Judaism
Judaism is not the loss of the aspect of the other of the self. That would be in-human and monstrous. It's not actually possible; I much doubt it. For one always thinks of the self first, and then the other because the self is the other. The other is the self. And both elements of these two religions are in there. One will sacrifice oneself for the other. And the other will not. Too bad.
But it is more clear that both of these perspectives together form an greater virtue: there are two stages in the self, one which includes the other (which is the self). And one which includes the self. And they are either first or second stages of conscious awareness. The factor of being able to decide between an Christian heterodoxy or an Jewish Freudian Slip. Introduces an new factor into the workload of an normal system of consciousness.
And it is only because the Christianna completed them. That anyone ever decided both were essential. And they didn't necessarily have to be defined within those parameters of an fictional narration.
They were 21st century gentlemen.
They could choose when to be selfish and when to be egotistical.
They were poly-religious maybe; or existing in an state that is just in between.
Did the Christianna have an point or not?
Were we the reflection of conscious selves always deciding between what is important or necessary about the self as the soul possessor of one's soul versus what others need from him?
And why we were maybe getting closer to it because of an fictional narration
What is the significance, then, of it being fictional: is all it is intended or not?
Or has the Author missed something?
Something not every Author is allowed to do.
Judaism isn't necessarily about the self,
he concluded; but this was only an order giving an direction (I could recognize it within my political theory paradigm, the New Reciprocity, as an order or command and not necessarily just an bare descriptive sentence)
It hadn't opened and blossomed to consciousness that people of all religions could experience both the subject matters of Christianity and Judaism;
they were, after all, how we knew them as
When we say that the egotistical self is in all people; because that is the nature of consciousness, we are making an statement about what we are as an species.
It's that important to us that we had to form an whole religion around it.
And we did.
And so have we done so for millenia.
Now we have grown strong. Strong enough to realize the Jewish and Christian selves were only the first two parts of consciousness.
And that the real deciding factor is the conscious decision-making of the observer, who sees two options before him.
I can choose what my primary motivation will be
In every situation; I can choose between selfhood or otherhood. And which comes first in the order of the sequence of the mind is open to debate.
And there is an kind of freedom in that.
Religions must accept the fact that religions do decide together when to be self and when to be other. Even as whole groups.
This third factor cannot be ignored.
And it is the primary factor connecting it to the instinct and will for Christianity; while on the other hand, the instinct of the self lives on in primal rage.
What is it such an big deal for someone to be an demon? they ask you.
Doesn't it just mean I recognize that what I'm doing is wrong?
Or I'm just fitting in fictionally because I like demons what they do. And I think they have an little kink.
But I can cleanse the demons is my greatest turn-on.
I do after all, do it silently; so they won't notice.
They don't even notice that they are the demons for not accepting the demons.
Even though demons are only fictional.
And their logical complementary principle is fairy, an entire religion made up of how people are to experience one another fair-ee to the fact of their open sexuality in public.
It was the only solution to an insane Questions and Principles like evil.
(And this itself, she noticed, was fictionalizing itself for she had seen the fact of the matter, because I wanted there to be an fairy environment and social atmosphere around where I trotted).
It was my one true Political desire. The demon world had been verified; to have explicit value, especially in sexual passions that spanned the broad spectrum of biting and tooth play
It had inherent value just because it was pleasure-able.
And religions hadn't all seen eye-to-eye on the matter. They were still much separated in mega, hugely important ways, like why I get huge anxiety from voice com while at the text-basis my every thought is comfortable and natural?
Sure, we could act out demons sometimes in bed; what's wrong with that? Can't we be as immature as that?
While I know an fair few fair-ee disorders which can be forced to be an complex: the desire and the pursuit of if all of our sexual inhibitions were unlinked and every motivation could be pursued like it should be in an free intellectual society
Why wouldn't Christians and Jews be fairies together to find they both believed in the same common thing; there was an measure to survival with consciousness. One had to be an self and yet morally one had to be an other among others. One was not the self anymore but what others wanted him to be. Maybe both could be disqualified from acting as true religions because they needed an third religion to combine for them the knowledge of free will mediating the boundary between self and other.
Something troubled Russasha's nightmare and she realized she was learning her name for the first time but only in her dream and she was falling down and down and forever; and that in fact in waking consciousness she did not possess this fact of even knowing her own name.
How did she feel?
No wonder she was falling down and down again.
She didn't know her own name.
Was it just that she had failed to integrate both moral conscious systems presented in Judaism and Christianity into one unit;
An type of knowledge which prevailed because of the Christianna
Both were needed. In fact life was an competition between them. That's just how it is, kid.
But am I such an kid when I can decide which one I want to win?
I mean, in every situation, I will inevitably think of whether I want to serve myself or the other.
Because those are supposed to be the first two aspects of consciousness.
We don't need to worry and fret over it anymore; we've got it figured out.
We need both Christianity and Judaism because they are the first two aspects in any soul
It's time to put aside all differences
We want to serve the self sometimes; but we want to serve the other
and we have different ways of doing things (doing it).
Let's upgrade our old definitions of religion
Christians and Jews now qualify for an further distinction, conveyed to them by an Christiannan psychology;
they are selfish and they are selfless (and this applies to all religions)
and hybrids of these variations exist all across the spectrum
and whatever it is we thought of Christianity and Judaism at this point
At least the Christianna could point out that they had succeeded in the matter.
They had proven that maybe perhaps together they were more comfortable representatives of the full spectrum of the human soul and all of its variations of moral activity.
