Between Consenting Avatars

I'm going to be tedious and blog about blogging.
Well, not exactly blogging, but the way bloggers interact.

This based largely on my own observations and experiences over the last year.

To date, blogging has given me the greatest moments of happiness, and the lowest of all lows.
Like many of you, this a country I'll never leave. It is my cyber-England.
Oh, don't get me wrong I don't get all teary eyed about a green and pleasant land. It's more that I feel at home in a land where the mediocre is King, a land infested with motorway service stations, fast food outlets, housing estates and business parks. Where people congregate in communal living rooms at the end of the street and bitch about the world over large glasses filled with liquid grain extracts.

Same with Blogland. I like it here. Sometimes it downright sucks, but hey, it's home.
Part of it is, it's all new. It's like being a pioneer. We're starting afresh here. We are making up the rules as we go along.

NEVER FORGET THAT. It's not be done before. Largescale social interaction of people not physically in proximity to eachother.
In a sense, we are disembodied souls.

We react, interact and emote to eachother, fleshlessly. And maybe, we, of all people, are the first discover what the hypothesised interaction of the fleshless, would be like.
The way souls might interact in Purgatory.

And I think we swing wildly, to thinking it's real, to thinking it's not real.

It's neither. It's DIFFERENT, very different. We still haven't got to grips with the dynamics. People talk left, right and centre about nettiquette and rights and wrongs on the internet, but most of what is said, is missing the main points.

First thing to remember, is why codes of conduct exist. Reason is simple, we want to know the best way to behave so WE don't get hurt.
So we develop systems that prevent people arguing, and potentially, fighting.
Chivalry is a case in point. A rigidly determined system, which has a complex way of differing groups interacting to eachother.

Kneel on both knees to God, one knee to the King. The superior party offers a hand to be kissed, as does a woman. Peasants fight peasants, knights fight knights. It is tantamount to warcrime, for a knight to hack at the peasants, but skinning alive all the male inhabitants of a conquered city, is fine, even if they ARE fellow Christians.

A code of behaviour for a world where being powerful meant you had to wear steel, carry steel, and BE steel.

The code of chivalry is less useful in a world where battles are carried out using computer screens and missiles.

The internet is a funny place. And I think now bloggers are still cyber children. We've not worked out WHY it is that RL rules don't work here, why they won't work, and what rules ARE necessary and WILL work.

Well, I'll tell you the simple reason why. Being in someone's physical presence affects how you treat them.
Ever looked down at a really nasty comments section? Where one blogger really twists the knife in? Sometimes, bloggers seem to forget the humanity of other bloggers. And of course, it's easy to. Something about never having met someone allows you to forget their reality. To treat them in a way you wouldn't, if they were real. Maybe at a deep level, it is done with a clear conscience, because a 'real' person isn't getting hurt.
I know one fairly respected blogger, who I actually think DOES think like that.

And the dynamic that allows it, is this.
You couldn't say such things to, or about, someone in a place of work. In an office, there's much banter, crude innuendo, etcetera. I guess most people in modern life are used to jovially being accused of alcoholism, homosexuality, liking Abba, and these general sorts of schoolyard humour many times every day. But some things, you wouldn't say.

Because the reaction you'd get, would be dramatic.
And we've all seen it go just that little bit too far sometimes. A chair flies back, a man rises to his feet. 'Speak to me like that again, I'll come over there and bang you out.'

It's underlying every piece of human interaction. Some things, you just don't do, because it's a recipe for getting a good kicking.
So, jokes stay jokes. You don't take advantage of people. You pick up on the warnings signs. And you seek to know people, so you can spot the warnings signs early. You learn what makes them tick, so you can work at life together, and not be at blows.

This is how human culture works. Try to make people hug you, not punch you. That's what we all do every day.

Except here, there's no hugging and no punching.

Sad isn't it, take away the possibility of violence, and people have an added potential to be nasty to eachother. Nasty where it really counts. Because a black eye heals. Our words here, are here for all time. For our grandchildren to read.

And that's what we should be thinking of. There is something here that SHOULD motivate all of us. OURSELVES.
Because do you know what your blogs are? They're the real you. You picked the colour scheme, you write the posts, you choose the widgets. You picked the way you wanted to present yourself.




