of the whore I am - that, ... well, ... 'obviously' stand out; In a way that ultimately ... involves Luciferianism. Thats ... something we eventually can't not talk about. Describing it as that makes sense as that is how God presents it - and it involves ways of life that preferred a certain norm other than ... "mute".
It then is a religion where incest would rather be encouraged ... for reasons primarily in concern of various individuals ... that attach to each other in a way that just translates into that when applying the form of familiarities - and maybe further assimilate it for fancies.
But when now something like that happens - two or I don't know how many meeting on premise of a synergy of identity - ... I don't know. But, ... implying that who were my Mother isn't my Mother, ... while I'm having such fancies. So - that reality is different to this reality - and for whatever whore I am - beyond just saying that thats my clarity - I'm having a growing sentiment to shove that aside.
Which is like saying that all the previous stuff I wrote about it is bollocks, but not quite. And ... just so we're on the same page here: I've lost oversight of all the open threads there might be ... here, still. The main concern is pretty pointy, ... and moving on with that ... the issue is once again that of clarity.
The way how it got to that for me is that after I first adopted Mormon standards for myself I have become more and more open"ed" to more open ideas - as the: "If I don't hurt anybody, is it bad?" question goes. Pretty much of that has just been philosophy but to some part that yet had taken me back into older habits. Basically smoking.
The way I got into prostitution was just weird - as beyond my own control. It was certainly "there" - to me just around the corner, ... though yet once across the globe because of my own inner ideologies that kept me away from it. Or ... "would keep me away". There certainly isn't or wasn't much thought in that resentment. Just some "of course" prostitution is bad. Because ... err, ... reasons. Its dirty or whatever. Its humiliating or whatever. Its "lesser work". Well ... its sex plus money. Money for Sex. Or Sex for Money.
One might say that this is the descent after I broke away from the Mormon rules. So, unworthiness leading to more and more of itself. The same could be said about US Politics right now, ... from both sides. You could say that about humanities efforts to explore space. You could also say that of those that say those things - in response to their ignorance. For when yet the argument goes that the 'old testament' says this or that - I've lost you at some point.
But - lets just put it that way: If the situation goes to say that there are certain ways that we mustn't be - that is as saying as that there won't be certain ways in heaven/paradise/"the next emanation". However we want to refer to that time or place. The logical conclusion?
But now the issue continues that there are individuals who grown based upon Gods light have an individuality that is to them as intimate as it gets - and their alignment to God helps them at discovering their own self and most importantly: Sorting things out in light of the truth - well, ... to say that they establish a stronger individually that is less willing to be suppressed by plain virtue of existing.
I'm reminded of the US prohibition - where the government ruled out alcohol and how crime spread in consequence. Same things are being said about Marijuana.
Though - I may have just ... last week ... screwed up my life, due to it. It was one week of me not checking my mail - and now of course all the deadlines have passed. And that brings me to this motivation to not smoking it - or the right time - again - which is simply that a sobriety focused start into the day will provide some more time to get that kind of stuff sorted out. Though that kind of stuff, ... to me is unnecessary inconvenience. But ... thats sortof the issue. And still I would for the most part blame it all on the lack of a supporting environment. Which ... is about everything that I am not.
Sure can I blame it all on me too - and certainly do I hold my own self responsible for those things that are in my control - but I'm still saying that the whole entire social infrastructure we live in is nasty. I mean, ... what doesn't work out for me can eventually be narrowed down to circumstances. Circumstances ... that had they not occurred because of this and that ... like, would I not have to go here and there because the Jobcenter wants me to find a job, ... or to go here and there to get some weed, ... because at the time I didn't have those 10 bucks or change for a ticket (excuses), ... whatever - I wouldn't have gotten those black tickets, ... . For instance.
What I so am talking about are circumstances or events that buffer against those ... "outer world threats" ... things that so happen, ... .
Or is it Ark?
The main issue for me is that I'm usually lost in my own thoughts, too much to generally care about the world around me. So - where not having the money for a ticket is an excuse is where I really don't think I have the 10 bucks for a 4-use ticket, or where the convenience of having a card didn't truly jive with me yet. The card from the bank into the ticket thing - works - ... but yea, then there is time. It takes a while, ... ... though that one day where I got caught I wasn't really in a hurry. The train I needed to take however was just arriving.
But its a more serious issue when asking ... well, I've heard that it is a common issue amongst ... the likes of me. Unemployed/Homeless people. ... Bad Habits?
