In this introduction, we see that in
contrast to our stagnant universe that
doesn't grow well; that in an all-good
universe with lots of growth, no one is
left behind, but are all advanced to
high levels, in good time. (Note:
FogoHC means Force of good of High
Capability. And force of good means
to cause a change that generates
positive growth) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When the joint venture of GROWTH
and gripping, does growth and
gripping on itself; there's a circular
feedback created that produces
tremendous quantities of growth.
When forces of good are producing
capability (exhibiting growth); they
can either produce new forces-of-
good; or new neutral-capability.
Forces of good are made of
capability. And for one force of good
to produce a second force of good; is
a force of good producing a force of
good. A force of good can also be a
force of good, by producing neutral
capabilities. There are great
advantages for forces of good to
produce more forces of good, as
opposed to neutral capability. For one
thing, the newly created force of
good can in turn produce force of
good of its own; and an exponential
increase in the production of the
force of good will result. Whereas,
with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of
capability increase is achieved, and
no new force of good is produced. For
another thing, the forces of good are
protected by the fogoHC, while
neutral capability is not. Thus forces-
of-good producing forces of good, is
more advantageous than forces of
good producing neutral capability.
However, before something can be a
force of good, it usually has to have
some minimum level of capability.
Like, it might help if something were
alive, so it could reproduce itself; or
that it be intelligent, so it could rise
above random action, which produces
decrease(destruction) as well as
increase(growth). Thus even though
the forces of good may want to
increase force-of-good capability right
away, they have to go through an
increase of neutral capabilities to
reach a minimum level, before forces
of good can start increasing forces of
good. (And, a neutral capability
cannot be gripped before it exists/-
before it is produced.) When a force
of good that is able to do gripping-
(that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact
(together) with neutral capability
produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of
the fogoHC, and is thus protected. We
see a picture of the fogoHC going
about gripping forces of good and
gripping the neutral capability that all
forces of good initially produce. With
more neutral capability being
produced; those forces of good who
can do gripping (that is forces
ogoHC), have more neutral capability
to grip, and thus turn into force of
good capability. As we can see, there
is always more and more neutral
capability (to grip) that is being
produced. But where does the
capability go after it has been gripped
and is a marginal force of good? Well,
there are 2 possibilities: A) it goes no
further and serves to produce neutral
capability for the fogoHC. it remains
at about its original level of capability
and fails to advance: being frozen at
some level of advancement so that it
is useful to the fogoHC, but that it
advances no further. or possibility B.
B) it could advance in its abilities to
first become alive; then advance in
intelligence; and finally become a
fogoHC. it continues to advance and
eventually becomes a fogoHC itself.
With possibility A, more and more
neutral capability is produced. The
amount of it increases exponentially.
But the fogoHC becomes no larger.
There is no growth in the fogoHC
because no lower capabilities are
allowed to become fogoHC. For the
fogoHC to produce more of itself, it
can replicate itself. But this is taking
lower forces of good and advancing
them to be a fogoHC. This is example
A not example B, so the fogoHC
doesn't do this. It finds itself with an
ever growing supply of neutral
capability to make contact with. It
might get swamped by the size of it.
It needs to grow in size to match the
growth of the neutral capability. It
could try and make itself more
powerful and become of higher
capability within itself. But whether it
could do this or not is uncertain;
whereas the creation of itself has
been proven possible by its own
existence. The fogoHC must increase
its own power at an exponential rate
just to keep up with the neutral
capability. But this is unlikely as the
fogoHC would be increasingly more
busy trying to handle the exponential
growth of the neutral capability, that
it would have less and less time to
work on its own advancement. Also, it
is into uncharted areas, as it has
never been that powerful before. It is
a driven and desperate fogoHC, that
is forced to keep up a growth output
and is driven by growth needs, if it
can keep up at all. In this picture of a
universe, it is easy to see how a
fogoHC could become overextended
and how the marginal force of good
and neutral capability could overgrow
a fogoHC, and eventually become
unmanageable. It could cease
contacting the neutral capability, but
that would make it vulnerable to evil.
Thus the force of evil would step in
and stagnation would result after
some point of expansion.
Possibility B: Now let's observe a
universe where the basic forces of
good produced, do advance to finally
become a fogoHC. With possibility B,
there would be more and more
fogoHC to keep up with the more and
more neutral capability being
produced. There would be no problem
of the fogoHC getting swamped.
Here, the contacting of the ever-
growing neutral capability is provided
by a fogoHC that is also growing
exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't
forced to grow in uncharted areas;
only in the replication of more of
itself, which by its existence, has
already been proven possible to do.
So it's very probable that not only
does the fogoHC contact neutral
capabilities and turn them into
marginal force of good capability; the
fogoHC also advances these
marginal-good capabilities to be very
intelligent, capable, alive; and finally
to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus
advancement.)
End introduction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and
demand; as applied to human beings.
If there is a shortage of humans, then
they will have a higher value and will
be treated better. But if there is a
surplus of humans, then their value
will be low, and they will be treated
poorly, according to their low value
according to supply and demand. So
that when women are considering
how many humans to produce in
terms of how large a family to have;
collectively, they have quite an
impact on how we're all treated by
those economic forces that rule over
us. xxxxxxxxxx In response to this,
someone wrote: "According to the law
of supply and demand, a shortage or
surplus of humans would not affect
their treatment but their _price_. In
some cases, a high price might lead
to worse (or better) treatment, but
there is no necessary connection."
xxxxxxx And I responded: -A high
price for humans, means that they
are paid a high wage. A high wage
means that they are not in abject
poverty.
Sometimes too much money leads
people to be unhappy. But a little
money keeps them out of the other
unhappy extreme of abject poverty.
Another way to look at this, is to look
at Mexico. There the catholic
traditions against birth control and for
big families means that there are
always a lot of little Mexicans running
around. And the resources of the
society must be divided up again and
again amongst them all so that they
mostly live lives of abject poverty.
That's not to say one cannot be
happy in abject poverty, it’s just that
it is a challenge to overcome. And in
a world where there is
destructiveness around; a medium
ability environment is what is needed,
not those of abject poverty, nor
richness. Note that Bible prophecy
predicts plagues and famines for an
apocalyptic end to the world. And if
people overpopulate the world under
religious direction, then the plagues
and famines will appear, as predicted.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And then there is
the conservative, religious rules over
our sexuality. But first let us consider
sexual reproduction in itself. Sexual
reproduction produces offspring that
are not exact copies of their parents
but are different from their parents to
some degree. So, sexual reproduction
generates differences between each
of us; it is a generator of differences.
