Posts Tagged ‘good and evil’

song recording: “nothing to say”

June 23, 2012
Good and Evil

Good and Evil (Photo credit: Profound Whatever)

Evil (Earth, Wind & Fire song)

Evil (Earth, Wind & Fire song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

nothing to say

nothing to change           nothing to fix           nothing to say

nothing to change           nothing to fix           nothing to say
Once a man told a story
about a holy man
Who said it’s all for God‘s glory
the trivial and grand
good and evil, shame and joy
are all like day and night
they come and go and then return
well at least they might
what a relief
when words are seen
as just a bunch of fun
incurable grief
when life goes wrong
unless I’ve been joking all along
about how life should not go
nothing to change           nothing to fix            nothing to say
nothing to change           nothing to fix            nothing to say
nothing to keep               nothing to stop         nothing to be

understanding metaphorical parables like the tree of life, the eyes to see and the ears to hear

April 12, 2012
This image depicts the Tree of Life derived fr...

This image depicts the Tree of Life derived from the Flower of Life. Created by sloth_monkey 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cover of "How Language Works"

Cover of How Language Works

Language is amazing. In fact, life is amazing and language is just one of the many amazing parts of life.

If life was like a tree, then we could say that there are stages in the growth of the tree of life. At one point, there may be exactly one trunk with exactly two limbs. Then, at a later point in the development of the tree of life, there might be several limbs, like spreading out in radiating circle from the trunk, right? The two original limbs are still there, not gone, but later there can be additional limbs beyond the original two.

Now, if language was was like a tree, then we could say that language can be divided in to two distinct categories: good language and bad language. Or, we could say that there is proper language and improper language. We could even say that there is proper pronunciation and improper pronunciation. Or we could say that, when babies make sounds, there are sounds of language and sounds of gibberish or nonsense.

Here is an example of another kind of gibberish: no anti-negativity metaphors understanding ears hearing eyes seeing tree life understanding nonsense literal interpretations could bee impossible 42ds53hsf FIVE. So, that was mostly a sequence of recognizable words of the English language, but stuck together in a way that is not especially meaningful, similar to a sequence of numbers like 1240834034. Those are real alphanumeric digits, but that is about all that is identifiable about them, right?

Video: Neva takes up gibberish

Video: Neva takes up gibberish (Photo credit: JasonUnbound)

However, language can be very meaningful. Language allows us to divide life in to categories. We could divide like in to exactly two categories, such as either “proper or improper” as in either “good or evil.” Those would be binary dichotomies of contrasting duality.

For thousands of years, people could have been attempting to point out that language can create exclusive binary categories as well as one-dimensional spectrums. For instance, language can create a categorization of “either only good or only evil,” yet language can also create categories of relativity, like “exactly how good or bad.”

I could say that eating apples is good and eating live bees is bad. I could say that eating fuji apples is best and eating allergic bees is worst. I could say that eating rotten apples is actually not so good and eating a tiny bee larvae accidentally in a honeycomb is really not so bad.

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Dürer (1507) given by...

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Dürer (1507) given by Christina of Sweden to King Philip IV in 1654. taken from see also: (links no longer work, see below) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That would be a one-dimensional spectrum: a relative range between good and bad. So, first there is only good or only evil, which is a binary dualism or dichotomy. That is the first stage in the development of language. Later, there can be spectrums of relativity in language, like brightness, loudness, height, weight, and so on.

We all know that the linguistic construction of “4 pounds” is not inherently better in any particular way than “400 pounds.” We can say mathematically that 400 is 100 times as much as 4, but are we talking about pounds of silver, British Pounds, pounds of body weight, pounds of payload on an airplane or what? That is just a spectrum.

Similarly, linguistic constructions of morality can occur as binary dichotomies of either only good or only evil. Or, they can occur as spectrums of relative value or morality. There could be perhaps 5 distinct ranges in language of moral relativity: morally repugnant, morally unfavorable, morally questionable, morally favorable, and morally excellent.

