I am hopeful I can get to the main point I wanted to get to in this post. Do I have the energy to lay out a proper case. When I studied at University, they always said that in essays, you lay out what you are going to say in the introduction. Perhaps that makes it easier and better to read.
The case I hope to make in this post. Is that evil is a thing that is very foreign to those who think more positively. True evil. That it can only ever be partially integrated into many philosophies. But it is a thing onto itself that can't be encapsulated by them. Because of this, when it is removed from society, the results will be utterly unpredictable and will change many things that we assume to be real from our everyday experience. That we have taken from objective reality, everyday, observable, objective, reality. But which conclusions might not serve us later.
That is a bad introduction. But it is at least an introduction. There is far more to go into this.
Previous parts.
In the two previous parts, I summarised some thoughts. The red people analogy/ metaphor. And x + y = z. In relation to how the negative have to have perceived positive consequences to their actions in order to maintain their perspectives. That is unfortunately required reading. What I am trying to explain here is too complex to have to also go over those again in this article.
In relation to the red people analogy. This is the analogy I would like to use in order to discuss the limitations of many positive philosophies in addressing evil.
I am a true QAnon believer. I say QAnon even though QAnon is the wrong term. But language is meant to explain what people mean. It is Q because there is Q and there are Anons. There is also the term "Q - tard". Which the Qommunity hasn't done enough to make our own in my opinion.
I believe Q is real. I have had semi religious experiences to this effect. Honestly, the Qommunity is not made up of weirdos. Some of the identified people are extremely intelligent. Such as Martin Geddes, that worked in some sort of computer - data - analytics field. Many of them are like that.
But there is something alien about Q as well. Something almost negative in a sense. Something semi mystical and not easily understood. It is not completely healthy perhaps, for everyone to attach to a weird military project that drops in secret codes on a forum (hosted by the military btw!) It is not necessarily a healthy way to think to put a power like that outside of you. To rely on something you can't understand. There is a point where the truth is not the truth for everyone.
This might also be the case with something like atheism. Consider the red people analogy. If atheism is dressing in red, and you will simply be ignored if you don't dress in red. Then people whose priority is helping others might dress in red.
Pressure of the positive.
Some of these concepts, of considering the negative directly. I think can only be done with a certain kind of thought process. Or they can with me.
What I talked about in part 2. x + y = z. The wisdom of separation. Is something that can be back tracked and a lot of thoughts can come from it. But it is a negative wisdom. It makes sense. It is information that can create conclusions. I realised it is actually x - y = z and x + y = z is the positive. But I will follow up with that elsewhere.
The information that people are going around with the "wisdom of separation" in their head that if they don't feed it in a sense, will mess them up. Backtracks a lot of very negative conclusions, very power mechanic based. That will make someone think negative.
The positive, as in, really the power variety more. Has to follow up with each thing that they think up. I think. They are binded into the positive a great deal. Or they kind of go a bit nuts if they do attempt to integrate things that are too negative.
Wisdom however, I think, can consider something as a kind of position that does not need to be followed up on.
The take away.
In the planning of this article. In the thoughts of this kind of thing in general. I had wanted to excerpt a tweet that was so unbelievably malevolent that it made me paranoid at the time I read it.
This, along with the woman that tweeted it, seemed to have disappeared. I remembered her name and the spelling. I have key terms to search my bookmarks from the quote.
Pehraps that's for the best. Negative wisdom like that seems to have a kind of energy of it's own. It utterly swallows everything around it.
But my take aways putting everything together.
The red people:- This analogy speaks to the point that a good deal of how people think the world works cannot be integrated and with the sudden movement on the "negative" front. May need to re- evaluate some of their ideas.
x - y = z:- Many people that are working on the brainwashing that we have been subjected to. Will lose polarity on these principles for the first time. The brainwashing and propaganda has always been there. For the entire time that we have lived. If the value of z suddenly changes, the value of -y, even though we don't know what precisely it is. Will suddenly go through a change.
Conclusion on the human design.
I am starting to put together a bit of a description on what this whole process is. The process of living a life is. From the perspective of the human design. My understanding.
My chart is similar to Ra Uru Hu's. I had an insight the other day of how similar my process is to what he has described. I wrote to two human design people in an attempt to gain information on a new theory I had. But they did not respond. So I am not sure on this.
A lot of the emotional shifts we have is when something kind of 'not self' comes up. We have an idea in one of our defined centres. For me, one of those centres is the sacral. In order to get rid of the 'not self' thoughts in the undefined centres. Meditation, Prayer, etc. This is the point of these tools I believe.
So I experience sacral chakra thoughts, that are kind of unproductive. And then are just completely deleted as unproductive. I know what a good place is for me. A not self sacral thought includes a lot of thought about how one relates to others in a kind of social heirarchy. This is shown very strongly, and in a raw way, by the 34-20. (Which Neitzsche had! And did he not talk in a very raw way about such heirarchies?)
But in moving from confused to normal. I know that all those animalistic, animal heirarchy thoughts. Just get deleted. Just disappear. My focus is purely on the kind of "moment". It is kind of more mystical. More aligned with the Law of One tracts on everything being a mystery. It is rather like Ra Uru Hu describes the world and the deconditioning.
I imagine people try to condition people to their own charts as a matter of course. I wonder if some of what Ra Uru Hu talked about was that. That his expressions of how things are, should be, is what HE experiences.
But if someone has a defined sacral. Then their expressions do have a reference to our animalistic connections.
There is more on this, the energies they hold, and the things they express. But not for now. I'll leave it there though.
No comments:
Post a Comment