But people who are different, do not
hang together. no, it is people who
are alike, who hang together. And E
Harmony matches to those who are
alike, not to those who are different.
Now, if we were all to have sex with
each other in unrestricted sexual
reproduction, then those differences
would be spread all back among our
population and we would not build on
or accentuate those differences. But
that's not the way sexual
reproduction works in our world.
Sexual reproduction is restricted to
one man one woman and to form a
family grouping to raise the offspring
produced. People of like interests and
skills tend to hang around with each
other; and that is where they are
likely to meet a mate, where they will
spend a lifetime together with
someone with common interests. This
leaves the people that are different,
as not reconnected together. So that
the genetic differences generated by
sexual reproduction are preserved
and compounded over each
successive generation. Being
different means that they are good in
different areas. So that different
groups of people are developed, each
being good in one particular area,
while not so good in the other areas
(exploring the scope of genetic
differences that human genetics
allow). So that as individuals they
cannot function well, but only as a
group can they work together to
combine their good areas to make a
complete and competent societal
whole. Thus the rulers of a society
have at their beck and call, all the
humans of the society to do their
bidding, because as individuals they
are all unbalanced in their skills,
incapable of being self sufficient as
individuals, who can only survive and
excel by joining the societal group
each to contribute their best skill. So
that what the conservative rules over
our sexual reproduction do is to
breed individuals who are slaves who
are easily molded by the rulers of a
society, who are incapable of much
independence as individuals, so that
we are more so a commodity to be
used by those who rule over us.
Human sexuality doesn't stop, but
continues to generate differences in
the offspring; and with the
conservative rules remaining in place,
this results in ever increasing
specialization in an individual's best
skill area, while the rest of the
individual's areas lag further and
further behind; so that individuals
become more and more unbalanced
so that eventually the individual
becomes a commodity (which is their
best skill), and is not so much alive
anymore in any of the other areas; as
generation after generation of sexual
reproduction under conservative
protestant rule progresses.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In a world
where the force of destruction is a
problem, we shall see that being at
medium ability, not at barren, neither
rich ability; is the solution.
Concerning the unbalanced
individual; being at barren ability in
all the other areas, is not good; and
the other areas, although lagging
behind, need to be advanced too,
eventually; otherwise it doesn't work
out. However, outside the
considerations of dealing with
destruction; what is the best
configuration to have, concerning the
societal entity (which is made up of
the best skills of each individual); and
also concerning the individual entity?
The societal entity, and the individual
entity, are both areas (of value) that
can be grown into and improved. To
leave a vacuum in any one of these
areas, represents an improvement
that can be made and grown into. To
act so that either of these areas is to
be sacrificed, is destructive, and is
against the directives of
growth/goodness and love, which God
purportedly is. The force of good-and-
growth needs/is able, to scale and
cross barriers to find raw materials
separated by barriers, so it can
continue to grow. This represents
many individuals(representing the
individual position) trying out all the
many different possibilities until one
is found that works; not the
elimination of options(elimination of
the individual positions) and choosing
just one (societal) way; especially
before one has found the answer to
the next challenge to growth.
Also there is the consideration of
coordination. As unbalance
progresses in the individual, the
individual looses sight of where its
best skill fits into the other societal
areas, as its own 'other areas' are so
feeble. Eventually the societal entity
becomes the individual, as the
individual entity no longer exists.
What was the individual entity, is now
like cells of the body -incapable of
any life or action outside the body
-there is no longer any intelligent life
at this level. The result of all this, is
the causation of a rich area (the
societal entity); and a barren area
(the individual entity); from what
used to be a medium ability situation.
What has occurred, is a polarization
to absolutes, by using sexual
reproduction and conservative rules
over sexual reproduction; over the
generations. Note that neither of
these absolutes(barrenness nor
richness) is capable of dealing with
the problem and force of destruction;
whereas the medium ability
environment is. And since we live in
a world still with the problem of
destruction, we will need to bring
back these medium ability
environments. And this means we at
some point need to interrupt this
conservative breeding program that
has been cornering the effects of
human sexuality; and violate it.
Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note
that to actually obey the command to
die to yourself for Christ's sake; that
when you take into and part of
yourself (so that it becomes part of
yourself), this action to die to
yourself; that you must also die to
this dying to yourself; so that an
incomplete dying to yourself actually
results; which provides the medium
environment needed, not these
absolute polarizations.//) The religious
exhortations to be like a seed and die
to yourself so you can be part of the
great big religion in the sky; so that
you can be part of the body: an arm,
a leg, an eye or an ear or a hand
maybe; so that you can die to
yourself and be one(in the
(societal)body): are all leading you
down the wrong path; it seems to me.
Because the appeal of Jesus Christ,
and need that He fulfills, as being
part of humanity; as being in between
the absolutes of highness and
lowness, representing humanity and
the in between: is not found here.
And the creation of a barren area in
what used to be the individual entity,
is against the directives of growth
and love. Now, in response to a
totally evil environment, this would
be a good response. Like a case can
be made that the world of the Roman
Empire, needed to be brought to an
end. But life is no longer so much
so. Yet the controls are set on
autopilot in this direction, and need
to be changed. A little bit of this
unbalance is OK, because it causes
the individual entity to also share
with the societal entity, so that both
entities can exist and grow. But too
much unbalance forces the individual
entity to death so that only the
societal entity remains. But then I am
reminded of the idea that if high good
ways exist, we as individuals should
seek to give up our individual ways,
because individual ways are fraught
with more destruction and are not as
good as the higher ways (of a societal
entity). But wait a minute: this is not
that situation. The directive to bring
the individual entity to nothing as a
means of solving the imperfections of
the individual entity/position; is a
different solution than the solution of
having a robust individual entity lay
aside its ways and let the societal
ways fill its needs (with the medium
level Jesus Christ entity as facilitator);
because in this solution, both the
societal entity and the individual
entity EXIST and are well grown into.
