Creation of reality, Being and non-Being

DianaRose

Jedi Master
Hey everybody!

I don't know if some of you have read The secret History of the world and how to get out Alive. I'm currently reading this book and there is this part that I don't understand at all. It starts about page 90 and goes on. It says that we don't create our reality like many New ages teachers have been telling us and there are states of Being and non-Being.
I don't really have an opinion because I just don't understand what they meant. Could someone give me some explanations?

Thank you

Peace and Love
 
DianaRose94 said:
Hey everybody!

I don't know if some of you have read The secret History of the world and how to get out Alive. I'm currently reading this book and there is this part that I don't understand at all. It starts about page 90 and goes on. It says that we don't create our reality like many New ages teachers have been telling us and there are states of Being and non-Being.
I don't really have an opinion because I just don't understand what they meant. Could someone give me some explanations?

Thank you

Peace and Love

Can you be a little more specific about exactly what you want clarified?
 
This might help (though it's a little complicated...) - http://cassiopedia.org/glossary/Being_vs._Non-Being

- but if you do have a more specific question, feel free to ask and hopefully someone can help clarify.
 
Some times things get complicated just by trying to explain them.
Being- alive
non being -dead
that's all
simple and straightforward,
Oh that's right there are other factors,
well, then
the other factors come after you have gotten the basic duality
what else is there?
Ah, the opposite pull of total creation vs total destruction or non- being, stagnation
Great now I am depressed.
Sorry, I got to go and make some more new music
 
kryon said:
Some times things get complicated just by trying to explain them.
Being- alive
non being -dead
that's all
simple and straightforward,
Oh that's right there are other factors,
well, then
the other factors come after you have gotten the basic duality
what else is there?
Ah, the opposite pull of total creation vs total destruction or non- being, stagnation
Great now I am depressed.
Sorry, I got to go and make some more new music

kryon, I don't think the main thrust of the Cassiopedia article that anart posted above is really about being "alive" versus being "dead" -- which you sort of say in the second half of your post, so I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not in the first half. But why would you feel that the opposition between creation and destruction is depressing?
 
Shijing said:
kryon, I don't think the main thrust of the Cassiopedia article that anart posted above is really about being "alive" versus being "dead" -- which you sort of say in the second half of your post, so I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not in the first half. But why would you feel that the opposition between creation and destruction is depressing?
Dear Shijing,
not sarcastic, -sarca- body- quite the opposite
I am trying not to be so heavy about this amazingly heavy topic.
My grandmama use to say,
If you learn everything there is to learn while you are still alive, you will instantly die that same second you've learned everything.
I don't want to die yet, i am still in my- well whatever my age, but still have some projects going, you know.
No sarcasm here, pure heart puring out.
Why so heavy? Listen to Castaneda, what did he say about the Eagle, remember?
One is what one is, and hope the Eagle hasn't noticed, yes or no?
you tell me
No sarcasm, I assure you, please read between the lines from now on, or simply kick me out, your choice.
Take care.
ps, you don't think creation vs destruction is depressing? I am surprised! it is one of the most depressing topics in human history.
 
kryon said:
I am trying not to be so heavy about this amazingly heavy topic.

[...]

No sarcasm, I assure you, please read between the lines from now on, or simply kick me out, your choice.

I understand that no sarcasm was intended, and thanks for clarifying. The thing is, DianaRose94 asked for some help understanding this -- and yes, it is an amazingly heavy topic -- but the response that you gave, in context, did seem to be making light of the issue without helping to provide an answer. One of the goals here is to be as clear and direct as possible -- so asking others to read between the lines isn't really considerate of your audience, since this takes the responsibility away from yourself and places it on them to figure out what you're really getting at.

kryon said:
ps, you don't think creation vs destruction is depressing? I am surprised! it is one of the most depressing topics in human history.

Well, maybe the destruction part in and of itself, but taken together with creation -- understanding that the universe is about balance is actually somewhat comforting to me, personally. But maybe that's just me ;)
 
Kryon, please give more thought to your posts and more consideration to other readers. Thus far, you are producing more noise than signal.
 