Could there be 4 categories of moral value or 10? Sure! There is no single “correct” number of moral categories.

Eating Shiva

Eating Shiva (Photo credit: Mirror | imaging reality)

For a child, two categories are how we begin to develop discernment, like the most basic distinction between right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable or rewarded and punished. Later, we develop discrimination, like assessing between several different alternatives.  Eventually, we recognize that context matters and moral values can change.

We might not wear the same clothes to a wedding or funeral that we would wear to a beach or in the privacy of our own home. That gets in to the issue of discretion and etiquette and so on.

It is not immoral to wear a tuxedo to the beach, but it would be unusual and perhaps inappropriate. However,  someone could have a wedding at a beach and then wearing a tuxedo on the beach at the wedding would not be so unusual.

All values or norms are relative. Relative to what? To social context. In other words, “context is decisive.”

So, along come some wise people who realize that a lot of folks are not clear about what works and how language works. So, they use some metaphors like “the tree of life” to explain how something can have exactly two distinct branches, but then later can have 5 or 6 branches, and later can have dozens of branches spreading in lots of directions.

Linguistic categories can form various numbers of categories. For an infant, it is enough to know “good” and “bad.” As a child grows, they learn to discriminate between several alternatives- not just two- and they can dress themselves and be trusted to pick clothes that not only match the weather, but with each item of clothing matching all of the others. They learn discernment and discrimination and eventually even discretion.

Of course, it would be fruitless to try to explain this to an infant. They do not have the linguistic complexity or intelligence to be familiar with “big words” like distinction and discernment and discrimination and discretion.

In fact, before those particular words existed, wise people could not just use those words. They had to use stories and examples and metaphors and parables- even silly parables.

They said things like “do not get bogged down in categorizing everything as either good or evil. That is a low level of knowledge or comprehension or maturity or intelligence. However, do not discard those categories either. Those categories are valid and useful. Just go beyond fanaticism and fundamentalism and learn to appreciate all of life and even how and why various things are good or evil. First, children just learn to repeat the categorizations they are trained to identify in regard to what actions are good and what is evil or bad or dangerous. Later, someone can learn WHY and WHEN and HOW those actions fit or not. They can learn of the relativism of all things, as referenced in this ancient scripture:”

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

They can learn of scriptures like this:

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced 

 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself,
but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean
// – 17k

Mark 7:18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing 

 Don’t you know that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can
make him unclean Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand? 
// – 17k

They can learn also of these radical statements of “moral relativism.”

Titus 1:15 To the pureall things are pure, but to those who are 

To the pureall things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe,
nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 
// – 17k

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. 

 All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 
All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense. 
// – 17k

Romans 14:2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

Here is a much older scripture than those of the old or new testament:

Good and evil of this world of duality are unreal,
are spoken of by words, and exist only in the mind.”
– Bhagavatam, XI, ch. XXII.

Here is a rather recent comment, which even if a frightening and challenging idea for some people, it may reflect the actual experience of many actual people.

“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Shakespeare (spoken by the character Hamlet).

John 8:15 ”You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (Jesus speaking to the orthodox religious leaders)

The one who judges other seeks to glorify himself. (See John 8:50)

“Judge not. Condemn not. Resist not evil. Turn away from evil. Remove the obstruction from your own perception before go poking around in other people’s perception. Yo, chill out, player. Have mercy on their innocent mistaken presumptions, like for your own good, baby, just forgive them and be responsible and clear, clean, open, humble, meek, godly, holy, perfect, pure, dignified. Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about!”

For those who have the capacity to understand these metaphors in language, let them understand. For those who have the ears to hear beyond their own confusion and fanaticism and fear and idealism, let them hear. For those who have the eyes to see beyond their own arrogance and shame and blame, let them see.

Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people 

“Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but
do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people. 
// – 16k

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind 

 But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to
understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. 
// – 15k

Romans 11:8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor 

 just as it is written, “GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO
// – 17k

Psalm 119:18 Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your 

 Open my eyes to see the wonderful truths in your instructions. 
// – 15k

Isaiah 43:8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.