You chose everything about your avatar. You even chose your name.
You have a power here to make yourself everything you want to be.

And that should motivate you. Motivate you to BE the fleshless. Not lurking behind a terminal allowing very flesh induced sentiments run riot because you don't fear a real knuckly fist.
Your obligations here are simple. To read, write, comment, discuss. Judge? Maybe. But on what is written.

I think there has to be an ethos, an attitude that this IS an environment with rules and boundaries around it, just as one has rules in a working environment. And one of those useful work rules to be imported I think, is the boundary between PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL relationships. Even now, people don't seem to get this.

Many companies will not employ couples. Many companies realistically expect that if two of their employees get really serious with eachother, really, one of them should seek work elsewhere. It's not good for two people to spend work AND leisure time together for one thing. It's a dynamic the business doesn't need.

Inter-office romance is rife, naturally. And often these things go bad. What matters is whether or not people shut up about it. What MOST often happens is the woman (in most cases), goes round slagging off the male, accusing him of luring her into bed on false pretences.
What happens next?
The obvious. She gets sacked. Why? Because she's not doing her job properly. She's making it hard for another colleague- her ex-lover- to did HIS job properly. The business doesn't care about her violent emotions- what it does care about, is people doing their jobs.

Now trust me, if you are the frequent cause of too many women leaving, then yes, you will probably get into trouble. You're forcing up recruitment costs (Yes, I DID get such a warning some years back).

The general rule is, if you and a colleague are engaged in out of hours fraternisation, keep it out of working hours.

At work, you are just colleagues.

And the same HAS to be so in Blogland. Just as two people's working relationship, must come before their personal relationship, and if the two cannot be kept totally separate, it is the second that must be sacrificed, the same surely, is true of blogging.
Put simply, any personal connections formed with other bloggers, shouldn't affect Blogland. If the blogosphere is conscious that two bloggers are more than just friends, there is something wrong. For a woman to write a post telling another blogger to stay away from her man (and naming the man as another blogger) is in Blogland, completely unacceptable. At this point, a personal relationship has intruded beyond its boundaries. In cases such as this, the personal relationship should end. Personal relationships should not intrude with blogging ones, simple as.

The same of course, is true with your RL friends/family/partner. Just as your professional relationships aren't their business, nor are your blogging ones. It's worth pointing out, I think, to RL people, that your online discussions can't lead to anything that will hurt THEM. So it's really none of their business.

Ah yes, you say. But wouldn't a partner have the right to know if you were flirting with women online?
No. Because it's online. By definition, it's not actually physical. Why would you care?
My ancient history ex was a terribly jealous woman. But she never minded that I used to take my engagement ring off at work. She knew why- she didn't have a problem. Flirting is good interaction, twenty-two year olds sans engagement rings, are more attractive to a female buyer, than one who wears one.
Even when I HAVE been attached, never on the nine to five.

Being visibly attached, is bad business sense. Bad Business sense is bad commission sense, which is bad wallet sense. And I also find, you tend to get on better with your female colleagues, if they hear you talking about women (shows you're interested), but never the same one for too long (shows you're basically available).

Same at parties. Bringing a woman who is clearly a long term feature (as opposed to some bird you just met in the pub the night before), tends to mean, less interesting conversation, with less people. It's a fact of life.

There's a time and a place for the whole couple thing. In the privacy of your own homes. But in social interaction, being part of a couple, is bad for overall social dynamism. And Blogland is certainly a place that needs to remain visibly couple-free.

And while we're at it, why not remove some of the other hostile interactions as well? Think a bit more about what our grandchildren will think when they read it.

But anyway, I thought I'd end with something positive.
There are really nice things to find here. Some new things.

I've been puzzling over the last two weeks, well actually I tell a lie, longer than that. Something that I couldn't really explain. Like the missing piece to a puzzle, but quite what it was the missing piece to, I didn't know.

Now I do. And it's cool. It's something that doesn't really exist in real life. CAN'T. It is something completely amazing, that can ONLY EXIST BECAUSE THE BLOGOSPHERE EXISTS.

It couldn't exist in real life, I don't think.

It's a bit like Bohrium can only exist for a fraction of a second in a nuclear reactor. Ingredient X, isolated.

The missing ingredient of True Love.

You see, the traditional equation Sex+ Friendship= Love, is patently false.

