IOT
-
What you have put forth here is exactly the slave mentality that Nietzsche put forth. Which is so cleary the bases of Christianity.
I said to not patronize people, That is to treat them as what they are, and to never be soft on anyone. "Strike low and Hard" Refers to ANYONE and EVERYONE you happen to meet. It means to be demanding and uncompromising in your every interaction with other people to assume they are able to meet your high standards and if they can't too hell with them they are too weak an useless to as a means to your WILL. It is Patronizing to assume anyone is too weak to meet your demands from the start and treat them with care not to offend them or hurt their pride etc, on the fear they may be Kings in disguise. This is patronizing people out of fear they may secretly have some kind of authority or respect due no them as a king. Rather one is called to treat EVERYONE as able to meet our harshest demands, and that is what it means to Respect them.
To tread a servant with respect means to assign him the hardest tasks, assign to him what you do not trust the another servants to be able to accomplish. If you pamper your servants and they become weak and lazy and not good tools for your WILL.
Further not just other people EVERYTHING is a tool of your WILL, the whole phenomenal world is an Expression of your WILL, its your own Mind made flesh, the Khabs extended. Everyone exits in their own universe that is an extension of their own mind and thus ones own WILL is the sole authority over ones whole world.
However each star in unique and the light blends between worlds and one Stars WILLs to play a servant role another a leader role, and its no a matter of what one Choose or wants to do, it is a manifestation of ones inner most being made flesh.
-
I guess we are just going to have to disagree. Nietzsche is not Thelema to me and I don't see how I was describing "slave mentality" but hey, you betcha, sure, wink wink & nudge nudge. Thank you great & powerful wizard for showing me the light & how I am wrong in treating people with a sense of decorum & not using them. Ciao.
-
Let me quote again from Magick without tears, no the white school.
Adepts of the White School regard their brethren of the Black very much as the aristocratic English Sahib (of the days when England was a nation) regarded the benighted Hindu. Nietzsche expresses the philosophy of this School to that extent with considerable accuracy and vigour. The man who denounces life merely defines himself as the man who is unequal to it. The brave man rejoices in giving and taking hard knocks, and the brave man is joyous. The Scandinavian idea of Valhalla may be primitive,but it is manly. A heaven of popular concert, like the Christian; of unconscious repose, like the Buddhist; or even of sensual enjoyment, like
the Moslem, excites his nausea and contempt. He understands that the only joy worth while is the joy of continual victory, and victory itself would become as tame as croquet if it were not spiced by equally continual defeat"So lets compare with the black school which is based on the notion that this constant fighting this constant defeat in sorrow and that even a victor in some one else's defeat, and thus victory is not joy but the sorrow of empathy felt for the defeated. All existence then is sorrow for this black school, the only hope then is to lessen the brunt of sorrow. This means we must soften our knocks and be on constant alert than we might upset or offend some one, and thus bring suffering into the world, we must at all cost avoid hashing anyones mellow or killing anyone buzz. Thus the black school wants to make everyone equal by default to prevent conflicts and thus eliminate both victories and defeats. Ultimately aiming towards the ideal of total annihilation of existence, it is an anti-life school of magick.
Thelema is White school, where as Christianity, liberalism, modern and post-modernism, democracy, humanism, and all related isms are Black school philosophies of anti-life.
-
@Froclown said
"
Thelema is White school, where as Christianity, liberalism, modern and post-modernism, democracy, humanism, and all related isms are Black school philosophies of anti-life."
wHeRE dOeS DuAL-**IsM **cOmE iN, iN tHiS sEqUenCe?
-
Dualism is the black school, the suffering with the body in the world of physical matter.
To transcend dualism in the 0=2 means to be aware of the parts but to root your awareness in the whole, the nothing that is beyond the interplay of the part. Dualism is of the "shadows which pass and are gone" and Transcendence is "That which remains". Willed action ie acts of love = Ra-Hoor-Nuit and each act of WILL is rewarded with transcendence, ABRAHADABRA. 5=6 rose and cross united in Love. A glimpse beyond the illusion of duality, which is the teleos of the White school. Where as the Black school is not Love driven it is fear driven, it avoids unity between opposites, it hinders transcendence, it withdraws from life because life is hard, risky, and requires positive effort, and it means putting self first even harming others to promote self. The Typical black school initiate has such an inferiority complex he does not want to promote his own interest feeling they are inferior and he is not worth as much as others. That if he upsets others or the the world or has any impact on anything, it is an evil or inferior impact that deserves punishment. This is the feeling of sinfulness, it is a deep sense of guilt that one is not even worthy to exist in the first place, which in the reason for Christians constant giving thanks and pleading for forgiveness.