(Not all of the individual's actions are
defective; some are wholly good and
evil free.) Now then, not all evils are
based on need. The ones that are, are
eliminated by both these solutions,
dealing with the neediness of the
individual position. But other evils
that pop up, well, if there is no
individual position, then they must be
dealt with by the only remaining
position -the high and rich societal
position. And as we shall see, when
an evil is put into a rich environment,
a firestorm results and the whole
thing is burnt down. Better to let evils
be worked out in the individual
position, so that the societal position,
(which is made of the best parts of
the individuals collectively and is very
rich) can know how to avoid these
evils, having learned from its
individuals. Once again, I reiterate:
we are screwing ourselves if we
continue down this path to death of
the individual entity through
conservative running of our sexual
reproduction! Get off your ass and
fuck different people (while trying to
avoid a venereal disease, which is the
weakness of this directive). And have
some, but not too many kids from
this. Otherwise, if you insist on being
good and morally, sexually
conservative; you along with the rest
of your kind will be the cause of the
end of the world scenarios that
religious fundamentalists predict.
Because when hatreds are worked
out on the individual levels, it is with
guns and knives and clubs. But when
there is no more individual level, and
there are still hatreds to be worked
out; the societal entities work these
out with atom bombs. And who wants
to be responsible for blowing up the
whole world? Who is the biggest
terrorist now? Why it is the
conservative fundamentalists. So, in
the war on terror, we ask you to
loosen your morals a little. Or if you
insist on one man one women, then
find a mate who is out of your class
and social group, who is different
from you, to marry and have kids
with. (Stop catering to 'the MAN'(so
much/so absolutely).)
In this insert, let us consider the
racial purity philosophy of Hitler and
the Ku Klux Klan and others. The
idea is that one race is superior and
that the other inferior races need to
be exterminated. To exterminate the
differences brought to the global
societal entity by other 'inferior'
races, does curtail and handicap the
societal entity; thus providing some
favor to the individual entity (of the
surviving race). This stops the
perpetual advancement of the
societal entity at the expense of the
individual entity under conservative
sexuality. And when genetics under
conservative sexuality causes some
individuals in the master race to be
too different from the standard of the
master race, these individuals too
can be exterminated or sterilized.
Thus the ultra specialization brought
by continued conservative sexuality
is stopped, as individuals who are too
specialized are exterminated. So this
seems to work, theoretically. But
getting to this point is the problem.
Not all races are willing to lay down
and be exterminated without a fight
like the Jews in ww2. And now the
Jews of today in Israel are certainly
not going down without a fight. So
that the end of the world will be
achieved by trying to exterminate the
other races in the world war this
would cause. Much better to loose
the conservative sexuality to achieve
the same result, without all the
destruction and end to the world.
But perhaps having the different
races intensely prejudice of each
other will keep them from joining
together into a greater societal
entity, thus limiting the societal
entity, which is what is needed in
systems of continued conservative
sexuality. Perhaps this may explain
why prejudice exists today, and what
function it serves. However, this is
not the best system that can be. As a
better system is one that puts
together the differences of the races
(not all the time), but periodically;
and this would replace systems of
eternal prejudice; and it would not be
a system of eternal conservative
sexuality.
End insert. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, with the Amish, individual
expression is stamped out, and
everything is plain. So that when a
woman is looking for a mate, she has
a harder time finding someone just
like her, due to them all looking
pretty much the plain same. Thus the
Amish may not have so much of an
accentuation of differences as their
generations pass. And with the
Mexicans, the man has a few kids
with one woman and then moves
onto the next woman to do the same,
and the next and the next etc. Thus
there is good mixing of the genetic
material, and differences are put
together again. The same is true of
the African American male/ also the
gang banger, who does a bit of
philandering and doesn't spend much
time in the home; thus providing the
needed genetic mixing. And with the
Arabs, (and the Mormons) the harem
provides a genetic mixing and
melting pot. And with the Americans,
a melting pot where different types
intermarry, brings genetic differences
back together. But with the
conservative Protestants, no such
getting the genetic differences back
together occurs. They may not
overpopulate the world like the
Catholics, but they instead create
ever more unbalanced offspring
eventually no longer capable of any
individual existence but only of a
societal existence, resulting in
societal conflicts that will annihilate
the world (as predicted). This is
unfortunate for them (and everybody
else). Now, if you go with the free
love of the communes, the hippies,
and the 60's, and Disco 70's, you can
have individual expression as well as
good genetic mixing.
(But what about inbreeders? Since
they are of the same family, there is
much similar genetic material. Here
again, it is people who are the same
getting together, but these people
are so much the same genetically,
that weaknesses in genetics are not
complimented by a different partners
genes, and these people often have
serious physical problems due to
genetic deficits. However, the
differences generated by sexual
reproduction are put back together.
So that if a well balanced well
rounded, self sufficient group of
individuals does this, they preserve
themselves. But if an unbalanced
group does this, that is where the
trouble is.)
Of all these things I have spoken
against religion, you might think I am
against Christ. Well, I am not against
a Christ who values both advancing
the individual entity as well as the
societal or body-of-Christ entity. But I
am against a Christ who sacrifices the
individual entity completely and
absolutely to the societal entity; who
does not advance the individual
entity along with the societal/christ
body entity. -Because that is
extremely destructive/wasteful as it
brings about the end of human life on
earth. And also hinders the force of
good from finding solutions to
barriers to new growth, which it
needs to do to be able to live in a rich
environment without the force of evil.
And I will replace this 'bad' Christ,
with the 'good' Christ, who is more fit
at being savior of the world, unlike
the 'bad' Christ, who is unfit to be our
savior, but serves only to be our
destructor.