Jeremiah 5:21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:

Ezekiel 2:7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

Mark 4:12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'”

Mark 8:18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?

Luke 8:10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.”

Acts 28:26 “‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”

<< Ecclesiastes 3 >>
King James Version

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Arbre de la vida

Arbre de la vida (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", Darw...

Ernst Haeckel’s “tree of life”, Darwin’s metaphorical description of the pattern of universal common descent made literal by his greatest popularizer in the German scientific world. This is the English version of Ernst Haeckel’s tree from the The Evolution of Man (Published 1879), one of several depictions of a tree of life by Haeckel. “Man” is at the crown of the tree; for Haeckel, as for many early evolutionists, humans were considered the pinnacle of evolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

morality over legality

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)

from should to could

March 22, 2012

“From what should be to what could be”

by J.R. Fibonacci


The written “script” is below the audio playback windows.

Part 1: from struggling to peace

Part 2: from resistance to promotion

part 1

part 2

Part 1 (of 2): from struggling to peace

When we focus on some idea, we concentrate attention on that possibility. We cause our experience to organize around that point of reference. We express our values through our choice of focus. We magnify, nourish, and develop what is important to us by investing our attention in that possibility.
Note that in certain conventional moralities, there are exactly two distinct linguistic categories of behavior (and even of reality): good and evil (also known as right and wrong). A certain idea of how things could be, but may not be, may be emphasized as “should.”

Should is worshiped, and reality is judged against the pre-existing conceptual standard of should. Any reality which violates the particular shoulds of a certain morality is identified as “a problem.” The response to a problem is to either single it out or pretend it is not there, then to repress it or fix it, to hide it or solve it.

This paradigm appears not only in morality but in certain traditions of medicine. The emphasis is not on functionality, but on problems of functionality. The problems or symptoms are identified and named, so that people “have” some condition, like they have blindness or they have scurvy or they have dehydration. Any symptoms categorized as illness may be aggressively interrupted, repressing the natural healing processes of the body’s immune response. Or those problems may be “solved,” such as with eye glasses or a “seeing eye dog.”

In a case like “having dehydration,” medical specialists recognize that the situation is actually not one of having some excess, but lacking something essential, such as hydration (water). So, water is provided.

In a case like “having scurvy,” medical specialists may not recognize for centuries that the situation is actually not a situation of having some excess, but lacking something essential, such as a nutrient recently identified and named vitamin C. So, ignorant of what is missing, and often presuming that something is present which “should not be happening” (the body’s natural healing immune response), medical specialists may relentlessly interfere with the immune system, perhaps in the sincere hope of delaying death. However, the perceived problem of “having scurvy” (which is actually lacking or being deficient in vitamin C) is never “fixed” by adding interventions to interfere with symptoms.

Since someone starving from a lack of vitamin C may also be missing other nutrients, such as water, a nurse can provide relief of certain symptoms, as well as mechanical adaptations like electric wheelchairs. Having a wheelchair is not as healthy as being able to walk. Having a “seeing eye dog” is not as functional as being able to see clearly without glasses or other “corrective” adaptions. Of course, corrective glasses do improve functionality and “remedy” the problem, but the actual health (including vision) of the person is not the focus of the medical system. The focus of the medical system is problems of health.

Further, while most disease conditions are not specifically considered evil, there is still so little emphasis on a functional immune system that people may be afraid of contagion, with evil representing anything feared, and contagion as terrifying. Note that contagions may only be dangerous to people with immune systems that are functioning below natural levels.

For people without healthy immune systems, germs may be considered dangerous (bad). Certain foods may be considered bad. Certain practices may be considered bad. In the context of symptoms being deemed bad, certain practices are judged for contributing to or diminishing the appearance of symptoms (the functioning of an immune system).
Fundamentally, there could be a model of how life should be and that model may be worshiped instead of how life is (reality). The white-robed priests of the medical profession, along with the black-robed priests of the legal profession, direct the behavior of their wards. They look for problems, address problems, and even issue curses. The same goes on in politics and business and many other realms, such as education systems in which incorrect answers are highlighted and correct ones are ignored.