Tried it, it doesn't work. Having sex with your female friends, doesn't create love. Being friends with your sex partners doesn't create love.
Problem is, we keep thinking it does, and then we end up no longer friends, but if neither party sees it as anything other than friends having sex, there isn't a problem. I always find it a suitable arrangement.

So there's clearly an ingredient missing. But what?
Reason why we can't identify it, I've realised, is because we never really experience ingredient X on it's own on real life.

We know that Sex on its own isn't love, but we have it. We know that friends on its own isn't love, but we have friends.

Ingredient X, on its own isn't love. But just as with sex and friends, it can still be great to have ingredient X on its own.
Love is rewarding, because it gives you all three, and with ingredient X, it's normally the only way you can get it.

But blogging has changed that.

You see, I know- and am happy- that I have ingredient X. It is the missing part of the equation.
What is it? Kind of like devotion, I think. I suppose, with True Love, there has to be element of thinking about someone in that curious way, a blend of religious worship, but also the way you feel when the dog is trying to get onto your lap- yes he is making it hard for you to read the paper, but you can't say no, really. He's too cute.



And I think that's actually quite nice. To be devoted to someone, but never think of them sexually, have no thoughts about your lives ever being interlinked, never feel possessive about them, never worry about what they're doing, unless you think it will hurt THEM. There's no relationship to be preserved, no bargaining, you don't know their bodily form, maybe you never will.

It comes completely from the mind, from logic, reason. There is no chemistry, no physicality.
It is untainted by the flesh.

But here's the amazing thing. In RL, you only get Ingredient X from being in Love with someone. The internet allows you to find it with people you'll never fall in love with. To admire somebody purely for how they think, for what's inside them. To come to find their thoughts a crucial part of your day, and never desire to possess them in the flesh. Indeed, you suspect that if you met, it would ruin everything.

It is amazing, blogging.

We've got a lot to work out.
But I think the game is worth it.

Religion, Icons and Idealism

A lot of people would correctly observe, that in one sense, I don't seem overly religious. Lacklustre mass attendance, total rejection of Catholic teaching on most matters of a sexual nature, hesitancy over the divine nature of Christ, asserting that God is NOT to be thought of as personal, as the idea is ridiculous and finding the idea of the devil to be plain ludicrous.

My own theology is decidedly unorthodox, yet somehow, I still feel comfortable defining myself as Catholic.
Why? Mainly because I do compare my own theories, with the DEEPER theological speculations of the Catholic faith, and still find myself broadly in agreement. The theology is bang on, some of the fairy stories, less so, notably the ones involving serpents, stone tablets, seas parting, world's destroyed by floods, etc.

I think the universe, logically, must be conscious, and THAT interpretation, that the trinity is in fact the three parts of consciousness; Reason, Awareness, Memory, yes, I think that is correct. In the moment of the Big Bang, the universe acquired all three, in the first three Planck ticks.

It thinks, it plans. It uses you and I as its tools. It has developed us, as it developed everything else, efficient tools to burn itself out, to die, to end, to be no longer.

And so, believing that, and believing Catholic theology to be the ONLY theology ULTIMATELY reconcilable with the laws of Quantum Mechanics, the ONLY faith that can ACTUALLY adequately explain HOW the divine consciousness works, in that sense, I'm a Catholic. Catholic theology works, Protestant theology doesn't.

Oh, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, angels, it's not real, but the deeper truths behind it are. The rules work. The principles are correct. Work with the universe, it rewards you, work against it, it doesn't.

Karma, basically. Just another crude way of trying to understand Karma.

But Karma is real. And it's quite hard, because it's quite stark. The point about Karma, is that what goes around, comes around, whether you meant to do it or not. In Buddhism, even accidents are punished.

You see, no one religion has a monopoly on truth. In this case, I think Buddhism is closer to truth. Life has a way of righting itself. Good DOES seem to win, Evil DOES seem to lose, overall. Has to have done, we all live a lot better lives than we once did, so the good guys ARE winning, overall.

Now it might come as a surprise to you, given the eclectic nature of my beliefs, that I actually practise my religion very thoroughly.
In terms of attendance, no. But when I'm there I'm as Catholic as a priest. I know the ropes, the lot. I can follow the mass like the back of my hand. I could probably DO a Mass, if they had a TV challenge to do it. I often say a Rosary, I've always liked the current Pope, even when he was just a Cardinal, I value Catholic culture and heritage, I admire everything that it is.