Obviously there is only 1 Jesus Christ,
and reportedly He is still alive, having
survived the crucifixion. But He is
now at the right hand of God, so that
we may all have His Holy Spirit; so
that He is not easily accessible to
settle which interpretation of "die to
yourself for Christ's sake" did He
mean. -Did He mean to completely
and absolutely sacrifice the individual
entity for the societal body of Christ?
or did He mean to partially sacrifice
the individual entity so that both the
individual and the societal entities
would prosper? Depending on His
answer, is my answer of either
support, or a true need to find a
better savior; not only to save us but
also Him. xxx Obviously there is only
one Jesus Christ, but there may be
two answers. Some may claim the
Holy Spirit has led them to one
interpretation, while others, to the
other interpretation. I claim the Holy
Spirit, through logic, has led me to
the interpretation that causes both
the advancement of the societal body
of Christ entity, as well as also the
advancement of each individual
entity; (and by doing so, also claim to
be a Christian); albeit a non
traditional one: mainly because of
Christ's stand that we love and be
kind to one another. If you can't
stomach that, then I think we need to
be separate from one another.
xxxxxxxx Maybe I just don't get it. I'm
still not going to restrict my sexual
lifestyle according to the conservative
Christian way, which as I have
explained is part of the fallacy of
sacrificing the individual entity
absolutely and entirely for the
societal entity. It won't be me who
throws Christ out, but perhaps Christ
will throw me out if it turns out that
He is for the interpretation of
absolutely sacrificing the individual
entity for the societal, body of Christ
entity. In that case, there still exists
inside me, a christ like part which
functions to intercede between my
absolute, high good parts and my
human parts; which will continue to
act, and will be thrilled to join with a
Christ like savior who is of similar
make up, who actually can function
as a savior. But I have faith, that
Christ will come through for me, and
for us all. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me rehash this stuff a little bit.
When people get married and have
kids, they have to spend a lifetime or
a long time together. It helps if they
have common interests (ie, they are
pretty much the same) so that they
can enjoy their time together. This
puts quite a persuasive incentive to
find someone who is similar. So that
when similar or the same people hook
up, this leaves dissimilar people Not
hooked up. So that differences fester
and grow so that eventually in a
population, different groups of
people are generated, each being
good in different areas, to the extent
the genetics allow. From this, a
societal entity forms whereby a
person who is good in one area but
deficient in other areas, is not
weeded out, but can survive by
joining the societal entity. People can
specialize and develop their good
area extensively while letting their
other areas slide; and together with
everyone else, who also specialize in
each respective area, can make a
competent societal whole. But
resulting from this is that no one
person is competent to satisfy their
mate; that there are 2 sources of
need satisfying; that compete. If
someone isn't the best at their good
area, then where they plug into the
societal entity is at less pay and less
of a good lifestyle. So that they may
seek a mate based on complimenting
skills that are not the same so that
they may improve satisfaction of their
needs from the societal angle, but at
the same time, give up compatibility
and enjoy their time together less. ie,
when one marries for money. This
allows for some putting back together
of the different specialized areas,
(done by those less competent in
their societal good areas). and also,
when people get together for a short
while and then divorce, who are not
necessarily compatible but just
attracted, this also allows for more
mixing and putting back together of
the different areas. So that the
absolute directive to take away from
the individual area and give to the
societal area, certainly is slowed; and
perhaps would be enough to prevent
the absolute/complete raiding of the
individual entity for the benefit of the
societal entity. but there is certainly
room for the relaxing of moral
directives and for the allowing for
divorce. Xxxxxxxx
Let me go over this again in a bit
more depth of analysis: One is
required to spend their whole life with
their mate in sexual exclusivity if one
follows through with the conservative
way. When people are young, sexual
attraction occurs and boys and girls
pair up. Most of the time they are not
compatible; that is they don't share
the same interests and are not the
same. These then break up and soon
after, move on to another partner.
Eventually partners find themselves
with people of similar interests, who
are pretty much the same (ie
compatible); and these people then
take the plunge and get married. (In
this insert, some say that opposites
attract. But perhaps what is going on
instead, is that there is a sexual
attraction between most men and
women, and that when they pair up,
most of the time they are different, or
'opposite’, while only occasionally do
pairs contain similar people. xxxxxxxxxx
Because the requirements of sexual
morality require us to at least make
an attempt to live with a partner for a
long time in sexual exclusivity; this
favors people who are alike to come
together, so that they may enjoy their
long time together pursuing common
interests; thus leaving people not
alike, ie, different, as being left apart
and not connected
sexually/genetically. As a society
specializes and its individuals become
unbalanced -that is they are good in
one area, -maximized in tune with
one area; but deficient in all the other
areas: this provides another
need/need satisfaction source (in
addition to the reproductive drive
need and need satisfaction source).
That is, an individual needs to
participate in their society, giving of
their good area so that they may
receive their small shares of the
Many(more than 2) other good areas
supplied by Many other unbalanced
individuals (who are also maximized
in their own respective and different
good areas); and thereby satisfy each
others needs (other than sexual) as a
societally competent whole. As a
society continues to specialize, the
number of different areas (manned
by individuals who are good in each
particular area) grows well beyond 2.
So that if a person was thinking of
giving up similarity in a mate in order
to join a mate with complimentary
skills; this would not work out well
because 2 skill areas does not a
society make. And the society way
would do a much better job at
supplying needs through combining
the skills of a multitude of skill areas
(supplied by individuals) much
greater than 2. No, better a person
find someone of like skills for a mate,
and they can both work on improving
their performance in their one good
skill area and thus get better
recognition and pay from their job
(joining with the societal entity and
through their societal connection).
And at the same time they can enjoy
each other's like interests. But what if
a person is at the top of the heap in
their good skill area, and already has
good pay? Well, with those needs
satisfied, the only need left is the
reproductive drive. Here, finding
someone of like mind/ability/interests
allows this couple to enjoy their
greater command of resources (from
society) together. So, we see an
uninterrupted directive to ever
increase specialization and sacrifice
the individual entity to benefit the
societal entity, so far. However, in
some ideas about good vs evil; life vs
destruction, we will see that
meanness and cruelty doesn't get
along with itself. They are the same,
yes, but two mean people, being
mean to each other, do not get along
and are not compatible. Perhaps if
they can direct their meanness to
others, they can get along, but this
can be tentative at best, as mean,
competitive people often go after
each other to establish who is
dominant. So that pairing of like
people who are mean/competitive,
does not provide satisfaction in the
traditional morality concerning
satisfaction of the sex drive. These
dominant ones find submissive ones
to dominate, and they are not the
same, do not share the same mind,
and once the sexual need is satisfied,
they have a lot of time on their hands
with little in common to do. And there
is no harmony here concerning the
traditional way. The societal way of
satisfying other needs, is the only
way that does work for these people.
