Sunday, November 28, 2010
Little Choices
By exposing myself on the web I am hoping ultimately that I might solicit some understanding that might otherwise not be possible, since this kind of exposure is so severely discouraged in our society. I am acutely aware that my sickness is a “choice”, but it is not a conscious choice. If it were then I would have simply consciously chosen to not be perverted and depraved a long time ago, and a bunch of people would be still alive today. You might think that it's a simple matter of an accumulation of a lot of little conscious choices over time that has made me the way I am. And, that may very well be true, but if in the course of making those choices I never consciously knew the end result, then the choice to be what I am today was still an unconscious one. And blaming me for what I am because of choices that I made in the past that I did not comprehend the consequences of, is itself a choice that has consequences that you may not be conscious of. Just ask yourself, how did we become such a perverted and depraved society? The answer is easy: it's a simple matter of an accumulation of a lot of little conscious choices over time, like the choice to judge and condemn “sex offenders”, and thus creating a whole new pathological role in our society that will continue to grow in numbers until we, as a society, overcome the ignorance and craveness that drives us to make all those “little choices”. My “sickness” is yours too!
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Help Me!
How does it make me feel to admit that I still masterbate to fantasies of raping small children? It makes me feel like crap. It makes me feel like I am a failure at self control. It reminds me that I am not better than human. And it forces me to rely on my belief that I am no less than human as well. It causes me to feel inferior to even those I have judged in the past as ignorent and cowardly. It compells me to face my own ignorance and craven nature. And it gets me to think about my “sickness” in a context I might otherwise not have been able to appreciate, an “exposed” context.
It also appeals to the depraved part of me. The shame that I experience awakens the part of me that needs shame in order to feel justified. I do not indorse this part of myself, I only ancknowledge it in order to better understand it myself; to bring it “into the light” of social consciousness. But it is craven and pathetic, and derives great pleasure from being exposed, from even exposing itself, like a person exposing their sexual parts to another unsuspecting person for the pleasure of it. (Which is why I only "expose” myself in this blog, which has ample warnings attached to it to prevent anyone from being “victimized”. Unless, of course, they want to be “victimized”, but in that case it would be their “sickness” not mine at play).
Of course, I do not “expose” myself for the pleasure of it. I am extremely careful not to give that part of myself that much control over my words and behavior. I've learned what a heinous mistake that can be, in the past. But the part that wants to understand; the part that takes no pleasure in my shame, or any pleasure in asking others for help. But by exposing myself in this way I am asking you for help, no matter who you are. If you are a caring person at all, then I need your help to get better. I am convinced that I cannot “heal” myself. It was from trying to heal myself in the past that I became so desperately depraved (i.e. “sick”).
How can you help? Simply like this: read my words, open your heart, and try to understand. You do not need to relay that understanding to me, or to anyone else. If you understand, the understanding will relay itself in ways that our conscious minds have yet to fathom.
How can you hurt? By judging me and condemning me. In this way you “feed” my sickness, the depraved part of me that wants you to be offended and “sickened” by my “exposed” private parts. If you want to hurt by shaming me, I'll certainly understand, I once needed to hurt people by shaming them too in order to feel justified. But if you have the courage to help me instead, then thanks!
It also appeals to the depraved part of me. The shame that I experience awakens the part of me that needs shame in order to feel justified. I do not indorse this part of myself, I only ancknowledge it in order to better understand it myself; to bring it “into the light” of social consciousness. But it is craven and pathetic, and derives great pleasure from being exposed, from even exposing itself, like a person exposing their sexual parts to another unsuspecting person for the pleasure of it. (Which is why I only "expose” myself in this blog, which has ample warnings attached to it to prevent anyone from being “victimized”. Unless, of course, they want to be “victimized”, but in that case it would be their “sickness” not mine at play).
Of course, I do not “expose” myself for the pleasure of it. I am extremely careful not to give that part of myself that much control over my words and behavior. I've learned what a heinous mistake that can be, in the past. But the part that wants to understand; the part that takes no pleasure in my shame, or any pleasure in asking others for help. But by exposing myself in this way I am asking you for help, no matter who you are. If you are a caring person at all, then I need your help to get better. I am convinced that I cannot “heal” myself. It was from trying to heal myself in the past that I became so desperately depraved (i.e. “sick”).
How can you help? Simply like this: read my words, open your heart, and try to understand. You do not need to relay that understanding to me, or to anyone else. If you understand, the understanding will relay itself in ways that our conscious minds have yet to fathom.
How can you hurt? By judging me and condemning me. In this way you “feed” my sickness, the depraved part of me that wants you to be offended and “sickened” by my “exposed” private parts. If you want to hurt by shaming me, I'll certainly understand, I once needed to hurt people by shaming them too in order to feel justified. But if you have the courage to help me instead, then thanks!
Friday, November 26, 2010
It's All In My Head!
Trying to control my fantasies about sex is like trying to walk across a 14-inch steal I-beam a thousand feet in the air. Knowing that the sense of vertigo that causes you to fall is all in your head doesn't help. Telling yourself over and over that, “you can do this!” doesn't help either, at least not for long. A safety harness might help a little, if only the people manning the ropes weren't so eager to just let you fall (i.e. parole/probation officials) so they don't have to help hold you up anymore. But even with a safety harness the apprehension and dizziness don't just go away.
There is a solution though, and one that could help a lot of people: simply stop building sky scrapers! In practical terms, stop making sex such a lofty thing by placing intellectual structures beneath it that simply don't belong there (such as “love” and “commitment” and “taboos”). Let sex be what it is in nature, an animal drive without baggage. Then maybe people like me wouldn't be dropping out of the sky so much.
There is a solution though, and one that could help a lot of people: simply stop building sky scrapers! In practical terms, stop making sex such a lofty thing by placing intellectual structures beneath it that simply don't belong there (such as “love” and “commitment” and “taboos”). Let sex be what it is in nature, an animal drive without baggage. Then maybe people like me wouldn't be dropping out of the sky so much.
What It's Like
It's like trying to walk on a 14-inch wide steal I-beam, a thousand feet up in the air at the top of a sky scraper under construction. Some people can do it easily, they say it's no different than walking on the ground, you just need to be a bit careful about where you walk is all. The trick, they say, is to not look down. Some people can't do it at all! If you put them on such a beam, and all they had to do was crawl ten feet to safety, they wouldn't be able to do it. They'd cling to the beam with both arms and legs, eyes tightly closed and beg hysterically for someone to get them down.
