QuickTwist
Spiritual "Woo"
The self is evil. Why? Because its' primarily concerned with the self and not the other.
What is the self? The self is what one identifies itself as. It is the soul proprietor of its' own fruition as a manifestation of will by which is felt through the state of being the self experiences. The self doesn't have direct knowledge of the other. The other is the selves that are outside the specific self. The self is singular and simple and the other is plural and complex. The self's primary frame of reference is the self in relation to the other because the self fully understands the self in its singular simplicity and the other is preliminary because of the distinction that the other isn't intimately known by the self.
What we learn from the self is that of the other. How? Because the self is at it's natural state at rest and the other in its natural state is in motion. Where is the other? The other is both within the self and outside of the self. It is outside the self because it is the self that senses the motion of the other that is outside of the self in relation to the self. The other is inside the self because to the other self, that self is that of the other. The other is many selves that are not a specific self, but the selves as a complete group. Because the self has a priori knowledege of the self, and because any given self is the other self in comparison to the original self, the self has post priori knowledge of the original other.
The self cannot be made plural and complex and the other cannot be made singular and simple. Why? The self only has intimate knowledge of the self because the self knows the self a priori and has a superficial knowledege of the other because the self's knowledge of the other is post priori. The self only knows one intimately under natural circumstances which is the self. The other only knows the self post priori and so only knows the self superficially. The other is plural and complex because the other knows many selves on a superficial level.
But there is more than the self and the other. There is also the will and the will of the other. The will for both is what gives them direction to move in relation to each other. The will is what they choose to do in relation to each other. It is the choice, but not so firm that it acts in its own accordance. The will is the intimate communication between the self and the other. What is the will? The will is the knowledge of the motion between the self and the other; it is what decides. When the self sees motion from the other, it reacts to the other. The other then sees the motion of the self and reacts to the self. The self senses the will of the other and the other senses the will of the self.
Without any motion from the other, the self would not know it exists. It is in the will within the self in its relation from the other to the self that the self is able to identify that the self exists. Therefore, the will is not just the movement of the self withing itself, but within the self's reaction to the other that the self knows it exists. Likewise, the other knows the self exists because the other senses the will of the self on the will of the other. And like so it oscillates back and forth.
Why does the self react to the other at all? Because in the self's sensing of the will of the other on the self, this creates a state of being that the self experiences. It is the will of the other that is imposed on the self that the self feels this state of being. The other also experiences a state of being produced by the will of the self imposed on the other. When the self experiences that state of being that the will of the other imposes on the self, the self exercises its will on the other through the experience to which the will of the other is imposed on the self. The self has to react to the will of the other, otherwise the other will devour the self and the self will become nothing but the other and will no longer be the self and the will of the self will become the same as the will of the other. The self wants to belong to the other, and because of this, the self reacts through its will by its state of being imposing on the will of the other, but in doing so, this just reaffirms the self as the self and not as the other which separates the self from the other.
When the self experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the other, this tells the other that the self exists. When the other experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the self, this tells the self that the other exists. if there was no will of the other in relation to the self, the self would not know the self exists and there would be no other, but only the self would exist and the self would not know it exists.
How the self imposes its will on the other is how the other imposes its will on the self. For true communication of the wills between the self and the other, the state of being that the self experiences has to be true, but it is not always the case with the self to represent the self's state of being being true.
It is necessary that the other's will imposed on the self is too complex and strong for the self to handle. The self wants to belong to the other, but it can't do this fully. So because the self cannot handle the complex state of being that the other imposes on the self, the self then suffers. This is done because when the self imposes its will on the other, the other identifies the self as a singular simple state of being. Because the self wants to experience a complex state of being, but can't the self suffers knowing that its will cannot adequately be imposed on the will of the other. Its in the rejection of the other in its complex will imposed on the self that the self suffers.
This great difference in complexity and strength that the others being is in relation to the self's being is what causes the self to suffer. The self then, in its state of being of suffering, imposes its will of suffering on the other. The other then receives the suffering in the will of the self and it too begins to suffer. The other then imposes its will of suffering on the self and the self cannot handle it and wants to die because all it can experience is suffering. When the self imposes its will of wanting to die to the other, the other then also wants to die as well. This is absolute suffering.
Now because the other wants to die, it must kill the self.
But the self and the other still exist so something must be keeping the self from absolute suffering. Therefore, there must be something greater than the will of the other. The self must necessarily call this alleviation of suffering something of divine work. The self must call this for all intents and purposes, God. Only God at this point has the power to alleviate the suffering of the beings of the self and the other. God must choose a perfect self; a self that has never suffered. The only way this perfect self can exist as an entity is if it has never imposed its will on the other. The perfect self must know that the other suffers and that the other wants the self to die. The perfect self must want to alleviate the other's suffereing. The perfect self must accept the death of itself so that the suffering of the other will be alleviated.
So the perfect self accepts its death by not imposing its will on the other. After the perfect self is killed by the other, all the selves within the other are free from their suffering and can act as though they are a new self that has not yet suffered.
The self now has a choice to choose not to suffer and live, or ignore the perfect self and die.
So now some selves of the other choose not to impose their will on the other, but instead experience the state of being of the perfect self. It is now these selves that keep the balance so the other can live.