The acts of ritual are important to me, because it's my way of pledging allegiance to serve whatever our Conscious Universe is. I'm declaring my will to serve it unconditionally, to the exclusion of everything else.

Like millions throughout history, that sense that you want to serve a cause, that you want to serve the HIGHEST cause, the only true cause, it's that.
And the belief, ingrained within me, that the place to do that, is on your knees, head bowed before an image of the man who showed exactly where to start.



'We believe in one god'- well yes, sound idea. I agree.
'The father, the almighty', Hmm, well, as an anthropomorphism, I'll allow it.
'Maker of Heaven and Earth', Kind of, he or it, well, it IS everything.
'Of all things, seen and unseen', OK, I'm cool with that. Next bit.

You see, the Nicene creed, it's great really, plenty of room within it, to come to the conclusion, it does actually concur on the whole with your viewpoint, if you don't take it too literally. And it always fires me up. Makes me feel Catholic. The one true Church, by definition, the good guys, because the best of all guys founded us.

Funny thing is- And Welshcakes knew this was coming- I get way more devoted a mass attender, if I'm attached. Something about being attached, makes me go every Sunday. Kind of like, I think I might be in danger here. And I get more traditional in my expressions of Catholicism, attendance at SPUC events, etc.

Thing is, I grew up kind of wanting to be a priest, but then I sort of realised that there are down sides to being a priest. In fact there aren't a huge amount of selling points if you're shamelessly addicted to pleasure.
Plus of course, over time, I think I may well have left safe theological territory for an ordained cleric.
And just REALLY gone too far with the old sinning business.

Still. Somewhere in there lurk these priestly ideals (I've posted on this before). This kind of need to divert my ideals to an all encompassing cause, to the exclusion of all else.
And of course, that's why Catholicism thrives on the Mary cult. It keeps us strongly heterosexually charged devotees, focused on a fantasy woman, a woman really, just a little too good to be true.

So. We're screwed on that front really. Here is a dynamic designed to make you only love a completely unattainable woman, mainly unattainable, because she's dead. And not settle for a woman who can't match these curious qualities. And obviously, it's totally non-sexual. Yet you are encouraged to make it the HIGHEST love, you feel for any woman.

That's the trick that is used, to build the Catholic clergy. Always was, that's how it worked. Encourage adolescents boys to repress their sexual thoughts and focus on the Virgin Mary instead. CLEVER. Tell them, when you're tempted to play with it, just think of Mary looking down and crying.

It's ingrained within me to think like that. Ingrained within me to believe that no Love can be pure, unless the sexual element is totally removed. Not so much to think that you CAN'T combine Love and sex, merely that combined, they can NEVER be the highest love, because that can only be for an ethereal fantasy.

But is that fantasy Mary? No, of course not, not for me. God knows exactly what it is, part Freya, part Liz Hurley, part Keisha Buchanan, anyone wildly unavailable but decidedly sexually alluring. Something that more suits my own style of worship.

And I suppose in your mind, they have a persona. Everything your ideal would be. But that's what they are, an ideal, an ideal of womanhood to worship. You don't want her to be real. Then she would no longer be an ideal. Where are you going to be, without that motivating belief in your idealised vision of womanhood? It kind of has religious significance.



Funny thing religion. I think in some ways, we all have our own relationships with religion. We all see the universe in our own, unique ways.

And I think if we didn't, we wouldn't really be making use of our capacity for thought.

We each have to get to the end our own way.
I don't know the answers yet.
Maybe the bests bits are yet to come.

Open Your Minds Up- Blog!

I am a member of a blogging organisation. It has its ups and downs. Like the blogosphere itself, its young.

In it, it encapsulates the hope we all felt when we started, an inkling of the satisfaction this gives all of us, and a desire to protect that.

A group of happy bloggers, sharing their happiness.

Read what is said in the sidebar. It's like the American constitution, you cannot help, but stand up and cheer.
But never forget, when Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton shook hands on the idea 'All men are created equal' they weren't thinking about ALL people. Just all WHITE people.