Still others, like me, can at least manage to crawl, but never stand without support, much less walk. And the irony is that this “beam” that I can't walk is only ten inches to a few feet off the ground for most people. But it's a thousand feet to me, which most people don't seem to understand. They call me a coward and a sicko because I can't walk what to them is as easy as a walk in the park. But, a park that has children in it to me is as much a tightrope in my mind as a crack house is to a crack addict. And strangely enough I've smoked crack, but I've never had any problem putting the pipe down. I always used drugs and alcohol intermittently, and never when I could not afford to. Those were “beams” I could walk blindfolded (I'd go months and even years without getting high at all, even when I could afford to. I once gave a crack addicted friend of mine my last “rock”, then asked him politely to go smoke it by himself and not to call me anymore. To him, crack was that 14-inch beam a thousand feet in the air, and I knew that if he ever fell he could end up hurting me too. So, I respectfully ended my association with him, though I still considered him a friend. The only time I ever saw him again was once, to give him a Christmas card that featured a picture of my cat, that he had reluctantly let me have when it was a kitten and could not take care of it himself. I gave him the card so he would know I still considered him a friend, and so he could see how the cat had grown. I never saw him again after that, nor did I smoke any more crack until shortly before my arrest in 2005, about two years later).
We all have 14-inch beams that we can't walk in our lives. Most people are lucky enough to never find themselves confrontated with having to navigate their exposed beams. But others must face their beams every day. If you put a crack addict in jail where he can't get high, he's fine. But for me, my “beam” is literally attached to my body and “not looking down” is a lot harder to do than it sounds!
Still others, like me, can at least manage to crawl, but never stand without support, much less walk. And the irony is that this “beam” that I can't walk is only ten inches to a few feet off the ground for most people. But it's a thousand feet to me, which most people don't seem to understand. They call me a coward and a sicko because I can't walk what to them is as easy as a walk in the park. But, a park that has children in it to me is as much a tightrope in my mind as a crack house is to a crack addict. And strangely enough I've smoked crack, but I've never had any problem putting the pipe down. I always used drugs and alcohol intermittently, and never when I could not afford to. Those were “beams” I could walk blindfolded (I'd go months and even years without getting high at all, even when I could afford to. I once gave a crack addicted friend of mine my last “rock”, then asked him politely to go smoke it by himself and not to call me anymore. To him, crack was that 14-inch beam a thousand feet in the air, and I knew that if he ever fell he could end up hurting me too. So, I respectfully ended my association with him, though I still considered him a friend. The only time I ever saw him again was once, to give him a Christmas card that featured a picture of my cat, that he had reluctantly let me have when it was a kitten and could not take care of it himself. I gave him the card so he would know I still considered him a friend, and so he could see how the cat had grown. I never saw him again after that, nor did I smoke any more crack until shortly before my arrest in 2005, about two years later).
We all have 14-inch beams that we can't walk in our lives. Most people are lucky enough to never find themselves confrontated with having to navigate their exposed beams. But others must face their beams every day. If you put a crack addict in jail where he can't get high, he's fine. But for me, my “beam” is literally attached to my body and “not looking down” is a lot harder to do than it sounds!
Friday, November 19, 2010
What I Am
In the original Fifthnail blog I was as honest as I could be without exposing myself as a child rapist/murderer. So at times I even made carefully worded denials of any interest in children at all. These denials, of course, were deliberate lies. But in this “Fifthnail Exposed” blog, I no longer need to hide my sickness or perversion. I am what I am, and attempting to deny the truth at this point would be a futile attempt at vanity, not to mention self defeating.
The “revelation” that caused me to bring eight-year-old Shasta home and surrender myself to the police, did not “cure” me. I still have fantasies of raping children, and even masterbate as often as I feel like it with little or no compunction.
Several times after I was arrested in 2005, I tried to suppress my deviant fantasies and would go weeks at a time, “fasting” from all “pleasurable thoughts”. These fasts would often include going without food at the same time. I continued these fasts, off and on, for about two years after I was arrested, thinking that I had to be able to “control my desires” in order to be “pure” and “completely honest”.
And during these fasts, I often told my attorney's about my attempts and failures, at self control, thinking that being as truthful as I could with them would help me to become more honest. I even “confessed” to the FBI, at one point, with this same goal in mind (which I explicitly explained to them as the reason for my talking to them against my attorney's advice. I said, “God told me to be honest with you”.)
But, as it turned out, it was easier to starve myself for weeks at a time (the longest I ever went was about two weeks with no food) than to get control of the violent fantasies that kept coming into my mind. They seemed to have a life and will of their own, to survive!
I started noticing that the fantasies would react to specific external circumstances. When guards, or other inmates, projected insults at me, I could be doing something completely innocuous, such as reading a book, or writing a letter, and even though I tried to ignore the insults, the fantasies of deviant sex would come seemingly all on their own.
So I started “experimenting” with different reactions and techniques. For example, I discovered that if I allowed myself to react to the insults, by shouting back for example, that the fantasies were much less likely to come, or if they did come they were much less persistent. I also noticed that even if the insults were not directed at me, for example, when I overheard inmates or guards talking derisively about some other “sex offender”, the fantasies would still react as if somehow to “defend” me from harm. I remember explicitly reporting this realization to my attorneys at the time. I told them, “It's as if some unconscious part of my mind is trying to protect me!” I was realizing that my fantasies were the product of completely unconscious processes that were attempting to attenuate the pain of reality, even though consciously they often caused even more pain! (For the first several days after my arrest in 2005, I was in a kind of emotional shock that kept any fantasies, and barely any thoughts at all, from coming into my conscious mind. I thought that perhaps I had been “freed” from them at last! But on about the fifth or sixth day I had calmed down and recovered enough that this unwanted “defense mechanism” decided to kick in, and I started having fantasies about having sex with Shasta and her brother, Dylan, at the mountain campsite. When the fantasies came and demanded my attention the way they do, I curled up on the cold concrete floor of the jail cell, and cried. The pain came from knowing I was not “free” after all.)
On the way bringing Shasta home in the Jeep, I had promised her that I would never have “bad thoughts” (i.e. fantasies) about her again, not even after I was arrested (she knew I was going to turn myself in). I truly believed I could and would keep that promise, because at the time I was able to relate to her in a completely non-sexual way. In other words, I was not having any sexual desires for her at all, much less fantasies. Not since before my arrest in 1980 had I been able to relate to a child with no sexual thoughts. So, I thought I had been “miraculously cured” on the mountain when I decided to bring her home. It was a “cure” I had been praying for, for a very long time. But, I was wrong.