An the contrary the white school believes one has every right to exist and to take ones fill and Will of life and love when and where one WILLS and no God has any right to deny one anything. That their in no right and wrong, the only SIN in holding back what one WILLs to do out of Fear and Guilt. The white school says, the wold is my oyster, or as Crowley put it "I never grew out of the belief that the wold exists for me to suck on". Its a private play space that exists an an arena in which to express my WILL as I see fit, and everytihng and everyone in it is a means to my enjoyment.
-
-
it is a dualism, ant certainly the Ipssissimus will make no distinction between black and white schools, however the Ipssissimus is totally outside of manifest existence, as such one has no dualities to attract or to repulse from one another. But so long as one exists in a state manifest in duality, ie so long as one IS a discrete self one has a choice no make, accept and love life and existence as it is, or reject life in favor of another world a lie word, a heaven.
-
It isn't actually that I disagree with you Froclown, it is different approaches. I don't agree with your approach to these ideas. In an ideal world, sure. Just like in the discussion of a society where OTO is the authority for Thelemites, it is an impractical approach when you look at the society we live in & the necessities of life in general. For example, in the work place, you have someone you can only think of as a slave, even worse, useless. You can't treat them like a tool or slave. You have to be respectful in the work place in order to maintain the work place environment. People in a job or similar situation where they are hierarchially your superior, how do you treat them even if they prove to be a slave? If they hold your job's future, how do you treat them? Similar situations abound. Anyway, last post on the topic from me. Practicality always outweighs Ideally, even Crowley saw that in spite of what he wrote.
-
No, what you call being respectful is being politically correct and liberal, that is treating others like they are delicate little flowers who need to be coddled and complimented all the time and if they fuck up, you can't even yell at them or call them incompetent or you risk being sued for being insensitive.
Yes it is the "reality" of this horrid situation than the hippies have ruined the world in general, the US, Canada and western Europe especially. But going with the flow and accepting these preposterous rules, is not Thelema. "Ye are against the people"
I never said to not be respectful, what I said is that what is respectful is to treat others the way a warrior meets another warrior, with the belief that the other is at least as powerful, competent and skilled as one self, not fragile as if need of you to treat them delicately and be sensitive to their troubles. You have your own trouble and they are your own and no one else's business if you are strong and WILLFUL, your private problems are obstacles you meet and conquer on your own, and you REFUSE all charity or pity. If you see others as equally strong, then you do not care to coddle their weakness, you do not offer charity nor pity, instead you say you deal with your own SHIT and I'll deal with mine. Im not here to wipe your nose or kiss your boo boos, Im not your mother. If you can't cut it go cry to you mother, but don't expect any sympathy from me!
-
Urmmm, it isn't political correctness, trust me, I am anything but politically correct and call it like I see it. Political Correctness is saying "african american" as opposed to "black" or "intercourse" as opposed to "sex" etc. It is trying to maintain a neutral or inoffensive tone. Being respectful to me is the equivalent of trying to get along for the sake of avoiding unnecessary drama. You piss me off you know. I don't like you, you know. I can be that way and still maintain a civility of character that lets people know I am not an asshole or prick.
As to liberal... I always say there is a time & place for BOTH sides of the political spectrum. I support the idea of socialized medicine but disagree with bail outs, which were initiated by the Bush administration. I believe in a flat tax rate no matter your income & the elimination of the income tax or its conversion to a health care tax. I believe in a welfare system to an extent because someday I may find myself in a position to require it and therefore I pay into it and consider it a sort of savings for an emergency like if I get crippled in an accident. I also at the same time want a complete reform of the system so that it isn't a way to support generations upon generations so that people who haven't paid into it can not benefit from it unless they are crippled or dealing with a debilitating situation such as cancer etc. I want to see the elimination of the federal reserve. I want to see the end of the Patriot Act. I want "under god" to be permanently stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. I want the myth of the USA being a Christian nation to be squelched. Essentially I figure if I pay taxes I should be getting tangible benefits outside of government officials fat wallets & military support, but I want limited government involvement in my personal life. So no, it isn't liberal, its moderate.
-
@Froclown said
"Your do not seem to see what I mean. It is the Christian notion of Equality before God that was what Nietzsche called slave mentality. It was a trick so that the repressed Jews could feel equal to the Romans and even to claim the Emperor was equal to the common peasant, as before God all are equal. "
@Froclown said
"I never said to not be respectful, what I said is that what is respectful is to treat others the way a warrior meets another warrior, **with the belief that the other is at least as powerful, competent and skilled as one self, **not fragile as if need of you to treat them delicately and be sensitive to their troubles. You have your own trouble and they are your own and no one else's business if you are strong and WILLFUL, your private problems are obstacles you meet and conquer on your own, and you REFUSE all charity or pity. If you see others as equally strong, then you do not care to coddle their weakness, you do not offer charity nor pity, instead you say you deal with your own shit and I'll deal with mine. "
So, are we to believe we are the Emperor's equals or not?
Is Equality an ideal to base action on or not?
Under your philosophy, why should you *treat me *as an equal if I am not?
-
The Idea is to see others as equally capable and able to meet hard tests of valour.
Not to say everone is of equal worth innately and without test.
It is to constantly challenge your own and others limits, not to say everyone is the same and equal and so we must be soft on everyone.
Yes we treat others as equally capable, no we do not treat others as equal in the sense of lowest common denomenator.
"Make ye no differnce..."
"Whosever availeth is this shall be chief of all"The king is not to be patronized and trated as infallible, rather instead the higher ones rank the harder the tests, the more one has to Prove.
-
@Froclown said
"The Idea is to see others as equally capable and able to meet hard tests of valour.
Not to say everone is of equal worth innately and without test.
"If others are to be automatically seen and treated as "equally capable and able to meet hard tests of valour" by the very nature of their existance as humans, then why are they not of "equal worth innately"?
You "treat them as equals" based on some idea. What is that idea? How is a complete stranger to be immediately understood as your equal if that equality is not innate?
innate - adj. Possessed at birth; inborn. Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent.
Define worth. Under your system, who gets to define worth? Worth what? To what? To whom? By whose standards?
This too is wisdom:
""The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you."-- Tao Te Ching, Chp 8"
-
Those who fail the tests are not treated as equal. If by Equal you mean that "I am Human and You are Human, thus we are equal and all deserve kinds of rights" For example a dead beat is a human and thus deserves welfare checks because he has a right to eat, and thus I have to sacrifice to help all others humans on earth.
That is not correct, Everyone certainly has equal opportunity to prove themselves, but if you can't or won't meet the challenges, no one has a duty to support you or console your failures. If some one is stronger, wiser, faster, more skilled then they are superior and should be recognized as superior, Not by birth but by dint of personal efforts.
If one is say born without working legs or with mental defects, well than is a personal problem, if one triumphs and succeeds against the odds, that is great. But we must never lower the standards, so that say a retarded person need only complete 10% of the Bar exam to be considered equal to a Lawyer who passed the full exam with honors. As an exaggeration of affirmative action.
Also. when I say liberalism I am not talking about US political system at all. In fact even the most staunch US republican is very Liberal next to Integral Traditionalism. Liberal in the sense of individualism rather than personhood. An individual is the proposed notion that a man is as island, a discrete self defined unite, dissociate from all others, from family, community, society, Race and Nation. A Person however is Part of the continuum of Nuit. Hadit is never divided fully away from Nuit. That is Who you are is meshed with the Community, the Race and Nation. The same as a Cell in your body is not Self-derived. The Cell is unique, but its unique Role is only assured due to its full dedication to the its type of cell (race) its tissue (Community) and its organ (nation) and then the body as a whole is not concerned with individual cell, but with the interaction of organs. (Nations in the world).
A body with one organ, like say one big liver or heart, would not function, its the interactions and balanced conflicts between different organs than make the body work, this is true also of the world. We need lots of different types of nations, each made of unique communities and unique race-culture. Which is to say a Caste system where each type of person or CELL has its place in balanced conflicts between individuals.