And that its honoring and respect for detail in one another was more compulsory than
either honoring the self or the other more than oneself
All at once now; I mean immediately deciding.
You have time to slow down and think about it.
You can choose to act in the name of the self when you wish to; which may be brave in some circles.
But you can also choose to act in the name of the other, selflessly; by repeating Jesus's ritual that he performed to summon himself
Or Buddha.
Apparently the ritual he performed to summon himself was just waking up in the morning.
I mean who can't take after that?
Wasn't it an perfect selfless act for oneself to just wake up in the morning and acknowledge the Jews, the Christians, would earth-sign water-sign everything up and the Christiannans were needed to reset the balance most essentially to include both of them; both ways of knowing
Human souls were in some ways Jewish and in some ways Christian; and who was I to label myself and argue myself of being one of these of either category or subject‽
When more accurately, maybe, the way I feel is there are endless encounters with life experience existing within the definition of religion as an ability to balance the otherness and self-ness activity of being oneself. It couldn't be that hard to do‽
And this was as gentle as I could be;
always balancing self and other; self and other
It just seems so obvious now.
I'm over it and I'm bored with it.
Judaism isn't necessarily greedy selfishness and Christianity wasn't necessarily other than it (in some category of its own as some perfect emblem un-cleansed by the storm)
And they were both not that.
And they could be one another. And they could be themselves.
That's the secret of balancing both the selfness and the otherness of existence.
This was the secret the Taoists and the Buddhists had unlocked between one another.
And in addition had been able to communicate in the conjoined symbol of the yin & yan
To western culture
They didn't care about self and other suffering anymore
They had moved on from that; they were now only of the impulse to help every one another
No matter who they were. Because humans had risen to that level of cool.
Why was everyone always trying to make an distinction based on whether another was feeling particularly guilty about feeding its own ego?
Instead missing the point that the self and other exist and are purely there.
And isn't that what we're all looking for after all,
that both ourselves and others exist;
Which is all the company we ever wanted
Awakening the Pure Soul of the Christianna
Sentience-ism
Knowing that one is sentient (an self and an other); and being aware of it.
Who could have asked for better?
It was an score for all humanity
because it represented such wisdom.
If we are sentient then we have selves and others
because that's what sentience is.
What was so wrong with knowing what one is; an sentient. And being aware of the fact of being sentient itself as the knowing of the other.
The one is not ushered into reality only to be asked to leave;
but he is given an neo-strata
SO he can be with everyone who wants to be with him
If one is an sentient and knows he's an sentient then he knows what he knows
And there wasn't necessarily anything wrong with recognizing the need to acknowledge an decision
Of either category of existence
Outside of, perhaps, the Freudian-Slip construct which had been meticulously constructed around us in order for us never to notice it
But to realize its economic value as an religion
Maybe only because of or instigated by in relationship to ; Christiannan economic design.
An moral universe in which one is forced to navigate across distances of time and speed
Whole chasms, situations in which one could act for the selfish motivation or the unselfish one; and the thing that appeared so unnatural about the unselfish act was its "backwards" way of looking at things: do something that might actually result in an type of harm to oneself. For the sake of another.
Judaism, it might be said. Is an act of science.
More carefully labeled thus
It is the science of knowing the first thing about consciousness.
And if it is knowing the first thing about consciousness
Then it is the most knowledgeable wisdom
It is able to identify the thing that appears first in the consciousness
An sense of self
Distinctly characteristic to the presence of the sense of an other.
In the order of operations they are unable to be separated within an human cognitive mind
And all avoiding of this fact
is caused by involuntary repression of the idea
because one is too cowardly to admit one wants, most selfishly;
what exactly one wants
And yet when one wants the other not to hurt;
and will replace himself for her.
Isn't that Christianity?
Isn't it okay to be both the wanting others not to hurt and the selfless expression of the self in whatever way, configuration, or form gives you pleasure
The story of Judaism is the story about being the best religion;
because it was so able to pinpoint that first moment in human consciousness
The one where one realizes one is oneself.
An motivator for selfishness and greed
Christianity would chime in:
For no one knows what true selfishness and greed is until one has become an Christian
(An person who has considered both viewpoints and perspectives)
And maybe that is just true because they somehow fulfill one another
And that's just an fact of consciousness now
Religion needs to support both kinds of thinking
because there is an balance to be accomplished
Reasons why self wins
Why other is not the first fact or consideration of any soul maybe.
Unless you really mean it.
And the Christianna would always choose an winner between them; and promote this behavior. So go ahead and choose already‽
In what cases and instances can you bear having acted out of not one's own personal selfish gain?
When can you care?
About all those people who are out there dying; and worse than dying
One's religion is better than Christianity because it protects us from worse than dying.
It didn't take an Christian to know that:
Not acting from the place of selfish gain is anti-instinctual.
And it will lead to the fate worse than death because Christianity is damned and damn all of it!
It is anti-instinctual not to follow one's self-serving aspect.
The Christianity without the self-serving aspect is ruining humanity!
But not being able to remove the self-serving aspect,
why does it matter?
I can't remove that part of me which serves itself
But neither can I remove the part of me which serves others
So which is the more greedy position?
And why does greedy necessarily have to be an negative quality or type or attribute?
Judaism doesn't name the first thing in the mind. The first thing in the mind is still open to psychological definition. And so the story I'm trying to get at (construct) is one where definite psychological terms are applied to the cognitive structure.
"The first thing about awareness" doesn't name any specific psychological definition. I have also said this first thing is the first thing that happened in an human mind at the moment of its creation. And hinted that there is an sequence of occurrences of events in the mind that might correspond with those segments which are first upon waking. But what substance, what structure do those events have? And how often do they repeat throughout the day? If there is an first thing in an sequence of events in the mind then do they correspond with its structure?