Some would, despite any 'legal rights', see it from a critical ... social perspective, speaking of injustice on part of the jurisdiction. "People like me" are generally people with various problems. Some just 'can't' with society so much that they prefer being homeless. "Hitting the turf". Others that try to catch some foot are generally left in depressing conditions - where partially I get the feeling that each flicker of motivation is getting suffocated as soon as it appears. In the mean-time, that is between the individual appointments, you're somehow meant to look for work and spent your otherwise 'void filled' life ... and the more problems with finding work come, the more this 'void' takes over. For once. Problems with finding work can there be many, ... and they start at even knowing where or how to begin.
In the meantime those people usually have a shattered life to begin with. No tight links to family or friends - where the only friends end up being those around you at those times that just know how you feel about it.
Looking it up, the daily rate for the average unemployed would be at 1 to 5 bucks. The daily rate they however generally impose is at ... 60. And they want 12 of those.
And thats the kind of stuff. You read: "12 x 60" and baam ... whaaat? And I put it away because I'm shocked. It only adds to all the other stress you have with keeping up - while of course the other life also drags you down a little. Its a daily routine based on spending time, ... which eventually becomes more and more deprived by nature. While some would suggest filling that gap with activity would help, ... I wouldn't practically object, but still argue about 'relief' being good. Making it less problematic to somehow ... get settled. Or maybe stop pretending like there is enough work for everybody?
"Life isn't fair!"
But do I believe that "they" couldn't tell how much I earn, and how much they 'can' ask from me?
Another tough one.
And I get a headache. All this nonsense 'shouldn't be' - and that not because I behaved properly, but because such things shouldn't be in general.
And what do we do? We get money and spend it - putting it right back into the economy. That way we practically create work.
Its possibly a combination of all those things and more.
But back to topic.
We can say that with individuality there come flaws. While we can try to change as we are required by circumstance, ... any effort of that kind requires our awareness of the situational requirements. Thats just how it is. Punishment is there to evoke a response ... of practical self-improvement upon certain issues that are subject to that punishment. But however. I don't mean to discuss this at this depth.
What I'm saying is that we by our individual selves in certain ways differ to other peoples ways of doing things. And be it just nuances. When it gets to that in terms of human nature - I think we must shed the idea of corporal anatomy. We rather should speak of constellations of ideas, ... and while we could look at each other as rocks of different shapes and configurations, ... these cognitive constellations that make us individual would furthermore be an individual weighting within those rocks. So, certain points within the rock that weigh more or less individually; And have different magnetic alignments and what not.
So if a martial art for instance puts focus on certain movements that you inherently slander, ... you're going to have a tougher time mastering it, ... or an easier one ... eventually. Maybe so because you see what you get wrong in direct contrast to how you do it - ... .
And undoubtedly are there certain qualities that are beneficial to ... lets say ... working with other people. "Thats life". Now are there things I'm good at, or good for, ... but it doesn't mean jackshit to this society!
Soo .... . In the end the answer is: "Whatever". ...
... where was I?
Sure, if you understand the answer, you should also understand how it entails the good and the bad. The pretty and the ugly.
As for my own clarity - it works as an answer to this question; But as I see it now, ... just remotely. Its in the issue of incest - that my clarity, or clarity in general, doesn't really resemble a direct answer. I don't think that there is one clarity that specifically implied that.
To me clarity is mostly about profession or ... synergy with a social status. Or role, ... purpose. So, labels that are comprehensive to a society, ... entailing various forms wherein the individual then individually synergizes with. So are there various 'veins' that I have ... clear "triggers" or "handles" that make me flourish within such a relationship/situation. Whether that is wanted of my contemporary corporal presence ... thats an issue that has been bothering me. I mean, the question as to whether or not.
Thinking of what I want ... is problematic. Instead of thinking 'what I want' the formulation of 'how I want' it urges in - and seems to be more dominant. This is however a statement I don't have any context for to say it. The smarts behind putting it that way aren't there yet.
But having it presented that way allows me to try and understand that position, as of which I then can get to them eventually.
In that sense I do personally not have any motivation to prostitute myself to any capacity - while I however know of certain ways of how I yet would; Thus ... negating this statement through how things are (a.k.a.: I don't have a motivation 'now' - but I might have one later); ... and contrary to what some might believe is there yet a personal layer to it. There are my ways ... though while I at my core or whatever am submissive, this submission is 'casted within' a given environment of "familiarities" - which directly "buffer into" the given feelings. Its like ... an identity check. Trying to sotospeak impose as one of them by mere action would trigger an "unrightful access" feeling which generally ... is one of those legal issues ... mentioned earlier.