Correctional systems and remedial systems sometimes do not work, though. In the realm of financial trends, a certain trend may be deemed unfavorable to a person or group, then identified as a problem by that person or group, producing a struggle to stop the trend, reverse the trend, and prevent the trend from ever returning. However, developments in financial markets, just as in all other realms of reality, are singular expressions of the overall conditions of reality. Any single development or phenomenon always fits the rest of reality.

Calling winter or summer “wrong” is a distinctly human process of linguistic labeling. Summer and winter will be back, no matter how many heroic celebrations are made for the latest alleged “victory over the past.”

Further, some people react to the various symptom-focused systems of remedy and correction by saying “that is not the way it should be” or “focusing on problems is a problem” or other ironies clearly indicating that someone is still operating within that same paradigm. Actually, that paradigm is just “the way of what should be.”

It works how it works. It does not work how it does not work.

The way of “what could be” is a distinct realm as well. While many people may be attached to arguments about the way it should be and even about “the way it is” (which may actually just mean that they are attached to arguing), it is typical that people do not argue over “what could be.” Some people may deny any particular possibility, and they may even fear and attack it or try to prevent it, but then there is always some other possibility to deny, resist, or fix! In fact, by arguing against a certain possibility, people are really saying “it should not be” and if they are talking about it at all, that may be because they at least conceptually recognize the possibility that it could be, or they would not be resisting it or struggling to prevent it or arguing against it!

Some struggle against reality. Some struggle against what should not be. Some struggle against what could be. Consider that struggling is something that could happen, but also might not.

Struggling could be optional. Peace could be possible. Peace may not be possible, but it could be possible, couldn’t it?


CD86 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Part 2 (of 2): from resistance to promotion

Consider that behind the two linguistic categories of “right and wrong” are the human processes of promoting and punishing. That is, whatever we promote, we call good. Whatever we punish, we call wrong or evil.

Thus, we could practice language in the realm of moralities of “should,” like “right and wrong” or we could simply describe a spectrum of possibilities. There are behaviors we could promote, such as by rewarding them economically in a variety of ways. There are also behaviors we could punish through a variety of punishments.

We can consider that some behaviors are highly rewarded, some are moderately rewarded, some are neither rewarded nor punished, some are mildly punished and some are severely punished. That is the spectrum of promotions and punishments.

However, while that is far more detailed than a simple “either/or” paradigm of “right or wrong,” that spectrum is also incomplete. There are actually behaviors that may be punished if people fail to do them (like paying taxes). There is also the issue that certain behaviors are only rewarded (or punished) when performed by certain people in certain restricted ways.

For instance, when one person takes something from another person involuntarily, what is that called? In general, it is called stealing. However it can also be called confiscation, seizure by authorized personnel, disarming an enemy combatant, or repossession of collateral.

If we were describing the interaction of some wild animals, we would say “one taking something away from the other.” We could also use those exact words with people, but we could also include a label for the social relationship between the people: stealing, confiscating, borrowing, purchasing, and so on- with the psychological assessment of any agreement between the parties being distinct from the physical transfer of possession of some tangible object.

<ad lib>
In simple terms, a particular behavior produces a particular result. That is like chemistry. However, in complex social systems, a certain behavior produces a specific social consequence only relative to the specific social status of the one performing the behavior…. That is like the physics of navigation: you have many variables: speed, altitude, direction, changing wind, visibility through clouds, other air traffic, fuel reserves, and on and on.

Consider that the same household chore might be rewarded when performed by a young child (to encourage them to practice that task and develop competence), then… go unrewarded for an older, more mature child (when that behavior is considered their opportunity to contribute to their own well-being and the functionality of the household), and finally, for a mature child, they might even be punished for failure to perform that behavior (as their responsibility or duty). So the same task could be a practice, an opportunity, or a responsibility.