I am still the same “sick” and “twisted” pervert that I have been all my life. Yes, I admit, even as a kid I was a “sicko”. But as a kid that “sickness” was only the result of a severe lack of healthy sexual information and experience. I could have easily been “cured” with just a little time all by itself (as recent studies show happens frequently – i.e. under confidential agreements, many responsible adults who have never been arrested, or accused of sexual crimes, have admitted that as youths they engaged in sexual behavior that could have gotten them arrested, often even feloniously. And I have personally known several such men, who are now very law abiding and respected members of society – one man, for example, who molested both me and my brother when we were 12 and 10 years old respectively, while he was 17, is now a Captain in the Navy. And he didn't just “touch our privates” out of curiosity. He did things to my brother and I with a bicycle pump in our butts that was perverted even by my present standards! Now he has a wife and kids of his own, and a very respected career.)
Eventually I realized that I was running around in circles trying to “control my fantasies”. I noticed that I was starting to fall into the same behavior cycles that I experienced when I was in prison years ago trying to “cure” myself.
So, I stopped trying to suppress my fantasies several years ago. I rationalize that there is no danger of me acting out my fantasies ever again, so why not “let them go” and try to learn by watching what they do. It's kind of like living with primative anthropoids in order to better understand them. In the past I tried to control them with external pressure. Now I'm just trying to understand them from within instead.
I've been learning a lot, and have even reflected on some of those lessons (in mostly non-sexual contexts) right here in this blog. Perhaps, if I live long enough, someday I will learn something that might help other people, or even society in general. But, I realize that's a thin hope. I'm just content to know that I don't have to struggle anymore. No matter what happens, for the rest of my life, I will be what I am. And that's okay.
The “revelation” that caused me to bring eight-year-old Shasta home and surrender myself to the police, did not “cure” me. I still have fantasies of raping children, and even masterbate as often as I feel like it with little or no compunction.
Several times after I was arrested in 2005, I tried to suppress my deviant fantasies and would go weeks at a time, “fasting” from all “pleasurable thoughts”. These fasts would often include going without food at the same time. I continued these fasts, off and on, for about two years after I was arrested, thinking that I had to be able to “control my desires” in order to be “pure” and “completely honest”.
And during these fasts, I often told my attorney's about my attempts and failures, at self control, thinking that being as truthful as I could with them would help me to become more honest. I even “confessed” to the FBI, at one point, with this same goal in mind (which I explicitly explained to them as the reason for my talking to them against my attorney's advice. I said, “God told me to be honest with you”.)
But, as it turned out, it was easier to starve myself for weeks at a time (the longest I ever went was about two weeks with no food) than to get control of the violent fantasies that kept coming into my mind. They seemed to have a life and will of their own, to survive!
I started noticing that the fantasies would react to specific external circumstances. When guards, or other inmates, projected insults at me, I could be doing something completely innocuous, such as reading a book, or writing a letter, and even though I tried to ignore the insults, the fantasies of deviant sex would come seemingly all on their own.
So I started “experimenting” with different reactions and techniques. For example, I discovered that if I allowed myself to react to the insults, by shouting back for example, that the fantasies were much less likely to come, or if they did come they were much less persistent. I also noticed that even if the insults were not directed at me, for example, when I overheard inmates or guards talking derisively about some other “sex offender”, the fantasies would still react as if somehow to “defend” me from harm. I remember explicitly reporting this realization to my attorneys at the time. I told them, “It's as if some unconscious part of my mind is trying to protect me!” I was realizing that my fantasies were the product of completely unconscious processes that were attempting to attenuate the pain of reality, even though consciously they often caused even more pain! (For the first several days after my arrest in 2005, I was in a kind of emotional shock that kept any fantasies, and barely any thoughts at all, from coming into my conscious mind. I thought that perhaps I had been “freed” from them at last! But on about the fifth or sixth day I had calmed down and recovered enough that this unwanted “defense mechanism” decided to kick in, and I started having fantasies about having sex with Shasta and her brother, Dylan, at the mountain campsite. When the fantasies came and demanded my attention the way they do, I curled up on the cold concrete floor of the jail cell, and cried. The pain came from knowing I was not “free” after all.)
On the way bringing Shasta home in the Jeep, I had promised her that I would never have “bad thoughts” (i.e. fantasies) about her again, not even after I was arrested (she knew I was going to turn myself in). I truly believed I could and would keep that promise, because at the time I was able to relate to her in a completely non-sexual way. In other words, I was not having any sexual desires for her at all, much less fantasies. Not since before my arrest in 1980 had I been able to relate to a child with no sexual thoughts. So, I thought I had been “miraculously cured” on the mountain when I decided to bring her home. It was a “cure” I had been praying for, for a very long time. But, I was wrong.
I am still the same “sick” and “twisted” pervert that I have been all my life. Yes, I admit, even as a kid I was a “sicko”. But as a kid that “sickness” was only the result of a severe lack of healthy sexual information and experience. I could have easily been “cured” with just a little time all by itself (as recent studies show happens frequently – i.e. under confidential agreements, many responsible adults who have never been arrested, or accused of sexual crimes, have admitted that as youths they engaged in sexual behavior that could have gotten them arrested, often even feloniously. And I have personally known several such men, who are now very law abiding and respected members of society – one man, for example, who molested both me and my brother when we were 12 and 10 years old respectively, while he was 17, is now a Captain in the Navy. And he didn't just “touch our privates” out of curiosity. He did things to my brother and I with a bicycle pump in our butts that was perverted even by my present standards! Now he has a wife and kids of his own, and a very respected career.)
Eventually I realized that I was running around in circles trying to “control my fantasies”. I noticed that I was starting to fall into the same behavior cycles that I experienced when I was in prison years ago trying to “cure” myself.
So, I stopped trying to suppress my fantasies several years ago. I rationalize that there is no danger of me acting out my fantasies ever again, so why not “let them go” and try to learn by watching what they do. It's kind of like living with primative anthropoids in order to better understand them. In the past I tried to control them with external pressure. Now I'm just trying to understand them from within instead.
I've been learning a lot, and have even reflected on some of those lessons (in mostly non-sexual contexts) right here in this blog. Perhaps, if I live long enough, someday I will learn something that might help other people, or even society in general. But, I realize that's a thin hope. I'm just content to know that I don't have to struggle anymore. No matter what happens, for the rest of my life, I will be what I am. And that's okay.
The “Serial Killer” Fence
Attempting to classify the traits of a “serial killer” (or any criminal for that matter), in order to determine what causes them to become killers, is as stupid as trying to figure out why some snow flakes land on the edge of a fence by studying the characteristics of the snow that has landed there.
Yes, the snow there has certain properties that are distinctly different from snow that has landed in the yard. The snow on the fence is more loosely packed, but harder (colder) at the same time. But those characteristics are not what put the snow on the fence. They were developed only after the snow had landed on the fence, from the additional exposure to the cold and wind.
Actually, the snow flakes that land on the fence may be a bit larger, or perhaps more damp, on average, than other flakes, allowing them to stick better and not getting blown off again by the wind. But knowing these characteristics still won't help you keep snow off the fence. There will always be variations in the size and dampness of snow flakes, after all, “no two are ever alike”, remember?
And so it is with studying “serial killers” (or other “social flakes”). They might be “harder” and “colder” than the average “flake”, but that has little to do with why they kill. Killing causes a person to become that way. And sure, statistically, they may have more often been bed-wetters, or fire-bugs, or abuse victims, before they ended up on the “serial killer” fence, but that information is completely useless. More than 99% ot the people who wet their bed, start fires, or were abused as children, never become “serial killers”.
In one of the books, that I was studying for my case (“Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide” by: Philip Jenkins), the author points out that the famous FBI Behavior Sciences Unit (B.S.U.) is as helpful to police as the Psychic Friends Network. The information they provide is generalized and useless. Any specific details that they do come up with are as often wrong as right.
The only reason for the B.S.U.'s popularity is due to movies such as, “Silence of the Lambs” and “Red Dragon”. But while the profiling techniques in those movies were authentic enough, the characters being profiled were fictitiously “shaped” in order to let the FBI profilers be the heros in the end. There was nothing authentic at all about the overall pathology of the killers in these movies. While the “Cannibal” and “Dragon” may have been based on real people, their psychology in the movies was a hodgepodge of unlikely combinations of various mental illnesses.
And yet after these movies came out the FBI Behavior Sciences Unit in Quantico, VA, received overwhelming public support, despite the fact that in the real world this Unit was floundering from a series of serious profiling errors, and no significant successes. The only thing positive most police investigators can say about the BSU information they get in a case, is that it helps them “think outside the box”. They say the same thing about consulting with psychics.
So, if we want to keep snow off the fence, then we'd be much better off taking a closer look at the fence itself! For example, how do we define a “serial killer”, and how does that definition help to actually put people on the “serial killer” fence?
The whole concept of “serial killer” is new, but there have been people who fit the definition all throughout history (see Jenkins's book, “Using Murder” for a really good analysis of this). So tearing down the “serial killer” fence wont stop “killer flakes” from falling out of the sky, but it would, perhaps, at least get people to start looking up!
P.S.: Incidentally, for what it's worth the FBI's profile report on my crimes (that was written after my arrest and “confession”) said that my case was anomalous. Almost none of the “elements” of my crimes matched up with their general profiles for other “sex killers”. I keep trying to tell them that my crimes weren't about sex, or even violence. (Believe it or not, I loath violence, and have only ever resorted to it after much deliberation. “Violence when there are alternatives is immoral. Violence when there are no other alternatives is survival.” I had alternatives to my own violent behavior in the past, but even after the most careful and maticulous deliberation I never saw what my alternatives were. At least not until a certain eight-year-old little girl named Shasta helped to open my eyes!)
Yes, the snow there has certain properties that are distinctly different from snow that has landed in the yard. The snow on the fence is more loosely packed, but harder (colder) at the same time. But those characteristics are not what put the snow on the fence. They were developed only after the snow had landed on the fence, from the additional exposure to the cold and wind.
Actually, the snow flakes that land on the fence may be a bit larger, or perhaps more damp, on average, than other flakes, allowing them to stick better and not getting blown off again by the wind. But knowing these characteristics still won't help you keep snow off the fence. There will always be variations in the size and dampness of snow flakes, after all, “no two are ever alike”, remember?
And so it is with studying “serial killers” (or other “social flakes”). They might be “harder” and “colder” than the average “flake”, but that has little to do with why they kill. Killing causes a person to become that way. And sure, statistically, they may have more often been bed-wetters, or fire-bugs, or abuse victims, before they ended up on the “serial killer” fence, but that information is completely useless. More than 99% ot the people who wet their bed, start fires, or were abused as children, never become “serial killers”.
In one of the books, that I was studying for my case (“Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide” by: Philip Jenkins), the author points out that the famous FBI Behavior Sciences Unit (B.S.U.) is as helpful to police as the Psychic Friends Network. The information they provide is generalized and useless. Any specific details that they do come up with are as often wrong as right.
The only reason for the B.S.U.'s popularity is due to movies such as, “Silence of the Lambs” and “Red Dragon”. But while the profiling techniques in those movies were authentic enough, the characters being profiled were fictitiously “shaped” in order to let the FBI profilers be the heros in the end. There was nothing authentic at all about the overall pathology of the killers in these movies. While the “Cannibal” and “Dragon” may have been based on real people, their psychology in the movies was a hodgepodge of unlikely combinations of various mental illnesses.
And yet after these movies came out the FBI Behavior Sciences Unit in Quantico, VA, received overwhelming public support, despite the fact that in the real world this Unit was floundering from a series of serious profiling errors, and no significant successes. The only thing positive most police investigators can say about the BSU information they get in a case, is that it helps them “think outside the box”. They say the same thing about consulting with psychics.
So, if we want to keep snow off the fence, then we'd be much better off taking a closer look at the fence itself! For example, how do we define a “serial killer”, and how does that definition help to actually put people on the “serial killer” fence?
The whole concept of “serial killer” is new, but there have been people who fit the definition all throughout history (see Jenkins's book, “Using Murder” for a really good analysis of this). So tearing down the “serial killer” fence wont stop “killer flakes” from falling out of the sky, but it would, perhaps, at least get people to start looking up!
P.S.: Incidentally, for what it's worth the FBI's profile report on my crimes (that was written after my arrest and “confession”) said that my case was anomalous. Almost none of the “elements” of my crimes matched up with their general profiles for other “sex killers”. I keep trying to tell them that my crimes weren't about sex, or even violence. (Believe it or not, I loath violence, and have only ever resorted to it after much deliberation. “Violence when there are alternatives is immoral. Violence when there are no other alternatives is survival.” I had alternatives to my own violent behavior in the past, but even after the most careful and maticulous deliberation I never saw what my alternatives were. At least not until a certain eight-year-old little girl named Shasta helped to open my eyes!)
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Freedom of Sexual Expression
I just read that it is important for gays (generally speaking) to believe they have no choice about being “gay”. Supposedly, they need to believe they have no choice in order to attenuate their shame.
Wow. I should have known this already, considering my predominantly gay sexual adventures. But I did not realize this (in the general sense). I knew that some gays felt that way, but not most of them. I always assumed that most gays understood that being “gay” was a choice. To me, it has always been important that my sexual exploits were the product of my own volition. If who I enjoy having sex with is not my choice, then what choices do I have at all?
There is no more intimate form of communication between two people than sexual expression. If I cannot choose what I “say” sexually, then I have no choice in anything I say. Because of its extremely intimate and personal nature, sex, to me, is the most meaningful form of speech. Without freedom of sexual expression there is no freedom of speech.
Perhaps this is why men who seek power over other men throughout history, i.e. religions and governments, have always suppressed sexual expression. It is only obvious that if men cannot express themselves satisfactorily they will readily turn to other men to do so for them, which is what we call social intercourse. If so, then it becomes obvious how social concepts such as “justice” and “freedom” and “security” can be so emotionally charged, because they are proxies for pent up sexual energy!
Wow! So governments and religions derive their power by suppressing and then redirecting the emotional energy of our libidos! How weird is that? No wonder we are constantly fighting and killing each other. If all this is true, then in a better world, sexual expression (and so-called “preference”) will be completely untethered. I suspect the only “law” in such a world would be the One Law that Jesus speaks of in the Bible, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (which is the same thing as loving God when it is understood correctly), then the thought that “God condemnd homosexual behavior” will be seen as ludicrous by everyone, because everyone will be “gay” (i.e. willing to do whatever feels good without compunction).
Wow. I should have known this already, considering my predominantly gay sexual adventures. But I did not realize this (in the general sense). I knew that some gays felt that way, but not most of them. I always assumed that most gays understood that being “gay” was a choice. To me, it has always been important that my sexual exploits were the product of my own volition. If who I enjoy having sex with is not my choice, then what choices do I have at all?
There is no more intimate form of communication between two people than sexual expression. If I cannot choose what I “say” sexually, then I have no choice in anything I say. Because of its extremely intimate and personal nature, sex, to me, is the most meaningful form of speech. Without freedom of sexual expression there is no freedom of speech.
Perhaps this is why men who seek power over other men throughout history, i.e. religions and governments, have always suppressed sexual expression. It is only obvious that if men cannot express themselves satisfactorily they will readily turn to other men to do so for them, which is what we call social intercourse. If so, then it becomes obvious how social concepts such as “justice” and “freedom” and “security” can be so emotionally charged, because they are proxies for pent up sexual energy!
Wow! So governments and religions derive their power by suppressing and then redirecting the emotional energy of our libidos! How weird is that? No wonder we are constantly fighting and killing each other. If all this is true, then in a better world, sexual expression (and so-called “preference”) will be completely untethered. I suspect the only “law” in such a world would be the One Law that Jesus speaks of in the Bible, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (which is the same thing as loving God when it is understood correctly), then the thought that “God condemnd homosexual behavior” will be seen as ludicrous by everyone, because everyone will be “gay” (i.e. willing to do whatever feels good without compunction).
Fear No Evil
If I were afraid of death I would not have been able to bring that little girl home and turn myself over to the present authorities. In fact, you could say that it was the fear of death that I overcame which allowed me to do what I wanted to do in my heart all along (stop killing). It amazes me that people do not understand that threatening someone with death only alienates them and makes them that much more likely to try to hurt someone. But I suppose I should not be too amazed, since I also once rationalized my own fantasies of how people would react to my threats, by thinking that they would regret what they did to me. Of course, now I realize that no one regrets my having been sent to prison as a kid for 15 years, to be raped and perverted by the System. And, even those who realize that what happened to me was wrong don't seem to realize that they were the ones who did it to me (or, more precisely, the attitudes and beliefs that allowed me to be crucified as a child). I too once could not see my ignorance. And now that I have had my false beliefs illuminated for what they are, I do not suddenly believe that I know the truth. Instead, I realize that I know nothing! How could I possibly trust my own knowledge ever again after learning that my most basic lifelong beliefs were all lies! I can't. But, at least I'm not afraid of death any more. Nor am I afraid of being deceived, because I realize now that as long as I do not believe that what I think is true, then I cannot be deceived. I suspect this is what Jesus meant by “believe in me”. He was simply trying to tell us to believe what is in our heart, not our mind. If you believe that Jesus was a Man/God that lived 2000 years ago, then you believe what you have been told by other men. These things exist only in your mind. But if you believe that it does not matter whether a man called Jesus of Nazareth ever walked the earth at all, but that His “teachings” are still important and useful for guidance and instruction, then perhaps you will be saved yet.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Fabrications Don't Help
I sincerely hope that when people read the parts of this blog that talk about my past life's experiences and present experiences, including dreams, that they don't try to analyze the information in order to support, or even form, some “theory” about what made me a “psycho-sex killer” (or whatever). I gave up trying to figure that out when I picked Shasta up and brought her home, and I know more about me than anyone else will even begin to know. (Which is why I openly deride all the psych-doctors who attempt to “evaluate” anyone.)
I have said that I am writing this blog in hopes that people might understand; not my experiences , but themselves. I write about my honest experiences because I'm sure that at some point what I write will contradict any “theory” about me out there. I predict this based on the simple belief that all such “theories” are mere fabrications that ultimately explain nothing except how the mind works in the person who fabricated the “theory”. So by exposing the fabrcation I hope to expose the fabricator to themselves! Only then will they even begin to understand me! (The best psych-doctors are the ones who see me in themselves, or vice versa. But, even they fail catastrophically as soon as they pretend to document, or otherwise articulate, their understanding.)
I have said that I am writing this blog in hopes that people might understand; not my experiences , but themselves. I write about my honest experiences because I'm sure that at some point what I write will contradict any “theory” about me out there. I predict this based on the simple belief that all such “theories” are mere fabrications that ultimately explain nothing except how the mind works in the person who fabricated the “theory”. So by exposing the fabrcation I hope to expose the fabricator to themselves! Only then will they even begin to understand me! (The best psych-doctors are the ones who see me in themselves, or vice versa. But, even they fail catastrophically as soon as they pretend to document, or otherwise articulate, their understanding.)
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Gnosticism
Everyone knows that an agnostic is someone who does not believe in God. But, actually that's not quite right. Agnosticism is really just the belief that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists. So, it is even reasonable for a Christian to be agnostic. Such a person would say, “I can't know that God exists; that's what I have faith for!”
But few people know what a gnostic is (no “a”). Gnosticism actually dates back to before Christ. But the first Christians, or at least some of them, considered themselves gnostics.
Gnosticism is not a religion. It is merely a way of thinking about religion and life and anything for that matter. A gnostic views all knowledge as coming from a single source. This does not contradict the Christian view that all things are created by the One God. It is just a different way of viewing the same thing. But, perhaps an important difference.
The gnostic Christians were actively suppressed very early after the birth of Christianity. Many of their doctrines were seen to contradict the teachings of Christ, which is rather strange since a true gnostic would never subscribe to any one doctrine. So accusing them of contradicting Christian doctrine would be like accusing someone of not liking vegetables just because they like meat.
But to the early Christian church, anyone who did not believe exactly what they believed were considered heretics. (This is proven over and over throughout Christian history and accounts for so many “denominations” and divisions of the Christian religion today.) To this day, the very hallmark of Christianity, is the insistance that you either believe what we believe, or you are wrong. In other words, Christian's by their nature (the nature of Christianity) believe they are “right”, and everyone else is “wrong”, even when only a very few of them think they are “right” (i.e. Christian cults).
But the gnostic Christians were not like that. They believed that all knowledge (and hense, all beliefs) led ultimately to the source of Knowledge, that being of course, God. So there were as many different paths to knowing God as there are different things to know. But they emphasized being able to know the difference between true knowledge (or just “knowledge”) and false knowledge (or, more correctly, “deception”).
To a gnostic, deception is “the devil”, in the same sense that knowledge is “God”. Deception is the source of all “evil” and “suffering” in the world. The “devil” is not a magical creature that lives beneath the earth (or in some other reality, as Christians believe today) but he is a very real and present phenomenon of intellectual action that we must resist not in fantasy, but in reality.
Learning to recognize and resist the “devil” is the obligation of every servant of God. And we do so by seeking true knowledge, which allows us to discern deception. The only weapon against deception is truth. But truth can only be properly wielded against deception (evil) by those who have the necessary qualities of a “true believer”.
Those qualities are outlined in the Bible (and numerous other books for that matter), so I won't go into them here. But I should point out that merely pretending to have these qualities does not qualify you to do battle with evil. The qualities I speak of can only be granted by God himself, no man can obtain them according to his own desire or will (which the Bible also clearly says in many places and many ways in order to be clear on this point). And hense, no man can come to know the source of all knowledge unless they have indeed been chosen by God.
The popular Christian belief that we have so-called “free will” (or the oximoronic “limited free will”) and that life is some sort of test to see who deserves to live forever, is a spiritually childish notion to a true gnostic.
Even though gnosticism was suppressed and literally outlawed by the church, it has quietly survived all these years. To a gnostic this is no surprize. They know that the truth (i.e. source of knowledge, a.k.a. “God”) is the living and conscious force behind all of nature. So gnosticism cannot be destroy like some belief system or religion. Even if all men were destroyed, and a completely new intelligent species envolved, there would still be gnostics, even in the new species.
But, of course, gnosticism is just a word. You don't need to know the word to be a gnostic. I call myself a gnostic only very hesitantly after studying the history of gnosticism and learning that its principles are precisely my own. I did not adopt gnosticism, it adopted me.
P.S. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ever completely, or even correctly, define gnosticism in terms of human language. Like I have said, it is not a religion, not even “pure religion”, it is only a way of seeing things that allows one to “see” the religious paths, but it is not a “path” itself. It is like Ti-chi, in the sense that Ti-chi too, when correctly practiced, is a “way of seeing”. You could say that gnosticism is a kind of intellectual Ti-chi. Except, unlike Ti-chi, gnosticism can not be taught person-to-person. It can only be learned God-to-person.
But few people know what a gnostic is (no “a”). Gnosticism actually dates back to before Christ. But the first Christians, or at least some of them, considered themselves gnostics.
Gnosticism is not a religion. It is merely a way of thinking about religion and life and anything for that matter. A gnostic views all knowledge as coming from a single source. This does not contradict the Christian view that all things are created by the One God. It is just a different way of viewing the same thing. But, perhaps an important difference.
The gnostic Christians were actively suppressed very early after the birth of Christianity. Many of their doctrines were seen to contradict the teachings of Christ, which is rather strange since a true gnostic would never subscribe to any one doctrine. So accusing them of contradicting Christian doctrine would be like accusing someone of not liking vegetables just because they like meat.
But to the early Christian church, anyone who did not believe exactly what they believed were considered heretics. (This is proven over and over throughout Christian history and accounts for so many “denominations” and divisions of the Christian religion today.) To this day, the very hallmark of Christianity, is the insistance that you either believe what we believe, or you are wrong. In other words, Christian's by their nature (the nature of Christianity) believe they are “right”, and everyone else is “wrong”, even when only a very few of them think they are “right” (i.e. Christian cults).
But the gnostic Christians were not like that. They believed that all knowledge (and hense, all beliefs) led ultimately to the source of Knowledge, that being of course, God. So there were as many different paths to knowing God as there are different things to know. But they emphasized being able to know the difference between true knowledge (or just “knowledge”) and false knowledge (or, more correctly, “deception”).
To a gnostic, deception is “the devil”, in the same sense that knowledge is “God”. Deception is the source of all “evil” and “suffering” in the world. The “devil” is not a magical creature that lives beneath the earth (or in some other reality, as Christians believe today) but he is a very real and present phenomenon of intellectual action that we must resist not in fantasy, but in reality.
Learning to recognize and resist the “devil” is the obligation of every servant of God. And we do so by seeking true knowledge, which allows us to discern deception. The only weapon against deception is truth. But truth can only be properly wielded against deception (evil) by those who have the necessary qualities of a “true believer”.
Those qualities are outlined in the Bible (and numerous other books for that matter), so I won't go into them here. But I should point out that merely pretending to have these qualities does not qualify you to do battle with evil. The qualities I speak of can only be granted by God himself, no man can obtain them according to his own desire or will (which the Bible also clearly says in many places and many ways in order to be clear on this point). And hense, no man can come to know the source of all knowledge unless they have indeed been chosen by God.
The popular Christian belief that we have so-called “free will” (or the oximoronic “limited free will”) and that life is some sort of test to see who deserves to live forever, is a spiritually childish notion to a true gnostic.
Even though gnosticism was suppressed and literally outlawed by the church, it has quietly survived all these years. To a gnostic this is no surprize. They know that the truth (i.e. source of knowledge, a.k.a. “God”) is the living and conscious force behind all of nature. So gnosticism cannot be destroy like some belief system or religion. Even if all men were destroyed, and a completely new intelligent species envolved, there would still be gnostics, even in the new species.
But, of course, gnosticism is just a word. You don't need to know the word to be a gnostic. I call myself a gnostic only very hesitantly after studying the history of gnosticism and learning that its principles are precisely my own. I did not adopt gnosticism, it adopted me.
P.S. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ever completely, or even correctly, define gnosticism in terms of human language. Like I have said, it is not a religion, not even “pure religion”, it is only a way of seeing things that allows one to “see” the religious paths, but it is not a “path” itself. It is like Ti-chi, in the sense that Ti-chi too, when correctly practiced, is a “way of seeing”. You could say that gnosticism is a kind of intellectual Ti-chi. Except, unlike Ti-chi, gnosticism can not be taught person-to-person. It can only be learned God-to-person.
Thank Godness For Ignorant People!
I blog a lot about fear and ignorance, but only because I have been, and yet remain, one of the greatest cowardly ignoramuses that I know. My only claim to accomplishment is that at least I realize that that is what I am. And I'm not ashamed of it either! But, nor am I proud; why would I be? Realizing that I am a deceived person keeps the blinders of pride off my eyes, and helps me see the world around me much more clearly. It helps me to not be so quick to judge, and hense destroy any chance I might have to learn and experience new things!
So, while I observe the ignorance of other people often, I do not condemn it, nor would I even wish they were not a part of my world. For so wishing would be to wish for my own demise, and that would be silly. The man who spits in my face is as much my brother as any other.
So, while I observe the ignorance of other people often, I do not condemn it, nor would I even wish they were not a part of my world. For so wishing would be to wish for my own demise, and that would be silly. The man who spits in my face is as much my brother as any other.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Shame On Me
It is satisfying to know that I will be murdered by consensus of the people of the most powerful nation in human history. Shame on me for feeling that way, and shame on you for wanting me dead. It makes me feel like some sort of martyr. :)
Monday, November 8, 2010
Worse Than Rape
Anyone who claims that child rape is universally the most evil and despised crime in the world has obviously not been around the world very much, nor even studied history. In fact, it has been only very recently in history that any society has been able to generally value children at all. Even the great United States not very long ago legally condoned the commercial and systematic abuse of children in ways that would make most modern child rapes seen kind by comparison.
And I'm not defending child rape as no doubt some idiot would claim if I did not specifically say so (and will probably claim anyway just because it makes them feel righteous to denounce a child rapist). Child rape is clearly wrong, but there are far far worse evils in this world. And, you don't need to look to history to find them; just check your back pocket. Any U.S. Currency you find there is evidence of your own guilt in causing millions of children to suffer from hunger, sickness, homelessness, exploitation, and worst of all, hopelessness! I won't bother explaining why this is true, because if you don't already know then you really shouldn't be reading this blog. You should be learning about world economics, and about how easy (and common) it is for strong countries to just take whatever they want (resources) from weaker countries. Talk about rape! Right now the U.S. Has it's economic hard-on so far up the Middle East's ass that they can't even take an economical shit unless we let them. And their very real flesh and blood children are the ones feeling it the most. (Please don't tell me you thought 9-11 was about religious fanaticism! You'd be fanatic too if you had to watch your children starve, and go without medicine and shelter, just so some stronger country could have its pleasures.)
Like I said, check your wallet next time before you cry out ignorantly about child rape being so “evil”. You might just discover that you are the one with a hard-on for vulnerable children!
And I'm not defending child rape as no doubt some idiot would claim if I did not specifically say so (and will probably claim anyway just because it makes them feel righteous to denounce a child rapist). Child rape is clearly wrong, but there are far far worse evils in this world. And, you don't need to look to history to find them; just check your back pocket. Any U.S. Currency you find there is evidence of your own guilt in causing millions of children to suffer from hunger, sickness, homelessness, exploitation, and worst of all, hopelessness! I won't bother explaining why this is true, because if you don't already know then you really shouldn't be reading this blog. You should be learning about world economics, and about how easy (and common) it is for strong countries to just take whatever they want (resources) from weaker countries. Talk about rape! Right now the U.S. Has it's economic hard-on so far up the Middle East's ass that they can't even take an economical shit unless we let them. And their very real flesh and blood children are the ones feeling it the most. (Please don't tell me you thought 9-11 was about religious fanaticism! You'd be fanatic too if you had to watch your children starve, and go without medicine and shelter, just so some stronger country could have its pleasures.)
Like I said, check your wallet next time before you cry out ignorantly about child rape being so “evil”. You might just discover that you are the one with a hard-on for vulnerable children!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
One is Enough
I happen to know that there is at least one person who reads every word of this blog with an open mind, and an open heart. And that one is more than enough to justify the effort. Thank you, silly girl!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Consciousness Arising
Consciousness and probability are inextricably interwined, I have observed in the past that consciousness is the product (or “offspring”) of infinite probability. This is a very difficult realization for even me to grasp, and I am certain that the words I am using to express it fall miserably short of being even an inspiration for most. But, alas, it is my task to at least try.
In another post, I have expounded on what I refered to as evidence of a “probability limit”. But now, I realize that what I was contemplating was really just consciousness at work. The purpose of consciousness is inexpressible, and hense, so is its “work”. But we can observe consciousness as it is expressed in the universe around us, and more intimately within ourselves. We can even experience pure consciousness directly by various means (from drugs, to meditation, and many other ways). But we will never be able to express that experience in terms of the limited experiences we have through our senses. So what I am about to state will be meaningless, unless you are one who enjoys intimate contact with consciousness directly. Then perhaps you will be able to make some sense of this, since it comes straight from my own direct experience of consciousness. And, while how we express true experience may differ (as all the different religious attest) the experience itself is always the same. It is only how we relate it to our limited experiences that differs.
First, I should be specific about what I mean by “infinite probability”. In order for there to be any probability at all then there must be some event that can happen in at least two different ways. This is simple probability. The simplest event of all is whether something exists, or does not exist. I call this the prime event. A variation of the prime event is what I call the time event. The time event is really the same thing as the prime event, only how we view, or describe, it changes. Instead of something either existing or not, we say that it is either moving forward or backward in time. This “view” is better for understanding pure (infinite) probability, because it allows us to think in terms of something we already experience, time. But, keep in mind that this “time event” view is actually less “true” than the “prime event” view, yet neither view is absolutely true (though the “prime event” is perhaps the purist definition of “God”, or “infinite intelligence” that I have ever proposed, by itself it is also the most meaningless!)
With the time event, we say that something exists when it moves forward in time, and does not exist when it moves backwards in time. So, with this view, it is clearly possible for something to go from a state of existence, to a state of non-existence, and back again. So then, our simple probability is defined by the two possible directions in time.
As strange as this sounds, there is a corresponding event that has been observed numerous times by particle psysicists. When a positron (i.e. anti-electron) collides with an electron both particles cease to exist in a burst of energy. Positrons are also known to be mathematically identical to an electron moving backwards in time. (I'm not making this up, see my earlier post “Time Travel is Real” posted August 16, for a further explaination and references). One theory is that the positron and electron are really the same particle seen changing direction in time, and appearing to us to cease existing in the process. But, I do not need particle physics to support my ideas here, because I am speaking from my own direct experience of consciousness, not external observations (the later being quite primative in contrast).
So, now that we have defined a probability event, we can begin speaking in terms of probability. In the simplest terms we say that the probability that something is moving forward or backward in time (i.e. does or does not exist) is finite. That means that even if we cannot calculate what the probability is, we know at least that there is some value for the probability by virtue of the fact that only one or the other state can be true in any given infinitesimality (yes folks, that is a real word, even though it may not appear in your dictionary. It means an infinitely small instant, or for the purpose of this discussion; a timeless instant). Either the something is moving forward or backward in time (and does or does not exist).
Now here is the reason we use the time event instead of the prime event for our visualization: if an entity (i.e. “something”) does exist, and hense is moving forward in time, then given any length of time (a non- infinitesimality)said entity can in fact either exist or not exist in an infinite set of infinitesimalities. In other words, there can in effect be an infinite number of time events! And since each time event is said to have a finite probability, then an infinite set of finite probabilities is, of course, the definition of infinite probability.
Now, what does all this have to do with consciousness? Well, hopefully, if I had laid my words right, I have set up an interesting test for an age old dilemma. We have only to ask, what exactly determines the probability of a time (or prime) event? Or, to completely rephrase the question, what ultimately determines the choices we make? This is the same exact question, only now you can see the direct relationship it has to consciousness!
The answer is consciousness, of course. What else could it be? If it were pure chance then there would be only chaos and profound lawlessness in the multiverse (since we're talking infinite infinities, “multiverse” is a better term for “universe”, since the former refers to all possible universes, not just ours). As I have already expounded on in my previous blog post on the probability limit, pure randomness cannot account for the obvious law and order that makes up our universe. There must be consciously directed probability, which is what I previously refered to as the probability limit.
And so, infinite probability (a.k.a. “God the Father”) gives rise to the very consciousness (a.k.a. “God the Son”) that shapes and determines the space/time experience we call reality (a.k.a. “The Spirit of God”). And if you carry through with this revelation correctly, then you will discover that is meshes perfectly with not just the true teachings of the Bible, but also with the basis of every other world religion. Everyone of the Fifthnail blogs serves this revelation. Every word that has ever been written is about this revelation. Though many words have been written to conceal the truth, all words are written about the truth. When you can see the meaning in this, then you will never be deceived by words again. Consciousness, which is the “Word of God”, cannot lie.
In another post, I have expounded on what I refered to as evidence of a “probability limit”. But now, I realize that what I was contemplating was really just consciousness at work. The purpose of consciousness is inexpressible, and hense, so is its “work”. But we can observe consciousness as it is expressed in the universe around us, and more intimately within ourselves. We can even experience pure consciousness directly by various means (from drugs, to meditation, and many other ways). But we will never be able to express that experience in terms of the limited experiences we have through our senses. So what I am about to state will be meaningless, unless you are one who enjoys intimate contact with consciousness directly. Then perhaps you will be able to make some sense of this, since it comes straight from my own direct experience of consciousness. And, while how we express true experience may differ (as all the different religious attest) the experience itself is always the same. It is only how we relate it to our limited experiences that differs.
First, I should be specific about what I mean by “infinite probability”. In order for there to be any probability at all then there must be some event that can happen in at least two different ways. This is simple probability. The simplest event of all is whether something exists, or does not exist. I call this the prime event. A variation of the prime event is what I call the time event. The time event is really the same thing as the prime event, only how we view, or describe, it changes. Instead of something either existing or not, we say that it is either moving forward or backward in time. This “view” is better for understanding pure (infinite) probability, because it allows us to think in terms of something we already experience, time. But, keep in mind that this “time event” view is actually less “true” than the “prime event” view, yet neither view is absolutely true (though the “prime event” is perhaps the purist definition of “God”, or “infinite intelligence” that I have ever proposed, by itself it is also the most meaningless!)
With the time event, we say that something exists when it moves forward in time, and does not exist when it moves backwards in time. So, with this view, it is clearly possible for something to go from a state of existence, to a state of non-existence, and back again. So then, our simple probability is defined by the two possible directions in time.
As strange as this sounds, there is a corresponding event that has been observed numerous times by particle psysicists. When a positron (i.e. anti-electron) collides with an electron both particles cease to exist in a burst of energy. Positrons are also known to be mathematically identical to an electron moving backwards in time. (I'm not making this up, see my earlier post “Time Travel is Real” posted August 16, for a further explaination and references). One theory is that the positron and electron are really the same particle seen changing direction in time, and appearing to us to cease existing in the process. But, I do not need particle physics to support my ideas here, because I am speaking from my own direct experience of consciousness, not external observations (the later being quite primative in contrast).
So, now that we have defined a probability event, we can begin speaking in terms of probability. In the simplest terms we say that the probability that something is moving forward or backward in time (i.e. does or does not exist) is finite. That means that even if we cannot calculate what the probability is, we know at least that there is some value for the probability by virtue of the fact that only one or the other state can be true in any given infinitesimality (yes folks, that is a real word, even though it may not appear in your dictionary. It means an infinitely small instant, or for the purpose of this discussion; a timeless instant). Either the something is moving forward or backward in time (and does or does not exist).
Now here is the reason we use the time event instead of the prime event for our visualization: if an entity (i.e. “something”) does exist, and hense is moving forward in time, then given any length of time (a non- infinitesimality)said entity can in fact either exist or not exist in an infinite set of infinitesimalities. In other words, there can in effect be an infinite number of time events! And since each time event is said to have a finite probability, then an infinite set of finite probabilities is, of course, the definition of infinite probability.
Now, what does all this have to do with consciousness? Well, hopefully, if I had laid my words right, I have set up an interesting test for an age old dilemma. We have only to ask, what exactly determines the probability of a time (or prime) event? Or, to completely rephrase the question, what ultimately determines the choices we make? This is the same exact question, only now you can see the direct relationship it has to consciousness!
The answer is consciousness, of course. What else could it be? If it were pure chance then there would be only chaos and profound lawlessness in the multiverse (since we're talking infinite infinities, “multiverse” is a better term for “universe”, since the former refers to all possible universes, not just ours). As I have already expounded on in my previous blog post on the probability limit, pure randomness cannot account for the obvious law and order that makes up our universe. There must be consciously directed probability, which is what I previously refered to as the probability limit.
And so, infinite probability (a.k.a. “God the Father”) gives rise to the very consciousness (a.k.a. “God the Son”) that shapes and determines the space/time experience we call reality (a.k.a. “The Spirit of God”). And if you carry through with this revelation correctly, then you will discover that is meshes perfectly with not just the true teachings of the Bible, but also with the basis of every other world religion. Everyone of the Fifthnail blogs serves this revelation. Every word that has ever been written is about this revelation. Though many words have been written to conceal the truth, all words are written about the truth. When you can see the meaning in this, then you will never be deceived by words again. Consciousness, which is the “Word of God”, cannot lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)