Ever so often I get to think of this due to a feeling ... which emerges from something taking the shape of what I'm looking for, mechanically. So if I here said that the trust wouldn't be there, this "thing" would attempt to become sotospeak 'trustworthy'. But it doesn't stop being uncomfortable.
Sometimes it triggers me to think that it is the sole reason for why I believe what I believe - but that is certainly casted out once I can calm down and re-emerge from myself.
The question there is in about around who may and who may not do what to and/or with me. Thats the feeling I'm getting. Someone thinking that he or she by what I say can give it to me much better. Like that came out as a surprise. And there is that breed that thinks that its all about that, it would seem. Supremacy or Superiority. That their ability, sotospeak or for instance, to take everything they see and add a few bells and whistles to it, makes them somewhat superior - and deserves our admiration and worship ... or something. That so justly based on that they so have the right to dig on me - keep my beloved away from me just to bend me over so I might eventually "accept "the truth"" - but yea. There is this thing of mine - that of 'falling to the devil'. So - where there is the picture of the "Heroine" (in a Hentai flick) that has totally succumbed to the lust of being a sex-slave. So, in a scene that would establish their perfect detachment from whats otherwise drawn as "normality" or "sanity". So, by imagination, sucking the cock of the devil in front of audience. Now - what this image however entails is a certain degree of submission on my part - which is in this sense integrated into a community we could so say I'm 'married (in)to'. So is the contrast of holy vs unholy just a theme around those figures implied/involved - and in this real world, it doesn't matter how 'evil' you are - my enthrallment is to those I'm enthralled to - which is those within this given environment wherein clarity reigns supreme. And in that realm we also play around with charms ... of mind-control. "Magic" if you so will. Because ... hey, ... its fantasy. Fantasy that works. It so helps my mind to get into certain tunes - the Light ... expanding its acceptance of ones individuality through benevolence.
Or is it ... clarity?
If not, I'd get these things mixed up because they ... fit seamlessly together, it seems. Where I can see how it would be two separate things though is at the "metrics" of attachments. There is clarity on one side, which is about me, "what" I am - and attached to that is a certain understanding of how it ties into my privacy, ... where there then is a certain understanding of my intimate affiliates or whatshouldmesay.
Here I think that I just 'have to' say what this is for me to make people understand ... what my consequential problems are ... living my life at any rate. I'm a whore, ... and my ties into privacy are that I'm enslaved to that capacity, where now my intimate affiliates are those that own me. And this sure yields a respectively extreme experience of what clarity entails. Which may however just be a misconception.
Well, moving forward the first question of course should be (??? "duh?" ...) that of what my own independence is about. So - the situation is that neither my owner nor anyone affiliated to them or however to the capacity of prostitution anything - is present, ... all of that falls flat. If there were some prostitution thing, that wouldn't automatically work out. For some reasons, where intimate ones would be just as good as other ones. Equally there could be reasons for something working out. //
Anyhow - what I'm 'getting' is that now my 'profession' is technically something other than prostitution. That changes how I'm tied into it - somehow - but now who my intimate affiliates are. Naturally. Nor does it change the things round about ... how I am turned into or held as a sex-slave. And well, if I have made a mistake in estimating its value, ... maybe the issue is that of the 'esoteric worth'. Uhm, ... so ... the esoteric background is "there" - but its dormant. All those individuals that are relevant to my 'esoteric identity' ... are missing. For context. Or anything that would however tie me into any of it. In this situation my perspective is that there is 'certain interest' in my intimate affiliates that doesn't come from the clarity perspective, but my own contemporary one. This goes to say that while those relationships are part of what we might compare to a machine that gives everyone purpose ... which is further driven by the passions of the individuals involved ... this isn't the only way how they and I can relate to each other.
So it ... stands.
At least in theory. The circumstance that I turn out to be female prior to any of my male (spirits(?)) dreams getting fulfilled - well, it certainly ... well, well, ... there is one way of seeing it as an unhappy ending, ... but in that it resonates with ... my marital bonds in a positive way. So, a happy ending on that side of things.
Anyhow. Thats ... where I was going with this anyway. That on the private/intimate side now these constellations are absolute. My spouse is my spouse. Those people I'm married to are who they are, what they are - and part of that involves our commitments to each other. As I allow someone to be dominant upon me - I make that person dominant. I give it that ... role in life, somehow. And so is it that I, in my privacy, exist as though I'm property of someone. So - caring for myself is something of a thing that ... I can't quite get a handle of/on.