Like the US, debating what those ideals mean, has sometimes led to civil war. States rights, or slaves rights?

Sometimes, in the founding moments, the implications of heady thoughts aren't seen.

Darwin didn't know what he'd unleashed. It would scare him, had he known.

The ethos presented by Blogpower, is what blogging is all about. If Blogpower cannot work, nor can blogging. We HAVE to uphold the ideals presented by Blogpower, and truly get what they mean, and live- or blog- by them.

It has to be for blogging itself, for the art form/medium that it is, more a like a Trade Union, than a regulatory body, for the blogger, for the voices, the diversity of voices, and not to uphold the rights of one lot of voices, over the voices they choose to silence.

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I'm hard to offend, so feel free. Unless you are a bigot or a sex offender, trust me, I will defend your right to say it.

I have turned what I think is a very good Sunday post off the frontline of your sight, I believe this so solidly.

Blogging is amazing.

Do you know why? Look at the crazy diversity of my blogroll. What a mix!

What a mix of cultures, classes, points of view! The BNP fascist to the Filipino Anarchist!

Wow!

We have CHOICE! We choose our media, we are open to a free exchange of ideas, unknown even now, to the wider world.

And we waste it.

Most blogs seem to try to be one of two things.
'Here's a headline, here's my commentary'
'Here's my ex, here's my commentary'

And?

Do you know what, I couldn't give much of a damn about either, but both are interesting in telling me how YOU think.
Getting a grip on your worldview.

THAT'S the interesting bit. The YOU bit.
Because then, the little bits between the lines, make sense, I see into your mind, I see the overall thought structure, and I think 'Ah! That's HIS/HER perspective. Interesting. So very different to mine, but I can see his/hers. And in fact, that shows me something. Because I think; 'The way s/he thinks on this, actually leads me to a BETTER conclusion on THIS totally unrelated point, than my own thought processes have. S/he IS right about THAT.'

It maybe that there is only one post any one of you will make, that is going to shatter my world.
But you all remain on my blogroll, because so far, you either have, or I have confidence that one day you will.

Hey, that's blogging.



Open yourself up to learn from ordinary people, telling you what's in their head.
And you tell them what's in yours.

Everyone cool with that?

Because that's the rules, that's blogging, and if you want to close other people's minds down, if you want to impose moral codes on the real lives of other bloggers, if you CAN'T SAY, I don't know you, I probably wouldn't give you the time of day in real life, but here you're my mate, because maybe, if I listen long enough, I'll learn something', don't just stop blogging, stop living.

Because we don't just blog to get pats on the back. Visiting a blog you violently disagree with, but share the other person's deep caring to talk and share views, having long, passionately disagreeing comnments sections with eachother, NEVER sinking to ad hominem arguments, wanting to overturn the other guy/gal's arguments, because you disagree with his/her OPINIONS, but loving the guy/gal all the same, because you love his/her desire to find answers, answers to this game, LIFE, you, like him/her, want to find those.

Now, who wants to play that way?

Because that's my rules, and if you don't like them?

There are chatrooms on the internet. So I hear.

The Holy Grail

I woke up this morning feeling extra good.
I went to bed pondering, not so much a great question, but a great answer. Problem was, I had no idea what the question was.

I woke up having the question.

Because the question was, for me, always the big question.

A can it be done? question.

The question was posed at 19. It identifies that for most people, the great ideal is Romantic Love.
The question was, is it possible to escape that, to find a MORE fulfilling life, without putting yourself in that position.
Can you truly protect your back? Can you save yourself from going through that, can you have the rewards, without the potential heartache? Can you have all that Love offers, without ever being dependant on a single human being in that way?

And the first realisation, is that it is a political principle. Like all things, it's about structure. The problem is, tyranny on a personal level. The personal IS political. We know how to prevent political tyranny- in theory. We don't apply the same logic to our personal lives.

We adopt a bad life strategy. We put all our eggs in one basket, we look for one person to fulfill all our needs, we create our own tyrants to lord it over us, to train us to fulfill their needs, and then, we set ourselves up to be broken.

Foolish, surely.
So the question was this. Could you separate it out? Separation of power, the John Locke principle applied to interpersonal relationships.

Could it be done, so that every one of your needs was somehow fulfilled, without anyone having a monopoly over you, an a way that immunised you against falling in love, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAD EVERYTHING LOVE COULD GIVE YOU?