Do what thou WILT = Be the type of cell than you are, be unique
Love under WILL = the unity that arises out of conflict between WillsLiberalism on one hand claims to talk about individualism and diversity, but in practice seeks to make all individuals the same down to the lowest common traits (just being biologically human). Diversity means to accept others to rewove all conflicts and differences between races, cultures, community, nations etc. Thus Liberalism aims at homogenizing everyone, not promoting the unique WILL or function of the person in proper relation to the higher order.
While Liberalism in rhetoric sounds like Thelema, it is actually antagonistic to Thelema's basic principles. Just because the book is titles "LIBER AL" does not mean it supports Liberal ideals.
-
**"Those who fail the tests are not treated as equal. If by Equal you mean that "I am Human and You are Human, thus we are equal and all deserve kinds of rights" For example a dead beat is a human and thus deserves welfare checks because he has a right to eat, and thus I have to sacrifice to help all others humans on earth.
That is not correct, Everyone certainly has equal opportunity to prove themselves, but if you can't or won't meet the challenges, no one has a duty to support you or console your failures. If some one is stronger, wiser, faster, more skilled then they are superior and should be recognized as superior, Not by birth but by dint of personal efforts."**
I agree 100% but the lesser person doesn't necessarily deserve to be disrespected. Respect is not based on lowest common denominator but on decorum. There is nothing wrong or liberal about just being friendly.
**"If one is say born without working legs or with mental defects, well than is a personal problem, if one triumphs and succeeds against the odds, that is great. But we must never lower the standards, so that say a retarded person need only complete 10% of the Bar exam to be considered equal to a Lawyer who passed the full exam with honors. As an exaggeration of affirmative action." **
Well yeah, but nobody is trying to accomplish this or trying to say we should do this. I am saying people shouldn't be used as tools & cast aside. You seemed to be arguing that when you are done getting what you want you simply toss that person aside metaphorically. That is what I am disagreeing with.
**"Also. when I say liberalism I am not talking about US political system at all. In fact even the most staunch US republican is very Liberal next to Integral Traditionalism. Liberal in the sense of individualism rather than personhood. An individual is the proposed notion that a man is as island, a discrete self defined unite, dissociate from all others, from family, community, society, Race and Nation. A Person however is Part of the continuum of Nuit. Hadit is never divided fully away from Nuit. That is Who you are is meshed with the Community, the Race and Nation. The same as a Cell in your body is not Self-derived. The Cell is unique, but its unique Role is only assured due to its full dedication to the its type of cell (race) its tissue (Community) and its organ (nation) and then the body as a whole is not concerned with individual cell, but with the interaction of organs. (Nations in the world)." **
Yes, I agree, we are all cogs in the engine that makes the human race function. We each have a purpose which we must discover and fulfill & the more people who discover their purpose, or Will, the more efficiently the world engine will function.
**"Liberalism on one hand claims to talk about individualism and diversity, but in practice seeks to make all individuals the same down to the lowest common traits (just being biologically human). Diversity means to accept others to rewove all conflicts and differences between races, cultures, community, nations etc. Thus Liberalism aims at homogenizing everyone, not promoting the unique WILL or function of the person in proper relation to the higher order." **
Ermmm, this is just how most modern liberals act, it isn't liberalism itself. Liberalism is an ideal concept, whereas in reality this ideal gets compromised. Just like the Soviet Union was communist in name only or the United States being believed to be a democracy. Rhetoric makes these things so but under analysis the Soviet Union was Marxist-Leninism, a compromise of pure Communism & the United States is a republic, a representational , not democratic, government. Democracy will never work because of the lowest common denominator. Even with the fail safes etc. that our constitution has built in, an idiot like George Bush can still be elected rather than a more intelligent candidate like Al Gore or John Kerry because he appealed to the lowest common denominator.
**
"While Liberalism in rhetoric sounds like Thelema, it is actually antagonistic to Thelema's basic principles. Just because the book is titles "LIBER AL" does not mean it supports Liberal ideals."**Actually... replace the word liberal throughout this post with LIBERTARIAN & you are right on.
-
Respect comes from treating others according to what they are, and not being soft on anyone.