And so, what happens as I enter that environment is that to the extent our bonds have been woven, ... certain normalities should kick in. This could imply enslavement. That is true as of my inner alignment to it. The "switches" I know I have. In reality however there yet is the driving force of 'her' (in that case) drive/interest and other things.
This now doesn't involve any illegal activity, ... while we could say that me with her is already incest and pedophilia - but so on an esoteric plane. We would have it that way, ... eventually, ... as part of how we relate to each other. So - thats where its either clarity or something else. Its ... the Light. I once suggested the term Psi, ... seems like ... we need it after all.
So, through that we breed the idealization of these circumstances requiring something of a religion that honors these kinds of kinks. And thats how I have become a "Satanist"/Luciferian. It simply hosts the habits opposed to the "order of the Light" - within the whole that is still good/just and right. So, here the Light creates a Law for the Purpose of casting shadow - while now different streams of life can assemble around given ideologies that imply their own laws in contrast to the "central" one.
What this says is that I'm not a whore per-se, ... that me being one so depends on certain individuals. Eventually there could be things in place against that - but right now this isn't about my individual fancy. But, I can mostly just relate to it from my own perspective; And right now I feel that my link to prostitution is mostly dependent on them. Any other way I feel "softened" up for it - is ... basically already running into dead ends. "I have no motivation" - and for the sake of argument I hereby impose that any relationships that matter to me have to respect that. So - thats how it could end. But maybe thats just me bugging out right now because ... I wanted to be this way in case I'd get the opposite.
I want to say something - ... but yea. What has to be said is finally that there are rules, in there. So, that my spouse is my Mother, amongst others that would be that, ... in some way, ... that is a part that is 'fixed in'. Whether or not we inherently chose Luciferianism thereby, ... is ... questionable. It might be that we just took on some preferences and then found those shifted into that. So, ... the easy way. Luciferianism then adds identity, or theme, ... and rules. It allows us to be married mother and son, ... it allows me to get turned around and enslaved, ... and in the sense does our attachment to that higher religion now bind us to sacrifices and privileges. To whatever extent ... that is yet to be explored.
Or well - maybe it should read: And the Luciferian way of things resonated best with us since it allows us to ... .
So, if one of those religions casts a rule - demanding certain privileges for its members - that goes 'one up' - and 'the people' have to confirm the validity of its claim. Essentially that were each and everyone for themselves, ... yet for sake of officiality rendered into an 'ecclesia' - where the individuals 'place' is that of confirming the validity of that.
This were then a black on white resemblance of what is and what isn't - confirmed - in terms of those things that are generally speaking for God. And that Luciferians ... as on my behalf ... would want permission to own people and do with them as they please ... is ... one of those issues. It has to be properly formulated and ... backed up and stuff ... as for instance also solving the issue of who ends up being a potential victim ... and also how the individuals freedom is protected ... ... . So do I think there have to be circles of twelve, where now a majority with objections should speak for something missing, ... and that would lead to further pondering. Or ... 'guided pondering'.
Figuring out whats left.
In terms of incest this can mean that an individual is 'entitled' to encouragement by religion. Sotospeak. Thats ... the Luciferian way. Personal humiliation - in terms of dignity or freedom - for ... gains of that kind. Subjecting ourselves to a higher power to manipulate our primitive instincts ... according to Lust or some respectively "dark diety". What matters is that it is all God - who finally carries all the things out that matter ... as to give "Lust" a tangible ... "self" of some kind, for us to interact with it as a diety, or guiding force. So is it then however so that instead of 'being allowed', one so rather is 'forced' to. Where I guess the cynicism on that side of life comes with a given lack of interest.
What I'm getting at is I suppose that there is a not to be underestimated amount of depth to these structures.
And that, so I'm alerted, doesn't necessarily stretch into the "more"s of anything.
Eventually we can come to talk of "Psi" as being in essence more like a seed that casts a sense of love - an idea of who we are, how we love, what we love, ... and so on - so that we can better speak of Love in terms of relationships, that so as by our better understanding of our own ways. Here what I got could ultimately translate into things that are rather simple - only craving circumstances of intimacy ... that is established on that certain type of intimacy and bonding. So, how our preferences, dreams, kinks, stuffs ... best line up with others, ... where we can 'start' to talk of 'true' love. (Where we can love the other for reasons that are intimate to us).