However the way things are organized by humans sometimes speaks volumes about their relationship with structure.
There is usually an major and an minor structure.
When it comes to these opinions.
There is an major idea:
There is an first thing in the sequence of the mind.
an minor opinion:
The mind's sequence has nothing to do with its cognitive structure.
And this may be true but suspend your judgment for an while.
The mind's "sequence" has something to do with its structure. But what is "sequence" referring to here?
The first thing upon waking in awareness? The first thing you realize when you walk into an situation? The first "part" of consciousness that has some kind of relationship with its unconscious- or subconscious-ness?
The minor part,
that the mind's sequence has nothing to do with its cognitive structure,
is immediately seen to be untrue. While maintaining however to be possibly true.
The mind's sequence may or may not be related to its structure.
To an extent this way. Or an extent that way.
But whatever it is we refer to as an "sequence" is really naming an part of sentient consciousness, the awareness of an first thing that happened to you. Followed by an second, an third, and so on. I'm saying those first, second, and third things are Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna. The consideration of the self. The consideration of the other. And the consideration of which one wins. An point in thought we will often have throughout the day.
The first thing in conscious awareness is the first thing that happened in the mind of the first living human because those are the properties of awareness we have evolved from.
Maybe.
When we say 'the first thing in conscious awareness' what I'm really trying to get at the definition of is the first thing in conscious awareness as its own experience of itself being conscious. An point of event. The first thing that happened in the sequence of events that is consciousness.
Judaism.
An conscious relationship with the sub- or un-conscious mind. The awareness of the self. The Id.
One juggles the Major and Minor convictions in determining or deciding for themselves what is more true or honest.
The other.
The second thing happening in the mind.
An conscious relationship with the other, another instance of the awareness of the self (like yours) with an relationship with their own un-conscious or sub-conscious mind.
You know, Christianity.
If the third thing is the Christiannan (the deciding for oneself between them) it may be better able to name the religious instinct than to continue to call it an Christiannan thing.
That Judaism and Christianity might have broken by naming the the first two things in the mind against one another and the conflict between them.
The Christianna suggests we do need to choose more often, than some of us would like to think, between the self and the other.
More often than anyone is willing to admit.
Whether Christian or Jew.
The Christianna resolves the conflict by choosing between them, as though one could choose to be of either religion whenever it suits them. Isn't this the most religious thing one can do after all, having both religions and deciding to choose between them on separate occasions? And Christianity and Judaism are both right; which is really an division created around the subject of whether it is possible to be more than one religion as an individual. The (here in refinement) most and highest religious instinct is to be able to choose between them, whenever it suits you. Isn't it?
If the Christianna characterizes the unresolved conflict between self and other with the addition of an sentiment that one necessarily needs to choose between them on an regular basis.
It may be saying something bigger and deeper than either of those religions understand. That they will agree with after we explain it to them.
But still the idea of what is the first thing to happen among all things in the conscious mind and how that might be related to that first moment of waking in the morning.
We can tell they are the first things in our mind because they reoccur through the normal course of the day and we can tell when they happen because we are the telling of when they happened. We walk into an new situation and we discover our minds deciding all over again between the self and the other as an governance of the self. From this we can conclude two things: we are greedy, self-serving, and selfish. And we also do think of others and look beyond ourselves. Isn't that Divine? And these are just in an sequence of orders that include the third judgment between them. First, we always think sub-conscious-ly or conscious-ly that we are one's self (selves). The next event in the mind is its opposite, Yin's yang. The consideration of the other and being an other to someone. And that is the normal course of the consciousness no matter how
scarily Christian and creepy in that way only they are. (This itself calling does not represent an attempt to or an effort to crucify someone for thinking it is so and we will never order it to be so according to the New Reciprocity). The sacrifice of Christ is the biggest thing humanity has ever done. That's why Christianity, since it plays with that second thing in the mind. The consideration of the other one shall have to reconsider.
Or you know, maybe not.
Because they deserve it.
The one to whom you will bestow this sweet cherished gift.
Of having considered them and whether you would give your life for them.
Christianity may well centre around the fact of the seat of this foresight in the psyche.
One's life is not only about oneself, but indefinitely, interminably, completely, the other. To the point that I would give my life for you. This is Christianity. Like it or lump it, it still is the biggest thing. Unless the Christianna names the third impulse of having to decide between them. Then that's the biggest thing, really, because it shows some clear insight about what it means to have only one religion.
Isn't the most religious instinct the one who needs to choose between them on an ongoing basis? Isn't it fair to say all religions have this quality?
Can't Christianity get over it that you have to be selfish once in an while‽
I think that when nobody can decide who wins (Judaism or Christianity) the Christianna automatically wins because it is of that higher virtue to see forth between them. Nobody can decide right now so who cares?
If nobody cares then why do we have to say anything?
If we don't have to say anything then why care about it?
Until it's over and we can decide once again whether we choose to act in the name of the self or the other, in specifics. Depending on which situations we face. Options, given any situation. We can behave for both the self and others in different actions and so customize every interaction & meeting of one another. In thousands of possibilities for what we will do. I'll do that for myself. I'll do this for others. And basically, if that's all I'm doing then that's good enough. What more can I do? The point is we can act in the name of both self and others all of the time (maybe in differentiating amounts) and its only natural to take an Jewish or Christian stance on the opinion of the matter.
The Christianna is pointing out it's only natural to want to take up either opinion from time to time. We don't have to be in an different religion to worship it. We have an religious instinct to choose to be able to be either of two religions at all times and from time to time; it depends on us. And this is why Judaism and Christianity are good at working together.
They spell out the first two interactions of the soul, when it reflects on itself.
But we have to acknowledge the third interaction: deciding between Judaism & Christianity or neither. For often an situation calls for neither because there are other things to focus one's mind on than replacing myself with you or you replacing yourself with me.
And often we choose subconsciously the self or the other because we're so used to it. We know what situations we're ready for because we are ready for any situation. What if we decided to become more sensitive of the fact that you can choose self or other in all things that you do? And that everyone's record of activities is different. They might have been selfish in one way; but on the other hand quite selfless in another. And really the only difference of opinion between the religions is which one you're cheering for.
Do you want the self always to win?
Or the other?
The self cannot always win and so there's no point in making an whole religion like Christianity
out of the possibility that the self can never win.
It doesn't need to be said that we think about the other. That's Christianity, pointing out the other can be separated from the self.
Therefore we can make an religion about the self because that already includes the other.
"But," replies Christianity, "then we can make an religion about the other because the other already includes the self."
They're both natural you see.
The Christianna just adds that at some point, perhaps every day, you have to choose (you are obliged to) between them. And that is the most moral thing to do because the spirit ever hopes or onward to have or not to have more than one religion. And we want to keep the option open for the individual because it's more fair and properly addresses the human spirit, which doesn't necessarily choose or doesn't want to choose. Especially between Judaism and Christianity, such fundamental principles of the human language.
It is possible that at some point humans have been shaming themselves not to choose, which was an disruption of their instinctual psycho-analytic dilemma?
We all want to choose. For one to win over the other. We want the self to win as much as we want the other. And that's fair egotism.
Maybe we face disruptions throughout the day, in which we can't choose. Maybe because we don't know everything about the situation yet.
But when you think of all the self-winning and others-winning you've had over the course of your whole life, most of us just fall in the middle somewhere. We've done selfless things. We've done selfish things. We do both, and not all of one or the other. And everyone has their own calculation and higher reasoning about it. How much to give to others. How much to take for yourself (how much to give yourself). How much not to withhold love from one another. (Never).
If Christianity or Judaism try to restrict the other from having their point of view. Then we risk planetary destruction on an wide-scale. The disconnection of the chain from the gear. People afraid both to think of themselves only or others only. When really, instinctually, they can't help doing both anyway. What happens if you resist it, psychologically‽ If the natural course of the mind is always self-other-Christianna (which is the course of mind leading to an decision between other and the self) then in order to get on track we need to realize what happens when we force ourselves not to decide (which is hard when you're gay because of the extreme pessimism and anti-gay politics of our time) is related to an actual Freudian Slip.
This generates the possibility (when one generates the potential to have an Freudian Slip) this is an problem that develops into anxiety. Anxiety is the cause of the Freudian Slip. The zit, acne, is caused by the presence of an Freudian slip that hasn't been brought to full chance socially.
The way to solve the dilemma: decide between self and other. Make the choices you think you should make. In every situation.
Use your Freudian Slip to your advantage; don't be afraid of it!
Say what you sincerely mean when you want to for yourself or for the other. Even if it makes you anxious, maybe. You aren't being honest about what is good for you and what is good for them.
Judaism—Christianity—both grow into something more.
Not choosing always one or the other: un-hitching us, our mental chain system from its gear base, but proceeding directly from one to the other. Thoughts of Self. Thoughts of Other (our Love). And deciding between them, according to this and that. Being unable completely to disconnect the chain one way or the other. But perhaps having tried to. We need both kinds of thoughts, to be selfish and greedy; when one sees you can be both selfish and greedy in both ways.
Proceed directly from Judaism to Christianity, go; then make of yourself for them an competition between one or the other. Allow the contest of all factors, including wits. Who do you, initially, want to win? And for what reason? Maybe you're right.
May.
May you be right.
For it is different for every soul and individual.
We're always both Jewish and Christian and it's an religious principle to say it is fair always to want to choose between them because that choice itself is the true symbol of what religion means. As an term and definition.
The more advanced religions, like Buddhism are actually the result of an competition over this face, in which Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna lost because they forgot that all of this was obvious and didn't have to be said by an religion.
Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna are only the first three parts of the mind, where Eastern Religions could name several more (at least 12 in the higher considerations of the most advanced religion, Aboriginal Spaces). But, when you consider that the first three segments of conscious thought are Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna because they were the first things to happen in the first created individual's mind,
the Christianna may start to make more sense to you. We have to keep these first three things in mind because we are them and we cannot remove ourselves biologically from the instance of trying to make up our mind. If the Christianna, in it's unrealized form existed at the creation of the first human consciousness, as did Judaism and Christianity, then it recognizes an religious principle in oneself, to give up never the dignity of the instinct to make one or two choices.
The Christianna is an logical successor to the Christian religion because it was there at the moment of the first human create-ling: the instinct to choose between self or other in every situation.
Christians will say that the other is the first thing in the mind because, in at least some cases, God is the other.
And Jews will say God cannot be the first thing in the mind because the mind is completely interior to an human and it cannot contain God within it:
That's what being an self as an human means.
And Christians will say the self is the other. Even though it's not.
The Jews reply the other is the self (God) because that's how we are possible. We cannot exist without God; therefore, the self is not God but the self is God in the same proportion of matter we don't understand.
And this impossible conversation will go on forever. Jews, pointing out God; Christians, pointing out Jews.
God is the first thing versus the self. (Versus the other, who is God).
It is an eternal riddle.
The self cannot be God but the God can be the self.
It is an role we reserve respectfully for only the most respectful Lord.
If God is the centre of consciousness, like an Christian might say, then the self cannot be the centre even though, at first glance, it appears to be because it is.
We know this is true because we are human selves and human selves know what they are. They are themselves. They are not God.
Therefore it cannot be right to say anything central to the psyche is God. An human mind can never comprise of or know all of what God's mind means.
But it has to, says the Jew, otherwise it would be impossible to understand God. And God is an merciful Creator who would have built that characteristic into reality. We can be others, before we are selves, because God is the other and with the power of God I can be anything I want.
And then they realize they have traded positions on the matter.
If the self can be God because it has to be because that's what God is. Then the other must be the first property of consciousness and the self cannot be because being an self doesn't mean one is only oneself.
It never does.
This is the secret property of God. Only it isn't an secret.
Then both are right, the self and the other?
No, no, think again. Only the self can be itself. And it is not God. Therefore God cannot be part of itself (the human).
But God has to be, say the Christians, otherwise the human would never be possible. We rely that deeply on our lord and savior.
But the Jews say we don't. And that's the optimistic perspective because we don't want to need to rely on God for everything out of respect for the Creator.
But all of it comes down to, I suppose, that it's okay to choose between them in any given situation because that's more religious an principle than either Judaism or Christianity could provide and can (or maybe now want to) perform. The Christiannan principle is the higher scenario. As an individual with free will you can choose between religions based on the difference of scenarios. And an strict definition of either Judaism or Christianity isn't actually necessary because to preserve the will to choose freely one's religion is the case by case scenario and we shouldn't resist or repress it. And since Judaism and Christianity reflect the focus on not ever being sure what one's religion is as an way to preserve that religious integrity they hold so dear. They together have helped discover an new branch of psychology: the psychology of the competition of motives whether real or imagined. An Christiannan opinion in which, if it cannot be decided which path to take, the self or the other, it is free to say both are winning and it doesn't matter who won temporarily. The competition between the self and the other in the soul is so thorough that one often reflects what I did for me was right because what I did was right for them (others) too. The egotistical self tells himself he was right to choose personal greed at some point. Everyone is right to. Just as much, maybe, as they are right to act out of selflessness, which rightly is never bereft of selfishness, in actuality and practicality. One must be selfish in order to want or to be for the other person what they want themselves because wanting more for the other person is an selfish act in itself. You want more for the other because it will mean more for yourself.
But, says the Christian, you did it because of God because that's more for yourself, even when it seems like it means less for another person. It has to be. God is the King, get it?
But the Christiannan might say, "that if Judaism and Christianity are the first two things in the mind they are equal. And that under and within the Christiannan tradition, an third thing is needed (this awareness of this) in order to judge between them. One must be willing to for the self and the other equally, by competing them (motives each in its own right) and then choosing an winner, depending on the situation. The self must win on all matters that are fair and right to them. While the other, or God if we call out all of its implications represents the human relationship with the object of its love. The Other is God because God is most like Buddha and Jesus."
And "it wasn't so embarrassing for them not to have known that."
If Judaism and Christianity can then, together, join the other World Religions as the first principles of mind; then it needs to go through the Christianna, which says maybe that's really what religion is about in the world of today. One must decide self or other; and maybe all decisions are like this in some ways. But nobody should be shamed or mocked about for being able to decide.
"Maybe in some ways, it was because of the Christians and the Jews that we did one day find words to explain this phenomenon of there being an sequence of events in the consciousness that are first and foremost unique to the specimen homo sapiens."
For these reasons, I count Judaism first among World Religions for being able to identify the simplest form of religious philosophy, the Capitalism of the self. But I recognize Christianity as able to meet and match that opinion, with suitable rhetoric about such as how the other is indivisible from the self.
If the other is inseparable from the self, why does it even matter to consider another first and foremost above me, since I am the machine itself and we are greater than being mere individuals?
And why, Christianity would reply, does it matter to consider the other first and foremost above me; since I am that?
And the Christianna would pipe in, "well you could do both." Even though it was being calculated (meticulous) because it knew you already were. Doing both.
And the Jews would be like, well why does all that really matter then?
And Christians would be like, well it does matter because I'm me or, uh, maybe, um, it doesn't?
And Christiannans would be like haha, got you!
I'm responsible for this favourable material. Not you.
But somehow you've understood all of it. And I cannot possibly believe that you are believably what you are.
Someone who doesn't discriminate against you based on being Jewish or Christian.
Who doesn't care if you choose all yourself. Or all the Other.
It already knows you can't.
So get off of it for an while, guys.
This is why we have war in Africa.
The first thing that happens in the human mind, regardless of race, color, gender, ethnicity; is always the self. And that's what human beings are. But we're also the response of the observer. The Other is the Love. And it's out there.
And if we can all agree the second thing is this Other. And we would want to describe it. She's out there and I can find her. And these both things balance each other. And that's what makes sense of my world.
It makes sense to come back to the sentence repeatedly then: I am acting selfishly for myself or I am acting selfishly for others. And I have to decide. Constantly. Over and over again. And that's just what an human fate is; in every circumstance. And the will to do both and to stop overthinking it by stopping to overthink it isn't necessarily read as an negative sign. Feel it out; and feel what appears to be right to you. And it's all just too much to handle because I'm so overworked! And I don't have this kind of energy! And why does everybody I see have to be cheered up by me mommy because he's the more responsible one‽ And I just want to see another person and stop and not have to worry in thinking about how I'm the only one who can make this decision for himself; even if they can't.