They are often at the top of their
heap and make good money. It is in
the marital area where things are
problematic. Since the traditional way
in the sexual area doesn't work for
these people, they are tempted to
model this area after the way that
does work for them -the societal way.
They are thus tempted to add the
sexual area and treat it the same way
other needs are handled by the
societal area. -That is to have the
input of many different people each
contributing their best skill, not just 2
people. This means multiple partners,
maybe a girl in every port; divorce,
bigamy, going from one mate to
another in rapid succession, etc. It is
these kinds of behaviors that mix the
genes, and prevent absolute sacrifice
of the individual entity to the societal
entity, thus saving our ass!
It is odd how a religion based on love
and kindness depends on meanness
and mean and competitive people to
save its ass/ our ass. xxxxxxxx
(In this insert, I consider that jealousy
is from a fear of loosing one’s
significant other absolutely due to the
absolute nature of the traditional
morality. Because the traditional
morality is unlike the societal way of
need satisfying, in that it totally and
absolutely shuts out others from
sharing in one’s mate’s sexuality; one
fears any advances on one’s mate by
others may cause one’s mate to
switch partners, and thus exchange
places so that one is now absolutely
shut out from one’s former mate. It is
the absolute shutting out action that
brings this about. If sexuality were
not so absolute, the tensions would
be eased, and sharing could occur
without jealousy, overpowering
jealousy. When we deliver goods
and services in our job, we don’t
service just one person, but
deliver/share our goods/services to
many people. If sexuality were not so
absolute, multiple partners, and
shared relationships would occur; so
that the loss of one lover would not
be as hard to take as in the absolute
world where one has only one lover,
whose loss results in the loss of all
the love that one has. Plus, does any
one person really have the right to all
of another person's attentions?
Note that the sexual attraction one
person feels for another, causes them
to value the object of their feeling
above all other people; when in
actuality, people are of equal value;
and we do treat them equally when
we are not under a sexual attraction
towards one of them. But when we
are under a sexual attraction to one
of them, this focuses our attention
and valuation all to that one person.
Now if we have sexual feelings for
more than one person, one might
think this is expressing more
sexuality. But the most sexuality one
can express is being attracted to just
one person, because the nature of
sexual feeling, is to remove
importance from everyone else, and
concentrate it to this one person. If
one removes importance from
everyone else, and concentrates it to
a group of people, that isn't as much
of a concentration. So the person
who has multiple partners, although
they may think they are being more
sexual, in actuality, they are being
less sexual, due to the concentrating
nature of sexuality itself.
When a man and woman share their
affection with each other, they may
think that they enjoy that. What do
you think? Don't you think that men
and women sharing affection is an
enjoyable thing? But then they take a
good thing that they enjoy and limit it
and put it under a box and prevent it
from expanding and keep it to
themselves. Now if one were to take
the good news of the gospel and hide
it under a basket and try to limit it,
then religion would be up in arms
about that. But more to the point,
when women(men) refuse to service
all mankind's(womankind's) sex
drives except one partner, then there
are a lot of unsatisfied customers out
there. Women(men) may be
attractive to men(women) and some
very much so, but it is all just a tease
unless one does submit to the
conservative breeding program that
could very well result in the
apocalyptic end of the world. I would
ask the people attracted here to
realize that the conservative way is a
mostly all destructive entity that does
prey upon the imperfect human area
of sexual expression; and that the
sogp/jesus representation (explained
later) can and should (as non
destructively as possible), cast this
mostly all evil out of/ off of, the
human sexual area; so that our
sexual area tends towards medium
ability, out of barrenness and low
ability. End insert.)
Concerning the dual need satisfaction
system: sometimes it all gets sucked
into one mess. Sometimes there is
separation between church and
business, but sometimes a person is
called out on not being morally up to
standards, so that the same absolute
polarizations of all or nothing that
occur in the moral area, are also
applied to this person's other areas of
need satisfaction, so that they are
ostracized completely in all need
satisfaction systems, so that their
business connection is polarized to
barrenness for them and richness to
those who extract from them. And
when people's whole lives are
dragged down into these religious
polarizations, things can get out of
hand with burning down the rich
areas in firestorms. And this is just a
waste of resources, leaving all in
barrenness. Better to follow the
separation of church and state with
also having separation of church and
business (concerning how a person
satisfies their reproductive needs vs
how they satisfy their other needs).
As the satisfaction of the sexual need
is such a limited thing, compared to
the good one can do by helping
needy people and fill their needs in
other things other than sexual. Unless
one is prevented from doing so due
to some religious or societal shunning
that has labeled them as heathen or
infidels and that one is not allowed to
help them/they are not allowed to
help others. Thus one's force of good
is not only prevented from helping in
the sexual area (which is limited at
best) but also every other area, in a
now all encompassing
societoreligious polarization. xxxx
Note that although the people of
Jesus' day condemned the adulterous
woman; note that Jesus did not
condemn the adulterous woman.
Now, when people of today work in
their jobs (so they can get paid so
they can buy things to satisfy their
other needs (other than sexual)),
they are not absolute in their action.
They do not service just one
customer and deny all the other
customers their service. Instead,
they give each customer a little bit of
their time and do service many
customers. But in the satisfaction of
the sexual area, this is NOT how
things are done. Instead, each
person satisfies only one customer,
and leaves the rest unsatisfied.
These two different ways of need
satisfaction are incompatible. For
example, if each worker were to pick
one customer and service only them,
then most of the work would not get
done, and this system would collapse
and be unworkable.
But way back in the past, in little
house on the prairie days, when
individuals were more self sufficient,
this actually would work out. Each
person would take care of themselves
and their spouse and their family
grouping, and leave the rest of the
world to fend for itself, just like they
fended for themselves. And when the
nearest neighbor was miles away,
one man one woman was how the
sexual area was done also. So that
there was no dual or conflicting ways
of need satisfaction. It was all the
absolute way, the all or nothing way,
and each person did not service
many other people, but only their
own family grouping.
But not only is this way less efficient
and can be replaced by a way of
societal entity and individual entity
balanced with each other; that as I
have explained; many generations of
one man one woman does generate
ever more unbalanced, and thus less
self sufficient individuals. So that out
of necessity, a societal entity formed
and lessened the individual entity.