It seemed to me, there was the Million Dollar question. Could it be done? Was it possible, now, in our state of culture, to create a love-family, a group of people, a life system, that gave you everything, yet never rendered you vulnerable.

I remember first propagating this question in our living room in 1999. At this point the theory wasn't particularly sophisticated. I pointed out then, that my friends, one way or another, already fulfilled most of it, some filled intellectual needs, some filled emotional needs, some filled physical needs, but they were rarely the same people. I figured the Rave scene, and possibly one day getting a dog, pretty much covered most things.

Unfortunately, this eminent theory had a rival to contend with, a bit like the Big Bang theory had the State theory thrown up to rival it.
This was the theory that there is a safe way of falling in love. It involves avoiding people who could really get to you, and focusing on the ones who are most obviously attracted to you. That way, you can evaluate them and see if they're suitable. You should falling love with them, if they love you properly, surely?

Unfortunately, this second theory is pants. It actually doesn't work one jot.

Because you still actually feel things for one lot of women, who you'd never do anything about, and you end up with women who you don't actually like. Why? Because you've gone for the ones who make it obvious to you. And the paradox is, you find women like that difficult to actually fall in love with. They lack the qualities you fall in love with. Trust never emerges, so love doesn't. Then they twig you don't love them, but don't realise you really are trying.

The theory just doesn't work. The first theory, is a much better one, it's just it takes a long time to identify each need you have, and finally get a structure in place.

And suddenly, you realise 'Wow. That's it. Every angle covered. I'm not going to die alone, and I don't have to settle down. I have every need covered, every need provided for.'



It just means a wide spread of affections for a large circle of people. Your total output of Love, is greater than or equal to, that of anybody else, but spread over a wider area. No one person holds the key. Each one is going to be hard to replace, should you lose them, each piece is crucial, but losing one, still keeps the other people and pieces in place, you can survive whilst you tackle the loss of that one person, or piece.

Protecting each part is easier than protecting one piece. It's safer. The whole system cannot be threatened in one go. Life is easier, it's safe. Protected.

No one can ever, no one will ever, get to me now.

I really could live like this forever.

There have been times when I've almost given up on the idea, thought that no, it was a doomed effort. But now I've found that Holy Grail, I think, a sense of having fulfillment, without any need to surrender my person to anyone.



Is it sustainable? Ah, I don't know that. That is a question. Theoretically, yes, thing is, we don't really live in a society geared up to pursue this method of seeking fulfillment.
But I like to think so. I feel better than I have for a long time. Because I know, that as things stand, I have everything, and it's well protected.

And really, I think I deserve a drink. I have succeeded in my number one life objective. It's just whether I can sustain it.

Why Should Everybody Have To Fulfill A Certain Ideal?

It has been implied of late by certain bloggers that those of us who don't 'grow up' and settle down with a wife and raise a family, are somehow doing life wrong.
We're just not trying hard enough. Married, (heterosexual), family men (or women). That's what we should all try and do.

Regardless of who we are, how we think, how we feel.
Tough.

Get on with it. Enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, you're just not TRYING hard enough.
Jesus wants us to marry and raise a family.

Really?
Tell that the Pope, then.
He must have missed your message.

To them I say, it's YOUR IDEAL. It fulfilled you- twice- you want to fufull again. Go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. It obviously would make you very happy.

But what about, for the many of us, who for whatever reason, couldn't live like that? They know from experience, they can't.

And these reasons aren't the same. There are many reasons why people are not designed to fulfill that image.
One is reason is sexuality. Another is desire to have more than one partner. But there is a third reason. A major one. Because it can't fit in with your life.

And that's sometimes about choices. It's about what you put first, how you make your decisions, how you build alliances and WHAT alliances you come to rely on.

I don't like visiting my Mum for the simple reason, she wants to ask questions. It's a constant battle fending them off. But most especially, she keeps bringing up the subject of me settling down. And it's always the same 'Look, it's never going to happen. Just get that idea out of your head.'
And then the why questions.

And I can't get her to see the answer 'I'm just not suited to it. I actually CAN'T do it.'