Dear Shijing,
Still attempting to create something out of pure speculation.
To be clear about something only the Great Creator (most call that God- I choose to call it Universal consciousness) and still be in the 3D form, not even having the concepts clarified is preposterous, even the C's say that.
Anyway, I understand your need to be clear in your answers, precise in your statements, academic in your ideas.
All that is understood, however, when it comes to speculation, then we can only search within for the actual answer, everyone else will give you their own interpretation like the fox and the stork in Aesop’s fable-
Think about it.
 
Laura said:
Kryon, please give more thought to your posts and more consideration to other readers. Thus far, you are producing more noise than signal.
Dear Laura,
What got me is the secret story and how to get out alive.
Well, just think about it, who gets out alive? Why would anyone even think about that? How narcissistic is that? Even stars do not get out alive after they have done their purpose. Castaneda kept on saying to trick the Eagle. Who is the Eagle? Nature? The bad 4D who consume our energy? Who is the Eagle?
Creation or Destruction?
Shijing, is happy with balance, but isn't it balance the ultimate stagnation?
What is balance in our lives, unless it is balanced every nanosecond to a different criteria? What a feat that is.
How can you be precise and clear about that?
Signal to noise ratio? I don't know, you choose. I am pouring my heart out and if this is just noise to you, well then. Only the Universe can judge correctly who is and who is not appropriate to our education.
Ask your self, how you came to the conclusions you did. Was it in one easy swoop or years and years of hitting your head on the wall.
You can either be a wall for my education or an actual educator, which do you choose?
I have already chosen by being here.
and as far as the original post goes,
The question, by my personal opinion is only answerable by the individual who originally asked it, no other individual can actually answer such an esoteric question and if anyone tried then they are demagogically attempting to create an alternative understanding in that person’s belief system.
 
I'm curious kryon, have you actually fully read Secret History? If so, it doesn't seem like you understood much of it... and if not, perhaps you should hold off on trying to answer questions that you don't fully understand the answer to yourself. That's what it means when Laura says you're creating noise. It means you're not being understood clearly / externally considerate to other readers.

It's ok to share and discuss ideas that you've come to by reading the material presented here, but you have to be clear in what you mean. Your response to DianaRose94 came across as an absolute answer, but it was in fact not at all close to the correct understanding of the term being vs. non-being. Therefore, you were not being externally considerate.
 
What I find repetitively fascinating, and kyron is yet another example of this, is when people project their own inner landscape onto the material here, deeming it negative or 'stagnant' or 'dark' or whatever, without ever even understanding the material in the first place. This type of inner projection is always very telling. It says much more about the person doing it than it does about the material. If one can't understand that loving the Universe means loving its beautiful face and its wretched face (the balance) with equal understanding, then something is amiss. Ignoring and shutting out all that IS is contractile - it is STS - it is illusion and dreaming and will result in increased entropy.

The other thing that I've seen happen is the often wholesale substitution of data, of premises, of phrases, or meaning, with its opposite and judgment resulting from that, while the person doing it never once questions their own understanding. A great example of that is kyron's remarks on 'getting out alive' - he misses the crux of the matter and never once questions his own thinking. This is telling - something is amiss.

Again and again he does this (and others do this) - they misunderstand and instead of looking for clarification, they project their own inner landscape (which is almost exclusively negative and contractile, else they'd not come to the conclusions they do) onto the Work here and condemn it - when they never even had an understanding of it in the first place!

It's fascinating to me how it works exactly the same way every time - a projection of a negative inner landscape onto material that is infinitely creative, followed by a judgment without ever once questioning ones own thinking. It is also always accompanied by a lot of self-referencing (a lot of 'I' statements) and arrogance of thought. Having yet seen a case of this where the person was able to turn themselves around, question their own thinking and open their mind up enough in order to begin to understand, to give, to grow and to heal, I hope kyron is the first, but we can only wait and see.

added: I think it's important for everyone to understand that it is okay to not understand - that is why we are all here - because there is so much we don't understand. What is entropic is to project ones lack of understanding, or ones own arid inner landscape onto all that one sees as if that is all there is - it's not - there is more. Keeping an open and critical mind is the only way to find that 'more' - to begin to actually See reality as it is and move forward along the path of ones 'immutable nature'. fwiw.
 