One example is washing clothes. A young child is prohibited from washing clothes, then later encouraged with supervision, then eventually allowed without supervision or obligation, then expected to do it and do it well.

In some cases, someone might even be punished for doing something that is “below” their social status (or “above” it). For a military officer in an emergency protocol, they might be reprimanded for washing their own clothes because other staff are assigned to do that specifically and that officer has other functions that are (also) highly valued and can only be done well if the officer is focused on that rather than on washing clothes.

Similarly, people may be punished for digging in their yard without permission, such as if their digging could have damaged an electrical wire. Only after going through a zoning permission sequence so their proposed digging project can be checked against the map of buried wires, people are allowed to dig without facing punishment. The issue in this case is not that digging is “above” or “below” their social status, but that there are certain precautions that governing regulators may deem prudent and enforce with punishment. Thus, people could be punished for failing to use a certain standard procedure to maximize the possibility that their digging project goes well for them personally and for everyone that could be effected (such as by interruptions in electrical service). Someone might say “you could be punished for digging without a permit” or even “you should get a permit before digging” or just this: “you could favor the results only available by getting a permit first.”
The Church of Blessing promotes the explicit use of rewards and punishments, as well as the reality of diversity (as in inequality- including physical inequality, social inequality, and technological inequality). The practice of shaming, blaming, and cursing (as well as guilt and “making wrong”) is deemed optional. In fact, all practices are deemed optional, though the reality of consequences (including possible social punishments) is recognized.

Conceptually- not as how it should be, but as how it could be- the entire idea of punishment is also considered optional. In an efficient social system, it might be that no behaviors were punished, but that the rewards available by contributing to social value were so attractive that people would focus their attention on performing those behaviors for their own direct natural consequences or for the indirect rewards available through social transaction.

As for all behaviors considered dangerous or injurious, those could be minimized through an emphasis on safety and discretion. Activities known to be dangerous could be performed only after selecting and training appropriate personnel. Vulnerable members of society could be supervised and kept in areas that were maintained as safe by having those areas be accessible only after formal qualifying steps were completed to the satisfaction of those responsible for maintaining the sanctity of the sanctuary.

Generally, there could be four basic social categories or functions: those who primarily operate beyond the sanctuary, those who operate at the boundary of the sanctuary, those who operate within the sanctuary for the internal functioning of the sanctuary, and those vulnerable members of the social group that stay within the sanctuary unless accompanied by an attendant responsible for their well-being. Implicitly, of those who primarily operate beyond the sanctuary boundary, those who are recognized as having approved access into the sanctuary are distinct from those who are not recognized as having access (or are explicitly repelled).

There could be places and occasions for “public assembly” (where “everyone” is invited to attend) and places of private sanctuary (only formally accessible by invitation). There could be training in socio-linguistic distinctions such as “should,” “could” and even “would.” There could be specific services available in the realms of promoting health, relationship, prosperity, and technical competencies (like how to garden, repair automobiles or install plumbing).

Would you be interested in participating in such developments? If so, how?

more on youtube from J.R. Fibonacci:

For a more concise (and visual) presentation of similar content, see

Related articles

condemning condemnation

June 12, 2010

You may have the experience of setting yourself up as the judge of which expressions of “love’s essence” are the true ones and which are false. There may be the idolizing of “unconditional love” and the shaming of everything else (which is not especially loving, but just more idolizing!).  That to me is the pinnacle of silliness (and vanity/idolatry).

Consider that what some “spiritual people” may reference as “our essential nature” and “unconditional love” are like the seed or roots of a tree. All of the branches of the tree come from the root, but are distinct from the roots, right? The branches are all conditional, like affinity and personal relations like marriage and biological ancestry. Those are extremely conditional, but they are not “false,” just “specific!”

So, all of the branches are specific (as in conditional) yet they all proceed and are nourished by the roots. For anyone to “sit in judgment” of their own tree of life and say “those branches are good and these branches are evil” is living from sin, from maya/error, from hell, from agonizing, from guilt, from condemnation.