I realise, honestly, that no one is ever going to pass the test. I can see the way the test is set up, and it doesn't allow anyone to get through from that direction. It DOES allow people to pass, just not coming from that direction. Therefore, logically I'd have to change the testing mechanism. And I can't do that, because otherwise, the mechanism is brilliant in doing what it is supposed to do; keep me safe, keep those I want close to me and protect me from everyone else.

There are basically two ways people set up a life strategy. By a life strategy, I mean that process of alliance forming that we all do, because that's really what life is. That is it's greatest fulfillment. We do it, to live.



Many grow up in a family, then leave it, and seek to form a new one.

Others are less close to their families and learn to rely on the networks they build up themselves. Everyone is constantly re-evaluated on the basis of fresh information. Trust is earned over a long period of favourable evaluation, until eventually one trusts someone fully.

At which point, they become as close, as families do to the first type.

And in fact, it's very open. The more you get to know people, the more you show them. Do they continue to be worthy of your trust, now you've shown them things? Do they still act towards you, in a way that makes you feel comfortable? Or have you just seen something you don't like?

Do they let you down when you need them?
Do they place demands on that you can't meet?

And you don't need to set tests for them- life will do that. Just watch what they do.
Keep giving the trust. That's the mistake most people make- they are to slow to give trust. Unless you give a bit, you can't judge what people will do with it. Keep giving trust, until you know you've given too much, then, forgive but don't forget- never trust them again.

And eventually, you'll know. They will either have shown themselves worthy, proved themselves, gained admittance to your inner sanctum, or been rejected forever.
That process could take months. It could take years.

There are certain people who have earned places of precedence in my life. And that means it would take someone years to rise to first place in that system. It's probably not doable, for anyone.
No matter how much I felt for them, fact is, at present, even were they earn my trust, I can only offer position number six at most. It COULD conceivably be possible for someone to get there in six months, two people on there got there that quick.
But then, any further progress, would take years at best, but I say, probably be impossible.

The people higher up the list will always matter more.

It's the fact that they've never let me down. They've proved themselves. I'd fight for them, I will not lose them.

The fact is, being the person I share my bed with, even if it was to be every night, doesn't guarantee pole position in my life- it can't. It's not on offer. Being a romantic interest, doesn't make you that important in my life- a ton of things are more important. Romance is expendable.

And there's the pressure. I can't deal with that. The pressure of being solely responsible for someone's elses well being and happiness. It's too much of a burden to put on my shoulders. I do not want to be someone elses's world. Part of it yes, all of it, no.



Oh, don't get me wrong, I love affection, attention, intimacy.

But I can't be done with the rest of it. I HATE it. The 'quality time', the possessiveness, the wanting to share every moment of their lives with you, the believing that they should always be on your mind, the interference in areas of your life where THEY shouldn't be.

My quality time is too good to be wasted. I've only got a finite supply.

So, put bluntly. Affection, attention, intimacy.
But at a price tag I can afford, please!

I've got too much to lose.

What Kind of God Do You Believe In?

So he sticks Adam and Eve in a garden.

With a big obvious tree, bang in the middle of it?
It's got bright, rosy fruit, not cunningly hidden.

And he says 'Have all you can eat. Just not this tree. Not this big obvious tree that I've stuck right in the middle of the garden.'

And he wonders why this scheme failed.

God. The almighty.

Come on!
IS THAT THE GOD YOU BELIEVE IN?

For fundamentalist Christians, yes.
Yes it is.

They may not believe Eden to be true, but they believe the logic.

God made rules, and he made them for all time.

Because God never meant man to change, to use the brain had given him, to change his world, to change his life.

What he told Moses would remain true for all time.

Well, I don't believe that.

It has to be a stupid way of believing in God.
I just can't beleive in a deity that is firstly, stupid, and secondly didn't create a mankind to go anywhere itself.
That he wanted us forever children, never growing up.

He gave us rules to guide us, to help us through stages in our development. He didn't TELL them to us. We worked them out. And if we saw something didn't work, we stopped people doing it.
And invented a story about a man and some stone tablets to make them frightened what would happen if they broke the rules.



We're a bit beyond that now.

We know a lot more about how the universe works.

We can protect ourselves from harm and life with comforts and amazing methods of providing for ourselves, our needs and desires, that are way outside the possible comprehension of the mind of crazy old prophets shrieking on mountainsides, to the Iron Age inhabitants of near-eastern monarchies.