What is the self? The self is what one identifies itself as. It is the soul proprietor of its' own fruition as a manifestation of will by which is felt through the state of being the self experiences. The self doesn't have direct knowledge of the other. The other is the selves that are outside the specific self. The self is singular and simple and the other is plural and complex. The self's primary frame of reference is the self in relation to the other because the self fully understands the self in its singular simplicity and the other is preliminary because of the distinction that the other isn't intimately known by the self.
What we learn from the self is that of the other. How? Because the self is at it's natural state at rest and the other in its natural state is in motion. Where is the other? The other is both within the self and outside of the self. It is outside the self because it is the self that senses the motion of the other that is outside of the self in relation to the self. The other is inside the self because to the other self, that self is that of the other. The other is many selves that are not a specific self, but the selves as a complete group. Because the self has a priori knowledege of the self, and because any given self is the other self in comparison to the original self, the self has post priori knowledge of the original other.
The self cannot be made plural and complex and the other cannot be made singular and simple. Why? The self only has intimate knowledge of the self because the self knows the self a priori and has a superficial knowledege of the other because the self's knowledge of the other is post priori. The self only knows one intimately under natural circumstances which is the self. The other only knows the self post priori and so only knows the self superficially. The other is plural and complex because the other knows many selves on a superficial level.
But there is more than the self and the other. There is also the will and the will of the other. The will for both is what gives them direction to move in relation to each other. The will is what they choose to do in relation to each other. It is the choice, but not so firm that it acts in its own accordance. The will is the intimate communication between the self and the other. What is the will? The will is the knowledge of the motion between the self and the other; it is what decides. When the self sees motion from the other, it reacts to the other. The other then sees the motion of the self and reacts to the self. The self senses the will of the other and the other senses the will of the self.
Without any motion from the other, the self would not know it exists. It is in the will within the self in its relation from the other to the self that the self is able to identify that the self exists. Therefore, the will is not just the movement of the self withing itself, but within the self's reaction to the other that the self knows it exists. Likewise, the other knows the self exists because the other senses the will of the self on the will of the other. And like so it oscillates back and forth.
Why does the self react to the other at all? Because in the self's sensing of the will of the other on the self, this creates a state of being that the self experiences. It is the will of the other that is imposed on the self that the self feels this state of being. The other also experiences a state of being produced by the will of the self imposed on the other. When the self experiences that state of being that the will of the other imposes on the self, the self exercises its will on the other through the experience to which the will of the other is imposed on the self. The self has to react to the will of the other, otherwise the other will devour the self and the self will become nothing but the other and will no longer be the self and the will of the self will become the same as the will of the other. The self wants to belong to the other, and because of this, the self reacts through its will by its state of being imposing on the will of the other, but in doing so, this just reaffirms the self as the self and not as the other which separates the self from the other.
When the self experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the other, this tells the other that the self exists. When the other experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the self, this tells the self that the other exists. if there was no will of the other in relation to the self, the self would not know the self exists and there would be no other, but only the self would exist and the self would not know it exists.
How the self imposes its will on the other is how the other imposes its will on the self. For true communication of the wills between the self and the other, the state of being that the self experiences has to be true, but it is not always the case with the self to represent the self's state of being being true.
It is necessary that the other's will imposed on the self is too complex and strong for the self to handle. The self wants to belong to the other, but it can't do this fully. So because the self cannot handle the complex state of being that the other imposes on the self, the self then suffers. This is done because when the self imposes its will on the other, the other identifies the self as a singular simple state of being. Because the self wants to experience a complex state of being, but can't the self suffers knowing that its will cannot adequately be imposed on the will of the other. Its in the rejection of the other in its complex will imposed on the self that the self suffers.
This great difference in complexity and strength that the others being is in relation to the self's being is what causes the self to suffer. The self then, in its state of being of suffering, imposes its will of suffering on the other. The other then receives the suffering in the will of the self and it too begins to suffer. The other then imposes its will of suffering on the self and the self cannot handle it and wants to die because all it can experience is suffering. When the self imposes its will of wanting to die to the other, the other then also wants to die as well. This is absolute suffering.
Now because the other wants to die, it must kill the self.
But the self and the other still exist so something must be keeping the self from absolute suffering. Therefore, there must be something greater than the will of the other. The self must necessarily call this alleviation of suffering something of divine work. The self must call this for all intents and purposes, God. Only God at this point has the power to alleviate the suffering of the beings of the self and the other. God must choose a perfect self; a self that has never suffered. The only way this perfect self can exist as an entity is if it has never imposed its will on the other. The perfect self must know that the other suffers and that the other wants the self to die. The perfect self must want to alleviate the other's suffereing. The perfect self must accept the death of itself so that the suffering of the other will be alleviated.
So the perfect self accepts its death by not imposing its will on the other. After the perfect self is killed by the other, all the selves within the other are free from their suffering and can act as though they are a new self that has not yet suffered.
The self now has a choice to choose not to suffer and live, or ignore the perfect self and die.
So now some selves of the other choose not to impose their will on the other, but instead experience the state of being of the perfect self. It is now these selves that keep the balance so the other can live.