The branches are distinct. They are not better or worse from each other.

The branch of condemnation is also an expression of unconditional love. You cannot experience that through the rational mind, but consider it possible anyway even though it seems like a logical paradox.

Try this instead first. Everything is an expression of “god’s will” or it would not exist. That is logically solid. The idea that there is some other will in operation besides God‘s will is not consistent with the definition of God that I use. That is foolishness, silliness, vanity: “my will is not god’s will.” What? That is like saying that this one branch over here is not part of the tree. That is total nonsense. Only one deep in maya/error/sin would assert a personal will that is not itself the expression of divine will.

So, if you get the logic of the analogy, then it is possible to experience the behavioral process of condemnation from an entirely distinct perspective. Condemnation, like so many processes in language, is always an expression of an inner purpose. It is always the will of God or it would not ever happen.

Condemning something sets up a hypothesis or theory focusing on that something. It is a sorting process of rejecting something consciously while still giving it some energy and attention (like a root system feeding a branch). \

As the condemnation “hypothesis” gets explored, people eventually may come to appreciate something they previously condemned. It is like 7 year old boys making fun of girls then, by the age of 14, reversing their rejection to adoration… for the exact same girls perhaps (now young women).

At age 7, the boys need to develop certain qualities of masculinity, which means getting the distinctions of masculinity. By age 14, the same feminine traits that were repulsive may suddenly be attractive (of course, noting that there is an immense physiological difference between 7 year old girls and 14 year old girls) – a new polarity or charge is created, but first we may express our divine purpose by condemning something as we focus primarily elsewhere. “That energy is too much for me right now!”

Later, at age 14, a boy tends not to ridicule 7 year old girls with antagonism, but perhaps with appreciation or at least neutrality. Thus what before was actually in some ways truly terrifying (yuck, 7 year old GIRLS!) is later the object of light-hearted teasing, like saying nonsense things to a neighbor or cousin: saying “oh, now you are acting like a 7 year old” to someone who actually is 7.

7 year old boys can be quite mean to little girls, with the classic behavior of pulling pigtails and so on. 14 year old boys do not typically do that, right? They may tease little girls, but they just are not INTERESTED enough to actually put out the energy of condemning 7 year old girls because 7 year old girls are no longer a THREAT to the average 14 year old boy.

What is the bottom line of 7 year old boys condemning and ridiculing girls? “I am too immature to contain my intense attraction to the feminine, so it is best for now for me to push away any feminine magnet in my midst. When I mature further, I may chase after what I have chased away. I may even use the same words like ‘I hate you’ but said with a ‘devilish’ smile, a lusty honesty, a playful non-chalance.”

Condemnation is simply revealed as a developmental stage. Those in the middle of that stage may not see that. To them, one part of the tree must be good and one part must be evil. They simply condemn condemnation, establishing behaviorally that they are still in that stage of condemnation.

Instead of condemning many branches as evil, they condemn the behavior of condemning as evil. Again, that is the extreme of irony, of silliness, of vanity.

Upon recognizing this, the tree of life is revealed to be holy- complete. Then, unconditional love shifts from being a good idea that we may talk about until we are blue in the face to something we do, a behavior, the activity or process of loving. Every stage on the way to the process of unconditional loving is part of the process of unconditional loving, just as every stage on the way to being a butterfly IS itself already the process of the emergence of a butterfly.

Some caterpillars may go around condemning butterflies (or caterpillars). That may change nothing as to their future.

Words are trivia. Notice the energy patterns directly.

Caterpillars are part of the process that is butterfly. Yes, a butterfly is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “caterpillar.”

Condemnation is part of the process of unconditional loving. Yes, unconditional loving is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “condemning.”

Do not miss the forest for the tree. Or, if it fits for you, focus elsewhere and miss the forest for the tree! FINE, JUST BE THAT WAY! Either way, there is no forest except for a mutltide of trees.

%d bloggers like this: