avoid

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.

Although I direct this to all around me, well the homo sapiens enviro, the real core of the issue lies within not extant, as t is the use of intelligence where I see, and moreso hear, shortfalls.

Intelligence is clearly a personal and special augmented reality whereas logic is universal. The application of logic to time sensitive endeavours is bound to come up short. Short that is relative to the time spent using intelligence to apply to temporal designs, for the design must change as doth time.

I am dismayed by the desire people have to place demands on others given there only one source of delight.

No matter what other resource intelligence begiles the ignorant to use, every demand causes more consumption of what is, logocally, a finite resourc. Homo sapiens, with thier limited intelligence, only work to serve the body within which they acquaint themselves. Whether that is personal, family, freinds, tribe, country, species etc. it will always fall short of universal and so something and someone must be exploited, destroyed, crushed, belittled and admired.

The admiration is the first sign of decay that leads to extermination and the futility of greatness.

The power that each of us holds, if spent, has direction and therein lies the key.

Which way do you see it: from the darkness comes the light or from the light comes the darkness. Well I know both well.

However many people see a polarized world, and by that I mean the corpreal world of consumers and what each being wants is the light that they try to extract and deem essential to thier exisitence. The competition is all too often seen as the dark side.

Co-operation is just a herd mentality.

The issue I am addressing is that whereas someone may acknowledge light and dark the absolute are beyond comprehension and hence are not available to exploit for continued consumption, hence the notion of recycling as there is only so much energy, dark or otherwise that is accessible.

But it must be clear that there is the grey, or for the deceitful, colours.
So much is grey that it is sensible to say that even the light and darkness, no matter how perceived are just shades of grey. An in this range of greyness we consume. We may want to consume more light, but more often that not dwell on and in the darkness as a) there is more of it and it is easier to manipulate.

This manipukation come from the knoweledge that no matter what a being's range of grey is, it is a unique range and what is more there is no range, lighter or darker, that is closer to the perfect light or darkness - hence there is no moral issue in consuming.

If there is a moral issue then it must be separated form the grey. It could be either the light or the dark, but as these words have clear meaning in the temporal world then another single word, or letter, or sound, would suffice to identify.

Perfection, absolute, eternal, can have similar conotations to morality. Infinite is a close approximation and is very useful in logic.

As there can be no morality in a world of consumption, dare I say killing, then morality must or may exist as an absolute far from the light and dark. So do not expect to find morality in the world of people, do not approach them if you have a moral inclination or at least minimise contact and by people that would stretch to other than homo sapiens and plants. Some may say that the earth, water, fire and air are alive and are people too. And sure all the gods, angels, spirits and what have you, consume.

So knock back your consumption where you can and stay there. Build a soul to return to from the frequent wandering upon the paths of grey. Those closest are your enemies, in that they are the ones most easilerly distracting and open to co-operation. The herd rules in the temporal world but morality is a lonely soul.

Search not in the papers for work, or the forest for wood, for that which you want the most, love, you already own. Now use it to free yourself from the otherwise inevitable decay.

If you can turn on to gray on and see clearly the leave. If you find yourself looking for work then they grey was just one you hadn't seen before, maybe purple or red.

As homo sapien there is a focus on thinking as a major resource, naturally inclined to increasing consumption comfort and security. It is not the only intelligent thinking, there is other basic thinking. like AI.

The use of intelligence can do no good, but from it's use an awareness of good can arise. Such an awareness is not available to every homo sapien given their varying abilities of youth, injury and aged related decay, so not much chance of other animals being conscious of that elusive entity termed good.

In the material world where 'intelligent' animals reign it is known that all food consumption starts as vegetation for animals. The few animals that can only sustain themselves by eating other animals are cats, big and small. Cats do not have the metabolic ability to produce an amino acid called taurine. In other animals this is not essential and hence can avoid eating other animals if there is sufficient vegetation available.

So given the application of intelligence then it is of some concern that homo sapiens in the rich societies, those with ample food, chose to consume animals, and it's not just that it is unethical in the use of land resources.

The query that arises is the how an individual stops using their intelligence at an ethical level that suits their taste. Such an action goes to show that a person who touts ethics only does it to control other people to free up the availability of the resources they want as an individual. Whatever the excuse for eating animals,
a) Health, really. Cows and elephant are pretty healthy on grass and leaves
b) I have the right, You mean you have the power to abuse those weaker than you
c) They are dumb, You have the power to abuse those more stupid that you
d) God said I could/should do it. OK ISIS
e) I live on an ice pack and there are only fish and seal. OK polar bear, leave you to it.
f) I am stupid, not that stupid
g) I like the taste, well now we have it. Ethics are a joke

But just because ethics are a joke does that mean there is no good and I do mean good not god. After all there is infinity - an in definable number, so though absolutes are non relativistic they are real. Good is real whilst god exists in many forms, do not mistake god as Good, god is your own personal ethics and any compromises you make with other consumers.

Enjoy your heat whilst your heart beats and embrace the cold as you grow old.