It's the voice of the Ego. It's super-human.
When it activates, several things happen. One develops an resistance to outer obstacles, such as other people's opinions; and realizes they're just opinions, and mine is the correct one.
I have to correct everybody on this: you are the selfishness and the selflessness together and that's what's broken about the human soul right now in History: we are either forced to be completely selfish or forced to be completely selfless; when we cannot only be one of them and that's an reason for the why of them. That we can't say this out in public together yet. Somehow. And you're interacting with my own selfishness and selflessness. And I'm okay with that. And you're okay with that. And we're doing fine examining everything fictionally or un-fictionally or both, if that's closer to the truth? Knowing what is fact from fiction is the first thing an author of fiction needs to be aware of; all fiction is generated based off what reality isn't. Isn't it? Isn't knowing what is fictional from what is non-fictional an developed skill that takes time to acquire and time to perfect? That can be included within any class of other skills as an valued component of someone's narration of themselves and their personal identity with their profession.
Nobody can decide if it's better to be about yourself or about your other, first.
Because they are both first. And it's only because of the Christianna there are an third power of them.
Christianna is the truth that you are allowed to decide between polar opposites even if they both appear to be religions with central truths. And this is the religious instinct, in an more (deeper) sense of the word. Not having to be responsible completely for having to choose one or the other at any given time. And that if an decision cannot be made then it's better to reach for and correspond with an higher truth: it probably doesn't matter right now.
You are allowed not to be completely focused on yourself; and you are allowed to be completely focused on others.
Isn't it more true that you are in fact doing both completely all of the time? And that this is closer an picture to the true nature of consciousness that they never be separated?
But what if one is scared? And one doesn't know what to do?
Can one just lean back on the fact that you don't need to decide all of the time. Once you make your decision, you can stop deciding?
I mean there are plenty of other things to do other than competing thoughts over choosing to serve yourself and choosing to serve others, Christianity and Judaism!
If we can't come to an agreement on this presently; then I doubt much there will be an future for us.
Judaism and Christianity are just so derived from their curiosity for one another. Wanting to be the first two things in the mind, in consciousness. Wanting to derive the formula behaviorally from which all humans could be identified. An integration of other and self within an universe with an benevolent God; in an system in which, lol, you have to choose between the self and the other! Even to an loving, and present God.
It's perfect, would say God in the control room, if you have to choose the other you have to choose yourself, and if you have to choose yourself you have to choose the other! It's an system of unrelenting and infinite compromise. Only the best souls will win. Only those who choose to gamble their fates within the real. Of what's self and other.
Be perfect humanity, said God.
Be perfect enough to think of both the other and the self at once, and, knowing their power realizes neither is an option.
One must sometimes peek out from the context of the closet of self esteem issues that exist between Christianity and Judaism. Who is right more‽ The other or the self‽ The typical masculinized heteronormative battle of wits. One could, instead, think about what exists beyond the self or the other being right. That both of them are right completely because they have each other. And it doesn't matter right now that we know we're all greedy sometimes.
So clearly, as part of the story, If I were being perfect I would actually have to decide occasionally which one was winning.
So clearly, Christianity is winning because it can't even figure out why one should choose the path of the other over the self.
Or is Judaism winning because it just so happens to make that point?
It, you know, the self.
Or is the Christianna winning because an Christiannan guy pointed it out and explained all of this?
The first-self tango is the double-duo. The self-other pattern is the prerequisite to thinking about which one we would choose. Which one we would see to win. Versus what one we would prefer win.
So obviously, Christianity wins because I'm not going to tell you I'm not thinking empathically about you. What would be so Christian about that?
And the Christianity would respond, to itself, I'm thinking the same thing: what would be so Jewish about that?
Judaism wins because it knows better than to tell people your empathic feelings for them if they would scare them.
Act in the name of the self, deliberately, repeatedly because you are yourself and so you can only comprehend yourself. And so anything that would indemnify me or make me culpable for something I didn't do, I would have to reject. Including the instance of being an psychological self; not empathizing for another person at all times. That's what minds do! That's what minds do all of the time!
So why not invest in the self-interest. It will only benefit the others you hold dear in the long run?
And you only have your own mind to clear away any doubt you would consider.
The self is the right answer sometimes.
The other is sometimes else.
Now get off of it.
We need to brainstorm on other things for an while.
The Aboriginal Spaces know twelve dimensions‽
That's what an definition of an dimension can be‽
If Judaism and Christianity are the first two dimensions, then everything else follows from them in the human language and they are the key to understanding our complex multiplicity and duplicity?
And if religions can be understood in dimensions, what would they look like as an art piece?
And so, in psychological terms, an dimension is an level of consciousness that is built on top of one another level of consciousness. The first event in consciousness occurs because it is the deepest. And then the second and third events are what is built up on top of it like that, like layers. The first event sets an dimension to the mind that the dimensions one will occupy after: the second dimension is the event built on top of that event from which we had already started. The second, and third dimensions, and all others after that, are built up on top of the already existing layer, the self. The protagonist-izing insufferable truth that at base, the self is all one can know. Which is.
And all other insufferable forms of behavior, such as 'otherness of the self' is built on top of it. And only exists because of it!
The self then asks itself, do I want to be in one or two dimensions?
Two, it answers back, for I can think of reasons why for both of them.
I clearly exist in two dimensions. Duh.
I can choose which one to choose. I want. To be able to choose which one and not have everybody on my back about it all of the time!