So that today, the only thing left of
the self sufficient/absolute way of
need satisfaction, is the sexual area;
whereas all the other need
satisfactions are done with the
societal entity and no longer with the
self sufficient individual entity. But if
the societal way were applied to the
sexual area, then people would
service many others instead of just
one other, and would be called
'whores' and 'creepers' and 'rappers'.
Now when there is a balance between
the individual entity and the societal
entity; that is the best and most
powerful system. But as the one man
one woman absolute self sufficient
individual way persists in the
satisfaction of the sexual area; we
overshoot balance and end up with all
societal entity and no individual
entity; and that is a lesser state.
And when young women cling to this
last expression of the self sufficient
individual/ absolute way in the sexual
area, they thus thereby eliminate
completely any individuality or
individual expression leaving only
societal expression. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GOOD VS EVIL: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider that
goodness, growth, and being kind to
one another, is a superior force over
the force of destruction, death,
decay, and being mean to each other.
(To do this, we consider all
possibilities)
-Considering what'd happen if in a
universe with only the force of
goodness-and-growth:
-If in a universe where only the force
of death/destruction existed:
-Or if we were in a universe with both
forces. Here on earth we're in the
situation where both forces exist. But
that doesn't mean this is the only
way, -that other situations aren't
possible.
Let's consider a universe of only the
force of destruction and death. As
death /destruction progress, they
take whatever is alive, and kill it,
so that where life once was, now
exists (is produced) nothing and
nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and
dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes in scarce supply, while a
whole lot of empty space and
inanimate material is left behind.
After awhile, all the life is killed, and
then what? With no life left to kill, the
force of destruction comes to a stop
(no more destroying can be done),
because from nothing, this force can
go no further from there. Here is
a definite bottom to the universe. The
force of destructiveness comes to a
stop and cannot continue.
Now consider the force of good-and-
growth as being the only force
around. As this force acts, it takes
nothingness/lifeless matter (dust),
and creates life in its place. Soon
everything starts to come alive.
Pretty soon we begin to run out of
improvements to make. Emptiness
and undeveloped raw material (dust)
starts to come into short supply. If
everything is alive, then no more
growth/goodness can be done, and
thus the force of good is stopped,
right? Well, there's not so much an
absolute ceiling, as there is an
absolute bottom. You see, life forms
can advance/be advanced and
become ever more capable and alive;
and this thus continues the force of
good. And, a universe that is alive
(full of life), is very capable -able to
do lots of things, (unlike a barren
universe consisting of nothingness).
And with that life/capability, it can
bridge barriers and reach raw
material (dust) that had previously
been separated from it by a barrier.
Hence, the force of goodness and
growth can survive by itself much
better than the force of
destruction/death can. This is an
advantage: -When the force of
destruction can be escaped from;
(the good separated from the
destructive); that which is
destructive, when alone, burns itself
out, finds itself boxed in by barriers,
and ceases to exist; Whereas the
good alone, survives, bridges
barriers, and continues to grow. Of
course when both forces are around,
the force of good generates life for
the force of destruction to feed on
and destroy as it survives. (and the
force of death/decay generates voids,
which the force of good uses as its
starting material.) This is the way
things are here on earth. And both
the forces of; good, and destruction,
have an easy time finding material to
work with (compared to if they were
alone). /(insert) when the force of
good is advanced to be free of
destruction, it is under more pressure
to cross barriers and find new raw
material for growth. Thus it needs the
individual entity even more so, and
cannot totally sacrifice the individual
entity for the societal entity here in
the end, in perfection anyway.(as the
individual entities are needed to try
out all the possibilities to find the
solution to the next challenge to
growth)(end insert)/ xxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to
do or be either 'the force of good-
and-growth', or 'the force of
destruction'. The lack of life can't do/
be either force. Since what the force
of good produces is life, such life can
continue to do forces. But since what
the force of destruction produces is
death and nothingness and voids in
life; since this cannot do or support
either force, then the force of
destruction alone is
destined to a quick end while the
force of good and growth alone is
destined to continue. xxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, since only life can do-be either
force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to
itself, it doesn't grow, but instead
shrinks to nothing. But when
goodness experiences what it
produces, (when goodness is good to
itself) it does not die, but instead,
grows. So, the force of destruction
needs something other than just
itself to exist (is a parasitic force),
while the force of good does not and
is self sufficient with just itself. So
that when alone, good survives while
destruction self eliminates and
vanishes. From this we can see that
good and growth, is a superior force
to the force of death and destruction. xxxxxxxxxxx
Let us consider some situations,
while keeping in mind these truths:
-that it takes life and ability to do/be
either goodness, or destruction (and
that lack-of-life is unable to cause
either of these forces);
Inputs and outputs:
-that the force of destruction takes in
that which is alive as its input/raw
material; and produces voids-in-life /
inanimate material as its output, as
what it produces.
-That the force of goodness/growth
takes in voids-in-life and inanimate
material, as its input/raw material;
and produces -life- as its output and
what it produces.
With these concepts in mind let's
consider the situation of the force of
destruction in a rich environment. Not
only does this force have plenty of its
raw material or input (life), present
here in the rich environment;
-destruction also has what supports
what either force is made of (which is
also, life). Thus here the force of
death-and-destruction can grow
rapidly and become quite large here,
in a rich environment. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this tangent, please consider that
since enforcing rules over the gray
areas of living life causes a patchwork
of rich and barren environments(rules
structure and FIX WHERE the good,
and destruction, respectively, of a
gray action, are done): my question
is, why do we scrape together these
rich environments where there is the
force of destruction nearby -(as
destruction is inescapably a part of all
gray actions at our level of ability)?
This will just result in successive
firestorms where the gray actions'
destructiveness burns down the rich
parts of the patchwork. All this does
is feed evil/destructiveness. As for
myself, I do not wish to succor and
feed the force of destructiveness. End tangent.)
(2nd insert: When a man and woman
share their affection with each other,
they may think that they enjoy that.
What do you think? Do you think that
men and women sharing affection is
an enjoyable thing? -a force of good?
In the imperfect area of human
sexuality, some good and also some
destruction are generated. Why is
this imperfect good forced to live in a
RICH area, where it has a hard time
finding its input -voids/improvements
to make, when there is right next
door, areas of barrenness that it
needs to make its goodness force
active? Why does one torture their
imperfect good this way? End 2nd insert.)
