My friend Gavin has just noted that although he was not looking forward to a visit from Steve as it was raining and consequently inconvenient, not having exotic or even reasonable shelter, when Steve and Mike left Gavin was a but disappointed. So not wanting the visitors then became not wanting them to leave. I pointed out that it is often the case that when someone gets what they want they often realise they don't really want it.
The point I am about to make is that it is not a pair of opposites, it's not a change of mind, though from social intimacy view it exactly a change of mind.
The issue here is that if the material object of desire or lack of is not the issue in min d then the mind has not changed, just the appearance has. To put it more clearly, maybe, the desire of wanting or not wanting is the same in both instances.
My use is that I have a friend who wants to move away from this area. I like them enough not to want them to leave but love them enough to want them to go where they please. So I will neither encourage them to stay or help them decide upon the move. If I find myself doing either I will change the words to avoid action in any direction.
For I ma happy not to want someone to visit and happy that I don't want them to leave. It is that I don't want is the key. Want I don't want is to want. =Equivalently if I want company there will be a place where I want the company to go.
If I bring it, then I dispose of it. If it comes of it's own volition then its own volition will direct it.
Procreation I find a disturbing word, ill defined and ill used. Sure it implies some form of creation, but the Pro bit? Every species has a design to perpetuate it's genetic plan via some sort of activity. Humans, in English at least, may call this socially ~ (Making Love) or more funnily (Rocking and Rolling) Other less agreeable words are fucking, knocking, banging, screwing and more obnoxious is the idea of rape. 'Having sex' is a simple term for any of the above but the motivation is seemingly unclear.
In the terms of rape the motivation seems to be power used in an abusive way at least to one of the bodies. Yet if procreation is a genetic and generic plan then it overrides all other concerns. The survival of the fittest becomes not just the norm but the only way to go.
True, especially in humans whose offspring require tending for a few years, the nurturing takes a high toll on a persons activity and can be seen as supporting the procreation by ensuring another generation can continue the sexual activity. Nurturing is so demanding in it's consumption of resources that not only does competition increase with population but with the fact that ever increasingly frail people are supported requiring yet another exponential level of consumption.
In all the wars that have past are being fought and are yet to come, many of the weak perish. Whether by design or by disease people die and other, weaker, creatures and plants will suffer a more rapid demise, with some genetic plans being removed from any future environment.
So why? I mean why do we bother to keep this plan 'alive' if all it means is that we have to kill? Clearly this killing and consumption is not infinitely sustainable even for one person let alone a whole species. So there is no moral issue about who or what is consumed just one on my we have sex.
If it isn't for power, then is it to temporarily hide fear? Yet clearly upon awakening, increasingly fear has the upper hand in that we consume more out of fear of loosing some value. That value may be invested in another as in the one with whom you make love, or the offspring of such a love. Other investments are available.
If an individual can understand only half it's genetic plan can be transferred in the traditional way to an offspring there would be no such thing as sexism. If that individual can also see that matter how many children they have they are always going to fall short of perpetuity.
If reproduction can be taken on smaller scales then race and species would not be competing for resources. There would be no Aryan, Jewish, Muslim, Human genetic plan to perpetuate but an acknowledgement that sex is a part time job doomed to failure and it is the minds inability to shake off fear that encourages nepotism.
Quantum conciousness does not require reproduction but it grows as one organism. So if the mind can slowly be turned and tuned to immortality through whatever means then a family of spirited people will have the same goal, to love as one.
For the individual it is qualitative conciousness that directs the mind and the multiple sense of there being more than one quantum spins the mind in ever decreasing space, until with a final fearless gasp the even the air is free from human grasp.
Clear the mind ~ Counter the weight with whatever makes you lighter.
I have little desire to discus any of the conspiracy theories. Shapes and designs are mathematical models to achieve specific outcomes, which are just aspects of homo sapiens use of logic. It matters not what shape the earth is or what laws govern the movement of planets or quantum particles, nor what laws govern mankind, if they work they will be used like a spade and a fork.
A long long time ago, in my relative youth, I became aware of the option to turn my mind on with a little help from my friends. I could tune in to whatever I wished, planets, stars, gods ~ then to drop the lot and get to the land to set my soul free. After decades of trying to do this as a community I am clearly dropping out alone through a spacial portal under the guise of time.
The soul unlike the lotus does not grow, but like anything that I want cultivation is a method to weed out that which I no longer want. The weeds of the mind that have so long looked like food to keep me alive, when in fact they are keeping me in the killing fields. I am clearing the fields of desire to better view the soul. As the soul is not in outer-space all I have to do is to clear a path through my mind to see it and be at peace with it.
Oh! The weeds, I let them grow so freely as it appears they want to be. A path through the weeds is all I need.
Acceptance is the receptive god, the yin before the day of breath but then on that eventfull day when things change so drastically clearly there some interference, some power that choses this dramatic change. Born from the yin it is nigh on impossible to not to accept from parents, and beleive thence in thier envoronment of friends, country, religion. From the acceptance of the breast or bottle to a table of exotic foods, choice becomes a demanding weather.
Innocence, or is that ignorance born of fear to use inteligence. For surely belief is not the same as knowledge and whereas it may not be possible to truely or completely know your friends or anything including your own mind that does not equate to not being possible to think or to know.
It's the knoweldge that escapes simple acceptance and choice that each has to understand intelligence. Intelligence is the message of that elusive god that many say they believe in rather than have knoweldge of.
So though there is movement it is largely within acceptance, with a distracting performance of choice.
The knoweldge is overly encompassing unlike belief which has direction, directions set out by forefathers. No matter how someone declares their own, new unique belief, if it is so, it cannot be communicated without a language born of the past. Knowledge is not born and unlike belief cannot change or die, knowledge is imortal and absolute.
Having knowledge isn't the same as knowing some earthly stuff; like drawing a circle is not really drawing a circle. The circle, there is only one, is absolute. It was not born and cannot die: it cannot be believed in: It requires no devotees ~ no matter to what extent a mind goes to to image or draw a circle it will be ever no so but distant and in trying to draw near the absolute distance becomes ever more enlightening. A glimpse of the knowledge may appear to filter through the clouds but then tbe careful not to reach out for it. The truth cannot be touched or conveyed but it can be known and witnessed.
OK what is being enlightend?
The Moral Compass would appear to give infinite options for a person to develop thier morality but this is not the same as there being an option on what morality is or how it is defined. Sure there are options on every thing and nothing but the opinions do not change what is or what is not.
A notion that the population could be controlled to limit consumtion, rather than just address the consumption is an anti-procreation idea will not go down well with many people.
The desir to limit consumption on anything other than a personal level is not a moral direction but an ethical one. If we as animals wnat tp consume then we must be aware of the limitations.
It is not that the Earth cannot support this indulgent consumption that homosapeiens seem hell bent on as it is not the job of the planet to support people but rather an indivdual or group cannot sustain themselves indefinetly without consuming.
This is where the option to have a moral direction provides for a sustainable option. It is hard to maintain a morla direction but once it has been found it does not fade away, unlike ethics which are more like leaves blown from the autumn trees, pretty but temporal.
Morality is not a polarised issue, amorlaity and immorality are just forms of ethics.