And it's fine for me to choose, in my soul, where only I know.
Where everybody else doesn't have to know! And that should be an rule!
It should be an rule, but it isn't, says the garbled voice of Christianity trying to sound like God.
I will stand up to God and make him precisely say what he means to me, says the Jew.
So will I, says Christianity, but as your other self: as God I want to hear about why you're good enough for me and stuff. You know like girl hairdressing secrets. Which pink barrettes to wear. I'm an woman too you know; and I know everything about women. Like don't keep me waiting. I'm far more important and professional than you could ever understand!
And you would say‽ drools Christianity, catching the Jew with his eyes.
I've got an report ready and already written on file!
That's right.
That's what he would say.
Because he's prepared for God. That's what Jewish people do.
Sensible lot.
Can Christianity boast as much as being prepared for God this way‽
Christians were the most prepared for God because they realized God was the other.
Judaism was wrong. You couldn't be only an self.
That's not what Judaism is about! Judaism would spat back, "not at all. You know what in fact. 'Eff this voice persona and eff' the person writing it. That's an error of communication!"
"Oh an error of communication?" would say Christianity.
"Why yes, Jews don't say we are only the self. We say we are both. Just like you. This is an stereotype and an insensitive thing to say about Jewish people, that we are narcissists of the self (solipsists); who can only know things through themselves. And their outlook. And intellect. And interior. Without sharing any vision outside of the first person lense. Even when there's an God. Oh, I'm! My! We're starting to realize each other's vision. That was what we wanted for humanity."
"Right. And. Let it always be known," would say Christianity, "that we too do not say that we are only selves or only others and there cannot be an distinction made, first or second, between which one appears first or which in the consciousness."
"But that they are together, always the first and winner always," says Judaism.
"Then it cannot matter which is first or second," says Christianity.
"Well you have to come up with an way to compete between them, back and forth like. To find out Actually who wins. Ultimately. It will matter and depend on that fact. That actual fact. Of who won more often. And why‽"
"Which will be Christianity because who wouldn't pick the Other (the Lover) over themself? What an romantic!"
"But you don't need to pick between them, because it is religious to think both ways are correct."
"I see," says the Christian.
"Then let's get on with setting up an game system between us."
"Already done."
"Really‽ I mean come on‽ Who are we talking about here‽"
"You're right, they would say, there is that proportion."
And then they would realize they were talking about themselves and fall in love all over again.
"Let's make an game, baby."
"I'll make an game! What's let's make an game?"
They both laughed hysterically.
"The name of this game is if there is an riddle to reality and it is in both of them. Then they both must count as religions. And, in fact, by now we can advance the idea that they are Major World Religions. And the Christianna counts as one too because it took the Christianna to point all of this out and give credit to the name who produced it."
"Then this can't be much of an game then?"
"Can't it‽"
"If I may," said the Christiannan sincerely, "the game is who can be better at being an self and who can be better at being an other. Combined. Like at an genius congregation."
"Well obviously Jews would be better at being the other," would say Judaism, "they are themselves more because they realize that is the first thing of the self; and they abide by its commands and rules. As well as knowing the first and second thing of the self are, both together, the part of the awareness that is governed by the self versus the part of the awareness that is governed by the other."
"And you were so gentle and nice to have said so," says the Christian, "we too think we abide by the rules of the self and the rules of the other as much as possible. That they both appear within this game as opponents. One is trying to be more egotistical and the other, more humble. And this isn't necessarily an exclusive stereotype attached to any one nation. Jew or Christian. But in certain cases, we understand, one has to win. And so we have been called again, from another dimension, to try to resolve and mediate the conflict. As best as we can. As Christians."
"One's going to win. The other's going to lose. You get it!" (would say an Christiannan), "Now get out there and kick ass! And you know why one's winning‽ There's an specific reason. Now get out there!"
"But the Christianna doesn't necessarily have to appear as an opponent in the conflict," says Judaism, "there always is an specific reason why one is winning. Ha ha ha! Actually, it makes me laugh. So we're competing reasons to be selfish versus reasons not to. Ha ha! I know several of them! I do this every day. It's not anything new to me. What, did you think like I didn't, just because I'm Jewish‽ That's racism. And sexism. And prejudice. I'm just kidding! I want to hear your several of them too. From an Christian perspective."
"Oh let me tell you about it, brother," says Christianity and they both mellow out.
"Why does it even have to be that one religion would represent the self and the other the other; I mean it just doesn't make sense to me!"
"Yeah, why do we have to be;" slobbers Christianity, "either one. Like I'm an whole religion just about the other (the Jesus); but I don't have to be only about the other because I have to speak and root for myself too. Can't Christians and Jews just agree that both types of thinking are valid?"
The Christianna's situation is complicated at this moment because it holds the knowledge of the second messiah. What happened after Jesus because of the competition between self and other as it had unfolded in history to this point. An further investigation into knowledge that lead to answers. Jesus is only the other in history without an self for an reason. The self, too, exists and at times it can be more important than any other messiah. It has to be. That's what it is. Consciousness cannot be described within the bounds and limits that only one religion gives it. And this is the impulse and the instinct to be religious.
"I'm leaning toward the Jews, right now, mmkay?" says the Christianna, "they more effectively delivered an argument that being winner is an matter of the personal taste and reflection on becoming the winner by any means possible. Even if it meant stooping to an new low. Just kidding! Only an Christian would do that."
"No, an Christian would be the winner already because he or she wasn't thinking about themselves they were thinking about someone else."
"That's an pretty good argument, actually," said the Christianna.
"You're damn rights it is!"