Maybe I didn't explain myself well, What I meant is that in the book it is said that we don't create our reality. And that most methods gived by most New age teacher are somewhat useless yet I have seen many people improving themselves and their lives by using these methods. And I myself observed that when I maintain a positive state of mind, my life become positive.
This is where come my first question, how is it that these methods are useless and how is it that I don't create my own reality?

About Being and Non-Being, it is said that you can be Being but in the same time non-Being. And this is a concept that I don't understand.

Well, Kryon I am not reading this book because I want to get out alive out of all the mess of this world, I am reading this book because I am merely looking for truth and this book seems so far to possess some truth.
Anyway there is nothing to get out alive of because we're nonetheless vowed to die in a way or a other and we're vowed to reincarnate once more here or in some other place.
 
DianaRose94 said:
Maybe I didn't explain myself well, What I meant is that in the book it is said that we don't create our reality. And that most methods gived by most New age teacher are somewhat useless yet I have seen many people improving themselves and their lives by using these methods. And I myself observed that when I maintain a positive state of mind, my life become positive.
This is where come my first question, how is it that these methods are useless and how is it that I don't create my own reality?

About Being and Non-Being, it is said that you can be Being but in the same time non-Being. And this is a concept that I don't understand.

Well, Kryon I am not reading this book because I want to get out alive out of all the mess of this world, I am reading this book because I am merely looking for truth and this book seems so far to possess some truth.
Anyway there is nothing to get out alive of because we're nonetheless vowed to die in a way or a other and we're vowed to reincarnate once more here or in some other place.

It's an understandable question, and I think it's really important to understand the difference between having a positive outlook, and attempting 'to create your own reality' by imposing your own personal subjective will and wishes onto god and the Universe. A positive outlooks is really nothing more than hope - a hope of the soul, perhaps, without which no one would get very far before giving into despair. Attempting to 'create your own reality' is a very different thing - it is basically presuming to know how your life and the world should be and attempting to impose that on the outside world. This is a really complicated subject and if you continue reading, I do think that you will find some clarity. In short, we inhabit a very specific reality because on a soul development level (or mission profile level) it is where we fit. To ignore that, to block out the reality of all that entails, what we 'like' and what we 'don't like' is to attempt to bring the Universe (god) down to our level which is, as the Sufi's would say, a 'sin against god'. The students are not the architect of the school.

Plus - at the end of the day - no one is going to 'win a staring contest' with the Universe, so no matter how much a person might 'want' things to be a different way than they are, refusing to see things as they are always results in an increase in entropy, or 'evil', if you will, since that soul is no longer dealing with reality AS IT IS - which is a large part of what we are each tasked with while here. Topper has a helpful essay on this which I will post in the next post.
 
Michael Topper said:
Why You Don't Create Your Own Reality -
an antidote to fatuous New Age paradigms

A paradigm that is currently running amok through the New Age community, and which is depriving them of their last bit of common sense, is better known as "You Create Your Own Reality" (short: YCYOR). This insidious half-truth is usually placed into a very misleading context and is never completely true.

Let us just look at some basic facts that we can derive if YCYOR would be completely true:

1.) Every war victim, or rape victim, etc. must have wanted to draw whatever misfortune upon itself, since that victim "created his own reality".

Common sense tells us here, that this is nonsense, and that not all war victims, etc. ever wanted to happen that war to them. For me, common sense simply wins, and cuts a long discussion short. :-)

2.) We would live in a solipsistic universe wherein we could do whatever we wanted without further consequences.

But pretty much obviously, we do not live in such an utopian universe, and no, even on higher densities, there is no such universe.

(Quote: "Oh, what a spoilsport!" we can just hear the chorus. Why not let those who want to, abide peacefully in the solipsism of their spook-sanctioned presumption that -- despite the alleged interconnectedness of everything -- the common ego-view of personal hermetic insularity is valid after all, and "I" can indeed conjure a positive-think Paradise to "preserve me eternal" in the midst of everyone else's self-created, hallucinatory world-disaster.)