Believing in God, means believing that the minds he gave us, are geared to find truth, can grow to understand reality, to have faith that the science of the human race, is correct, because God means us to understand and use his universe, for us.

To know when we can change rules, because we have changed life.
When we know our desires cause no harm, to let them be free. Because we know those desires are safe, because we have made them so.

We're ready for the forbidden knowledge now.

I beleive in that God.
Not the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.



The God who is pure consciousness. The inner consciousness of the universe as a whole.

And THAT, really doesn't care who is sleeping with who. As long as they both enjoy it.

You Cannot Justify Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation- Period

Read the following passage.

The existence and power of the gay mafia

Not only is there a gay mafia but it is recognizable, well funded and politically active.

The "Gay Mafia" and "Velvet Mafia" are typically associated with the upper echelons of the fashion and entertainment industries, and the terms are also used humorously by gay people themselves, some looking to David Geffen as the unofficial head.


They're well funded and active:

Stonewall, the leading gay rights organisation, has an annual budget approaching £1 million, much of which is raised through the business community. Sponsorship, advertising and corporate fund-raising deals bring in enough revenue to fund a slick campaign, a spacious suite of offices in central London and a regular stream of champagne receptions and events.


And very much involved in changing legislation:

In a survey by YouthSpeak, the gay rights youth group which I chaired for a while, it was found that 84 per cent of young people valued social changes over legal reforms, and that over 70 per cent thought that most gay rights organisations put too much emphasis on trying to change laws.

There's more on the same theme.

The theme is that gay rights activists are pursuing an unholy agenda of seeking to brainwash the next generation into being gay, just to increase their numbers.

I have never heard such a ridiculous proposition.

History has been a series of battles by groups facing discrimination.

First, it was religious minorities. First they had to fight for rights, and then, after legal rights, the real battle.
To remove the social glass ceilings.

Catholics faced this struggle in the nineteenth century.
They got to vote in 1829. They were allowed to build their own churches in 1855. Most remaining anti-Catholic laws were repealed in 1925. But the real battle was a cultural one, a battle for Catholicism to be fully accepted as a cultural norm. Now nobody would ever think of treating a Catholic in any different way to anyone else. His/her religion, is just unimportant to how people see them.

Women are getting there. Their battle is still going, but we're on the homeward stretch. We're a long way from scolding braces and chastity belts.

But until the day when society applies EXACTLY the same moral code to a woman as it would to a man, we haven't come to the end of that battle.

Black people are a generation or two behind yet. Because societally, we haven't QUITE got away from the fundamental flaw in our thinking.

Even if you do try maintain that there is some kind of scientific proof that on average there are slight racial differences in features such IQ, body strength, size of organs, etc, you still miss the point.

It still doesn't mean you can guess the IQ, bodily strength or size of organs of an individual, merely on the basis of identifying their skin colour, anymore than being French means you wear a black beret, piss in roads and eat Camembert.

Until society as a whole accepts the logic of that proposition, we have not reached racial equality.



And people who choose to have same-sex sexual relationships, are still at the start of their struggle.
The law has only recently accepted that isn't in fact something so socially dangerous that we must criminalise it and class it as a disorder.
Reason why, whatever it is, it doesn't harm anyone. It's consensual, and nobody gets hurt.

But gay people are asking for more. They're saying, why treat us differently all, just because of this thing we do, that we've already agreed, doesn't harm anybody?

Who really cares who does it?

Their battle isn't won, until the day that nobody is sitting there giving a damn what sexuality their children turn out to be, and where no child feels uncomfortable about telling their parents as soon as they know, and not go through the agony so many gay people do, about how to tell people.

Which is what gay people still face. And they shouldn't.

It's so unnecessary that we as a culture, that we feel we still have to put people through that.
People, we've established, who aren't hurting anyone.



Moral, is trying to make humanity happier.
Immoral is justifying anything that causes more misery than it absolutely has to.

Advocating differential treatment to people on the basis of consenting activity between adults, is wrong. No matter how it is presented.

Gay people have a right to campaign to make life easier for that section of the next generation they can empathise with most.

Those who are going to face going through, what they did.

And it's time that we show our common humanity with them, by thanking our lucky stars we never went through that.
And make it easier for them.