(Here is another important tangent:
Here on earth, we live with what is
destructive and also that which is
good and growing. In this respect, we
often do actions which contain both
goodness and growth and also
destructiveness in the same action.
These actions I would term 'human
actions' (also referred to as 'gray
actions' ). These human areas are
hopelessly a mixture of both
goodness and destruction (at our
level of ability we're unable to
separate the forces), and there is no
purity of action in them, as they
contain both goodness as well as
destructiveness inescapably
intertwined in the same action. These
mainly center around human hungers
and needs. So that whether or not a
human action is done, partially done,
or refrained from; some destruction is
always present, just in different
areas. Like when we eat, this is good
for our survival, but at the same time,
destructive to some other life form's
survival as a plant or animal had to
die to provide this. And if we don't
eat, this is good for the surrounding
plants and animal's survival, but
destructive to us as we starve.
However, in our human world, not all
actions are these 'human' or 'gray'
actions. Some actions CAN be divided
up completely (or much more so),
into all good vs. all destructive parts.
And it is here, with these non human
areas, there can exist a purity of
action as is not seen in the human
actions. Areas of all-good exist, as
well as do areas that are all
destructive, exist. However, when
areas of purely all destructive exist,
they soon self consume and
disappear. So that only the areas of
all-good exist with such a purity of
action. Still, if that which is all-
destructive can find a human action,
it can feed off the good in the human
action, and it won't have to self
consume. -(It can continue to exist
and not disappear.) So, when the all-
good casts off the all-destructive: -to
achieve purity of action; the all
destructive actions become as
ravening wolves seeking to prey upon
human actions, feeding off the good
in human actions, so that they can
survive and won't self consume/die.
And who is going to save a human
action from being preyed upon by
these all destructive actions? It is true
that the all destructive action CAN be
separated away from the human
action, (unlike the destructiveness
within the human action that is part
of the human action); but who is
going to do it? The all destructive
action is desperate, as its life
depends on preying on a human
action, and so has apparently
overpowered the human action. An
all-good action might intervene and
separate an all-destructive action
from a human action; but if it did so it
would spoil its purity of action and it
would no longer be an all-good
action. So that all-good actions are
reluctant to intervene to separate an
all-destructive action from its prey
human action, as they loose their
purity of action in doing so. So it
would seem the all destructive
actions (although since they've mixed
with the human actions, are no longer
purely all destructive), have found a
way of survival and a continued food
source by preying on the human
actions and human hunger satisfying;
thus making the human world more
towards the destructive side; towards
barrenness (which preserves the
togetherness of the good and
destructive within that human action,
as we'll see later). (Recall the parable
of the good Samaritan.) xxxxxxxxx
However, what about this plan: What
if the all-good actions split a small
part of themselves off to come and
deal with this situation, while leaving
their major part of themselves
behind, still separate and still
maintaining their purity of action.
(The smaller part that split off would
loose its purity of action through it's
intervening.) The smaller part that
split off would come and separate the
all-destructive part from the human
part so that the all destructive part
would finally self consume and die;
leaving the human action no longer
preyed upon by the all destructive
action; so that it tended not towards
barrenness, but towards medium
ability. Thus evil/destruction would be
lessened and much eliminated by this
plan. xxxxxxxxxx
Now, in the human areas; when the
smaller, split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to
medium ability), in the vacuums
(where there is nothing and
barrenness) caused by destruction,
even the destruction of rules over
human areas,(and even the
destructions that are part of the
human actions themselves): it is wise
for this split off part to limit its
exposure to only the human part it is
presently creating/generating, and
not the rest of that human area; even
if this generated material is
eventually for the rest of that human
area. This is because this smaller,
split off, all good part can limit the
loss of purity and exposure to
destruction, to just what is in the
human part it is generating. Once it is
done creating a piece of this material,
it can then withdraw itself and then
allow the rest of the human area to
have possession/use of it. So that the
split off all good parts of us can act to
generate material in isolation, and
then shortly, to also act to release
pieces of that material away from
itself and this isolation, unto the rest
of this human area. In these
coordinated set of actions that build
parts of human actions/things; once a
certain part has reached medium
ability, this part is no longer
generated in isolation, but other parts
are, as the split off all good does
move onto these other parts that are
in need of being brought from
nothingness to medium level. The
parts at medium level that are no
longer being generated, are still
participants in the rest of this human
area, and do receive what is released
from isolation; its just that they do
not keep on being generated; so that
they do not move then from medium
level to high ability, (as a result of
this generating in isolation and then
There may be a difference in when a
part is first being created, and when
it is added to in additional
generatings. When the split off good
part (sogp) is first generating an
action, it may divide in two and leave
the part to be corrupted in human
ways, behind. In order to do this, it
generates even less than what is
needed for medium ability (in the
whole); sort of like the romantic
gestures around valentines day,
which are small, but mean a lot. Then
it moves it all to the half of itself to be
left behind in human ways, thus
concentrating them. At this point
they are now at medium level. (If
they had started at medium level, the
concentration into the half that was
to be left, would result in a high level,
which would burn down in the evil
present in human ways.) However,
with subsequent additions to this
action, a more robust doing unto
medium level right away can be
done, as there now already exists a
platform and entity to deliver the
generated material to.
Note that even if, for the sake of
argument say, it turns out that
Christianity is a fraud and that Jesus
wasn't anybody special: note that the
structures of Christianity still exist in
our human world and in our universe
and within us, anyway; as some areas
are more easily all good vs all
destructive, while other areas have
the destructive and the good
hopelessly intertwined in the same
action. Where does Jesus fit in? If we
take the Biblical account, Jesus was
from God, (and is therefore rich). But
Jesus also received God's punishment
for our sins, unto death. But he
survived it as he was resurrected. So
we can't say he is as high as God
because he also received God sized
punishment. But we can't say he
represents the low point either,
because being of God, he survived
the punishment and was resurrected.