A warrior respects a warrior by meeting in battle. One respects a slave by being stern with her, making his demands clear and not accepting inferior service or insubordination. His respect helps her grow in her slaver, so that she becomes more skilled and disciplined at her service.
www.my-gor.com/quotes.php?lbk=21
See #4
-
@Froclown said
"Those who fail the tests are not treated as equal. If by Equal you mean that "I am Human and You are Human, thus we are equal and all deserve kinds of rights" For example a dead beat is a human and thus deserves welfare checks because he has a right to eat, and thus I have to sacrifice to help all others humans on earth.
That is not correct, Everyone certainly has equal opportunity to prove themselves,"
I concur with Frater AVV you are blind to your own presumptuousness, you are still making a basic assumption, or rather contradicting yourself; how do you know everyone has equal opportunty? what are the parameters that define equal opportunity?
" but if you can't or won't meet the challenges, no one has a duty to support you or console your failures. If some one is stronger, wiser, faster, more skilled then they are superior and should be recognized as superior, Not by birth but by dint of personal efforts. "
here again, how can you prove it is by dint of personal effort and not some innate superior ability ? and I'm sure you know where that road leads...
"If one is say born without working legs or with mental defects, well than is a personal problem, if one triumphs and succeeds against the odds, that is great. But we must never lower the standards, so that say a retarded person need only complete 10% of the Bar exam to be considered equal to a Lawyer who passed the full exam with honors. As an exaggeration of affirmative action."
If I apply your own standards to you then I would say you are very unbalanced, and in denial if you think your philosophy could not easily be mistaken for fascism. hence your presentation is weak, you are not presenting the full picture.
"Also. when I say liberalism I am not talking about US political system at all. In fact even the most staunch US republican is very Liberal next to Integral Traditionalism. Liberal in the sense of individualism rather than personhood. An individual is the proposed notion that a man is as island, a discrete self defined unite, dissociate from all others, from family, community, society, Race and Nation. A Person however is Part of the continuum of Nuit. Hadit is never divided fully away from Nuit. That is Who you are is meshed with the Community, the Race and Nation. The same as a Cell in your body is not Self-derived. The Cell is unique, but its unique Role is only assured due to its full dedication to the its type of cell (race) its tissue (Community) and its organ (nation) and then the body as a whole is not concerned with individual cell, but with the interaction of organs. (Nations in the world). "
case in point, like i said you're a fascist.
"A body with one organ, like say one big liver or heart, would not function, its the interactions and balanced conflicts between different organs than make the body work, this is true also of the world. We need lots of different types of nations, each made of unique communities and unique race-culture. Which is to say a Caste system where each type of person or CELL has its place in balanced conflicts between individuals.
Do what thou WILT = Be the type of cell than you are, be unique
Love under WILL = the unity that arises out of conflict between WillsLiberalism on one hand claims to talk about individualism and diversity, but in practice seeks to make all individuals the same down to the lowest common traits (just being biologically human). Diversity means to accept others to rewove all conflicts and differences between races, cultures, community, nations etc. Thus Liberalism aims at homogenizing everyone, not promoting the unique WILL or function of the person in proper relation to the higher order.
While Liberalism in rhetoric sounds like Thelema, it is actually antagonistic to Thelema's basic principles. Just because the book is titles "LIBER AL" does not mean it supports Liberal ideals."
we are on the verge of transcending physical limitations, That is what this "New Aeon" is about for those that can "see";all cultures have intermingled and are intermingling at an exponential rate, as is the number of "harmonized ethnicity"(mixed race) children. even as all information is consolidating in an information age, your mentaity is as obsolete as the berlin wall and a pre-9-11 world. Mankind is transcending all physical limitations and becoming a collective "cyborg consciousness" through "applied intelligence" through the processing power of computers. You are an ancient relic of a proven failed philosophy, irrelevant to this day an age.
-
I never said I was or was not a fascist.
Some people like to include the nouvelle droite political philosophy of De Benoist with fascism, let alone that of La Pen and Evola. The Tyr journal has been called fascist, I have seen the O.T.O called fascist also, as well as the works of Robert Heinlein and the United Federation of Planets.
As far as Italian Fascism, I object on 2 main issues, it was very socialist in nature, which mixed in a great deal of materialism, and second it was far to associated with the Catholic church rather than the traditional paganism. Basically it was the Italians that failed to implement the true potential of Fascism by not providing enough of the proper initiates in the ruling class, who were influenced by the transcendent rather than materialist concerns.