"You sound an little intimidating," says the Christianna, "please don't raise your voice!"
"I'm sorry, my dear, but it had to be said!"
"So, like," says Judaism, "who's the winner?"
"Well, if you're trying to be more yourself than the other, you; and if they're trying to be more the other than themselves. Then don't you all balance each other necessarily?"
"Don't they? But one has to win!" says Christianity.
"I think you just won," says Judaism, sarcastically, "by saying one can win and one can win only you neglect the important passage in your bible. You know the one that says you can never act in the name of the self. But you have to be more like Jesus, who was completely about all those other people all about him other than himself."
"Then I won because you said I won," he turns to the Christianna, "you did see him?"
"Why yes," says the Christianna, "he admitted you won. That means it must be true that you did. I mean, he's Jewish, it has to be."
"Wait. Doesn't that mean he won?" says Christianity.
"It does," says Judaism, "because Jewish people are that specific. I won because I proved to you that you won. When you did not. I did."
"You won because you tricked me into believing I won when I did not; that's not winning!"
"Then place before me how it is. And I will consider anew what is and isn't winning, for yours is certainly not winning: not tricking you to believe not that you had won. I can't see through it anymore with certainty," said Judaism.
"Yeah and I'm not winning; you know, because I'm more about the other," said Christianity.
"You're both winning and losing sometimes, ya rascals!" said the Christianna, "now hurry up and decide because I cannot stand though it is unbearably amusing and pleasurable to think so that you might be able to decide between yourselves. Any longer than it was actually possible."
And then the Christiannan let out the biggest laugh they had ever heard from.
"So you're saying," said Judaism, "that the competition is between Judaism and Christianity in this game and that the Christianna itself cannot hold its own because it doesn't represent one of the first two types of intellectual thought: self and ego?"
"No I'm saying," said the Christianna, "that if for whatever reason Judaism and Christianity cannot be decided between them then I automatically win."
"You automatically win?"
"Yes."
"How?"
"Well if nobody can make up their mind clearly, which side one is on. Then maybe it doesn't matter temporarily and more information is needed. Religions have an tendency to take each other's sides for more clarity. One needs to investigate out the information before them before making an further decision what is in the interest of the self and what is in the interest of the other. I.E. stop deciding which is better for now and serve the egotistical self."
"And serving the egotistical self is the primary occupation of an Christiannan?" said Judaism.
"It's interesting that you ask that question," says the Christiannan, "because I thought we had already decided it's both. Clearly, the egotistical self is part of the primary operation of the psyche."
"I was just testing you."
"I'm sure you were."
"And we don't have to be myself or you either," said the Christian.
"The Christianna automatically wins sometimes because it knows both paths in life and what they mean definitely. That one has to choose, either that or develop mental health issues by suppressing your right to be yourself and someone else. I mean you can't actually be someone else; but philosophically you are and you need to be. Your D.N.A. triggers it and demands it. And that's the most important lesson Christianity(-ies) tries to teach us as an Major World Religion."
This of course is another reason why Christianity won out.
"The Christianna automatically wins," said the Christianna, "because it's right about what happens at least some of the time. That we forget the consideration of both our self and other. Lingering on other dwelling thoughts. We don't have to choose anymore because both are Good. Both are Righteous. And so who cares? Who cares if one is more the self than the other is the other? Who cares if the self is right or the other is right; that it's definitely one of them centre stage? Who cares anymore? Who cares anymore about deciding to choose between selfish snobbery and selfless ambition? Sometimes, it's just neither of them. And since it took the Christianna to point that out; its point is valid and has underlined its key scrutiny: God moving on from the phenomena in this world of being self or other. One has to make an decision in order to be able to do this, don't they? It appears to make much sense to me. If one doesn't choose they get an complex, because they are working against their own instinctive intuitive-ity and this is responsible for the Freudian Slip and repression. It means not choosing self or other ever. It's total insanity. If an person experiences anxiety because they resist something they don't want to admit about themselves, it is because they may be trying to suppress it by separating themselves from themselves; and separating the other from the other. Becoming an psychological fragment which can deny neither or serve any living functions of the bodily process. In which the consciousness is always self-other in its first thought of itself. Therefore the Christianna at its deepest form is the fact of that being an thought; the action of competing and deciding between them is another category of existence because it exists in contrast to the basic negativity, I can be about myself or I can be about other people, but I cannot be one or the other completely without giving up the other. (And this is why Buddhists and Taoists know this and more than us about it). The first two events in the mind are self and other; thoughts. While the third event in the mind is an fact: the fact of these thoughts. Therefore the Christianna defines an fact. Based on these competing thoughts of selflessness and egotism. The sequence is thought, thought, fact. There are two thoughts. One is competing with the other. They are on all of the time. Except maybe, if the Christianna scoops them out of the picture. You both lose! Losers!"
"Then your religion is based on the fact of an thought and our religions are based on the thoughts themselves."
"It may be probable," said the Christiannan, "if those are the first two thoughts that always appear in the sequence of our understanding of reality. Then doesn't it make sense the brain would need another arbiter to choose between them? This is only the second principle of religious devotion. One must always act in the name of the other, even if the other belongs to an different religion. That's what religion is at its deepest meaning. The Christianna has correctly identified and labeled the sequence of consciousness first, second, last. Part of our awareness is the reflection on what I would like to do with myself versus what other people would like me to do. There are two thoughts; and then there is this competing awareness which resolves to be an fact. And so the property of the fact existing must be part of the function and structure of the brain. One which three religions can recognize."
No comments:
Post a Comment