Somewhere in between the high and
the lowest points, I would say (the
Bible says somewhat below an
angel). Here we see an entity often in
between the highness of God, and the
lowness of death and nothingness or
hell: -who longstandingly represents
humanity and the in between, and
the medium level; better than any
other mortal human ever could. xxxxxxx
It is our sogp(smaller split off part
from our all good areas) that then
acts to separate destructive parts
away from human areas that can be
separated away; and to fill vacuums
in the human areas to medium
ability; and not done by our main
high all good parts which are
separate and kept away from the
human area. So that if we are
waiting for God almighty to step in
and do this. No. It is the meek and
smaller Jesus representations that are
here with us in the human area, that
do this instead. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For our high, all-good parts to be
separate from any/all evil, even the
small evil amount found in human
actions; is a helpful thing. But this
directive to label human appetites as
sinful, and make a distinction
between the sinful and the all pure;
can be taken too far. Just because the
all-good needs to be kept ultra pure,
doesn't mean the human appetites
and the human area is valueless or to
be discarded. -That absolute values
are applied to say that there is
nothing in the human appetite area
worth keeping. That is why we have a
Jesus representation to intercede
between the high all good parts of us,
and our human appetite parts.
Now, superseding all this, is the
directive to either sacrifice
completely ones individual
components (for the good of the
complete whole-and-one’s high good
parts); or to instead, grow BOTH the
areas of ones individual components,
as well as one’s complete whole. So
we want to choose the second option,
and put this spin on all we do.
So that in one’s high good area, we
actively generate this dual nature of
growing both the components, as well
as the whole. Now at the border of
our Jesus representation, or sogp, our
high good parts are acting to not go
into this area (because
destructiveness is nearby), and are
doing this action of staying out of this
area in the dual generating way/spin,
and actively so. Now, with the Jesus
representation, since it is made from
small split off parts from the high
parts, it has this dual generating
already, and is how it comes
naturally, without additional or active
effort (if that is how we did our high
parts). And our Jesus representation
acts to cast away any evils away from
our high parts (including gray/human
hunger evils); and also away from
itself, (save those which are gray,
which are part of human hungers);
and also casts away total evils out of
gray, human hunger
materials/structures; and finally
generates to medium ability in
vacuums caused by
destructivenesses. It is then in these
generatings to medium ability in the
vacuums that active dual spin
‘generating’ occurs once again. xxxxx
When the sogp is generating to
medium ability in the gray areas; one
might consider that the sogp should
generate to medium ability in all
possible gray areas because these
are all (supposedly) legitimate areas
for growth: and that therefore, one's
individual sogp representation should
also generate all possible gray areas,
even if one has no hunger in some
of these gray areas. But the idea of a
gray area is that some goodness is
obtained for the destruction that is
also generated. If you don't have a
hunger or need in a possible gray
area, then by doing the specific
motions of that gray area, you don't
derive any satisfaction (or goodness)
from it, but the destruction is
invariably still done. Hence, if you
don't have a hunger or need in a
possible gray area, then it is not a
gray area for you, but an all evil area.
So that once your hunger is satisfied,
you don't continue feeding
indefinitely, but do stop feeding. Now,
if a partner is involved in a gray
area hunger/feeding, one should
respect the partner's need to
continue feeding until satisfied; even
though one is right to stop their own
feeding once one is satisfied. But in
areas where one experiences hunger
in, it is ok to generate to medium
ability after ones hunger has been
satisfied after finished material has
been spirited away to the all good,
leaving a complete vacuum in this
gray area, but now not so, since one
generated to medium ability before
ending the feeding. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let us now consider the force of
destruction:
When one person kills another; that is
often referred to as murder, is
considered wrong, and the person is
considered a criminal. But when a
soldier kills for his country in war, he
is considered a hero, and that is
considered OK and right.
Then, when a man has sex with a
woman, that is either considered OK
and good (an holy estate ordained by
God); or something terribly wrong,
depending on whether the pair share
a marriage license or not. Even so;
whatever the case, a man and a
woman having consensual sex is
common to all these (both right and
wrong) cases. Yes, with just the
change of a little window dressing,
reality can change from being
absolutely right, to being absolutely
wrong. (Well, if reality is so easily
changed, why haven't we eliminated
suffering?)
With reality being able to be changed
from right to wrong and vice versa,
with the change of a few details, is it
any wonder that reality does change
often from right to wrong and vice
versa? With the world changing so
often, is it any wonder that we might
crave something stable; something
that is like a rock and unchanging;
something that is absolute; someone
like God?
Perhaps, however, we might consider
that reality doesn't actually change
that much with the change of a little
window dressing. (This is the position
taken by eastern religions -that
"good" and "bad", "right" and
"wrong" are human judgments, and
have little to no effect on actual
reality, the cycle of life (and death).)
We might consider that there are
aspects inherently within the actions
of sex and violence that are
inherently good or bad, and that do
not change based on a change of
some window dressing. -that killing,
whether done for one's country, or for
personal passion, has some things
that are inherently bad. And that
consensual sex between a man and a
woman has attributes of positiveness
and/or negativeness that persist
irregardless of whether the pair is
married, not married, cheating, etc.
There is however, one example of
reality changing 180 based on a
change in details concerning the act
of killing. Killing is so negative
because it is so destructive of life. But
when destruction is turned back on
itself, a 180, about face is achieved.
When a murder kills, we as society
feel the pain from that
destructiveness. But when a
policeman kills a murderer in
preventing other murders, that is a
destruction of destructiveness, which
results in stopping destruction to
society in actual reality. So that in
this case, killing is OK; and actually
makes quite a difference in the
amount of overall destruction done.
Let us consider the concept of
destruction and destructiveness. Let's
consider it as an elusive concept; -an
unknown quantity. (how much
destruction is there in a given
situation?) -That in a twinkling of an
eye, it can go from almost nothing, to
double trouble; (so that we never
really know (without being really
smart) how much destruction there is
or that one has). Like when the
English police (destructively) kill a
terrorist before he can (destructively)
blow up a train, then the result is the
public is saved with little overall
destruction resulting.
But when the English police
mistakenly (destructively) kill an
innocent man who they thought was
a terrorist, but wasn't in reality; and
while doing that, the real terrorist
eludes detection and (destructively)
blows up a train, then overall, a whole
lot of destruction has resulted. go to 'ok1' on the 'feelosofree' website click on 'feelosofree' website, then click on 'ok1' here's the link to the feelosofree site: go to No, this is incorrect. instead, scroll to the top of this page and acess 'ok1' at the sidebar on the left. (skip ok1/2) |