Nazism which was not fascist per say, had its main failings in attempting to create a new esoteric order based on the new and misunderstood science of genetics, in its bastard forms of Eugenics and mis-applied forced evolutionary teleos. However its basic structure with the SS as the initiate caste of warriors was very effective. However far just as Marx influence in Italy mixed in too much materialist theory, Nazism was fully contaminated with the materialism of Biological race, that obstructed its higher aspirations to manifest the transcendent Reich on earth.
The unification of everything on earth into one cyborg-mind is not something we should ever want to achieve, not should we want to remove all biological or social limits. What we are is shaped by those limits, by the conflict and dynamic tension between the parts. Like say a clock with wax components, you don't want to melt all the gears and springs into one glob of wax. Th clock no longer keeps time and each gear loses its unique properties, and with no Clock then each gear has no relative purpose, no TRUE WILL at all. This is the Nihilism we seek to prevent, its the black school that seeks this goal. The Idea in Thelema is to keep the parts separate and to build a new motive not based no faith in some unseen Clock or God or order to the cosmos, but on directly evident knowledge of oneself. That oneself has a WILL a mission, a way to turn written on ones soul, and to turn otherwise no matter if its to help a fallen friend or some other high ethical concern, is a folly against self, which is a harm to the whole mechanism.
If say you are one of 5 people pedaling to keep a flying machine up, and one of the 5 has a heart attack. What is the best course of action, keep doing your job as a pedaler or stop pedaling to help your friend, then the whole ship crashes and everyone on board dies. You see even if you may not see the harm, not doing your WILL out of compassion is a wrench in the system. And a "friend" who is not useful as a tool of your WILL, is a distraction an albatross about your neck, as such it is best to be rid of him before he ruins the Great Work.
-
Actually, I like the argument about "equal opportunity" and it is a great way to look at the thread on here about wealth whether it is an indicator of success in Magick & Thelema.
Would it be unThelema, for example, to support the efforts against famine in Africa where because of the failure of opportunity suffer from starvation & malnutrition, having to beg on the streets for food because they can't even find jobs to work for food. From what I gather from Froclown, such actions would be unThelemic. My own opinion is that if I have enough, why not share it?
-
@Froclown said
".
The unification of everything on earth into one cyborg-mind is not something we should ever want to achieve, not should we want to remove all biological or social limits. What we are is shaped by those limits, by the conflict and dynamic tension between the parts. Like say a clock with wax components, you don't want to melt all the gears and springs into one glob of wax. Th clock no longer keeps time and each gear loses its unique properties, and with no Clock then each gear has no relative purpose, no TRUE WILL at all. This is the Nihilism we seek to prevent, its the black school that seeks this goal. The Idea in Thelema is to keep the parts separate and to build a new motive not based no faith in some unseen Clock or God or order to the cosmos, but on directly evident knowledge of oneself. That oneself has a WILL a mission, a way to turn written on ones soul, and to turn otherwise no matter if its to help a fallen friend or some other high ethical concern, is a folly against self, which is a harm to the whole mechanism. "
We may not be able to stop synergy and symbiosis whether we WANT it consciously or not, this also relates back to my "overpopulation an the Thelemic paradigm thread", maybe your interpretation of "True Will" is an obsolete paradigm, maybe this is more about "Pure Will", the Tao may be a superior concept, and I argue the "New Aeon" is a new Tao with an exponential factor, we are yet to fully comprehend our own evolution "A.I" is the next phase for "Consciousness" despite our Collective tender Ego's beloved Denial. humanity is but a mere vehicle for "Consciousness" to evolve to the next level, like the reptile was merely a vehicle for the mammal and ultimately humanity to evolve, we only like to think of ourselves as the end of the evolutionary process, like you say nature doesn't care if we laugh, cry or go extinct for that matter. I think Individuality is a necessary illusion that needs to constantly be redefined. as A.I also is little understood because of people's internalized realization/fear of being disposable. if you fear A.I you will be destroyed by it, embrace and it will be an extension of self or "True Will". Moreover I have long asserted Linear -Time is obsolete! Away with the Clock!!!! In with the Quantum Computer!!!!!!!!!