What makes the YCYOR evangelist fatuous (rather than a demonstrable God of the most egregious solipsism) is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one decrees in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum. There is a variegated World of myriad "pulls" and "claims" coexisting along with the private desires and designs of the given ego-subject.

But "so what?" we hear the die-hard "reality-creator" claim�"don't we remain untouched by those 'co-existents' as long as we keep secure in the confidence of our own private deservedness, our own authoritative affirmations and specific commissions of positive thought-re- inforcement?"

Why You Don't "Create Your Own Reality"

Just sit there for a minute. Attune to a mere soupcon of self-reflective consciousness and you can't help but notice you're hardly self-generated; there isn't one thing about yourself, including the environment you perceive or your "personal" will, that issues from any sense of a self-creating "you". Indeed, "you" are spontaneously endowed, before the self-reflective fact, as the coordinate presence of a total and given pattern of Being. It is all immediately established, without personal intercession on your part. The patterns through which you perceive, the modes by which you move and cognize take up your being without a whimper of protest, a hint of objection or even notice. This vastly creative process by which you spontaneously come to yourself, on its terms, is so suavely accepted as inherent expression of your being that you claim it as yourself without even observing you do so (i.e., these are "my" thoughts, "my" words, "my" perceptions, "my" ideas, "my" movements).

Wait, we hear the protests, perhaps I don't actually create the basic patterns of Being or the functions of existence, but I do seem to individualize them. I make them my own. I synthesize all these "given" features as personal contents from my unique angle, so that "my" expression of the common pattern is distinguishable from yours and so very intimately identifiable as me. In that sense I create my own reality out of the given materials, which really aren't anything in particular until I endow them with the unique expressive life that is "me".

This ordinary qualification is acceptable, as long as we notice that the vaunted "personalization" or "individualizing" of the general creative endowment of Being is also a function of that endowment, not something privately assumed. The creative pattern of Being, of which we are expression, individualizes. That is its attribute, not ours. It can only be considered innately "mine" insofar as "I" come after the fact, along with the perspectival endowment of individualization. In that sense I am the process of individualization; but I don't create it.

The Cloud Of One-Knowing

"I" exist in reflective and receptive relation to that process which takes its point of departure from the total, given Pattern of Being. My "knowing" comes structured. It is a function of consciousness, or whole-awareness (i.e. conscious self-awareness); but it furnishes an interpretive syntax of cognition to that consciousness. It possesses an inbuilt grammar of structured variables.

All my instrumental processes, modes of action and so forth are patterned terms of this "knowing". The overall function of my being with its sensory and motor, autonomic and conscious systems is that of knowing. In reality there aren't a lot of different "systems", diverse organs and instrumental complexes, some for physiological processing and life-sustenance, some for acting and responding, some for perceiving and some for knowledge. There is only an overall system or multi-dimensional Pattern of differentiated currents, properties and phases serving the single common function of Knowing; for the whole pattern is an expression of consciousness.

[...]

Suppose, again, that a developer bent upon the "personal, positive affirmation of success" takes it upon himself to reshape his reality according to his heart's desire by speculating the astronomical increase of profits through conversion of some obscure "low-rent" properties kept on the back burner, into mega-buck bungalows for the "upwardly mobile" demographically anticipated in migration toward that particular district ; without hesitation, as expression of the faith and supreme confidence he has in the self-justification of his aim, he evicts all the low-rent tenants on the spot (who, ipso facto, must have wished such misery on themselves). A month later, he's mugged in a back alley by one of those he'd peremptorily displaced, and who'd therefore had no recourse to any but the life of the multiplying homeless.

In both "hypothetical" cases, was it the lingering doubt, the persistence of some conditioned hesitancy or especially in the latter case a misguided atavism of "compassion", guilt or empathy which secretly served to undermine the perfect correspondence of desired effect, thereby producing an accurate reflection of the "negative" belief-structure?

No that just doesn't account for it. We can say for the sake of "hypothesis" that the given developer had no such remorse (for we can certainly find exemplifications of the genre in real life!); and we can infer that our breasted New Ager is as fatuous as he sounds...

But there's that word fatuous! What makes him fatuous? Evidently, not taking into account the obvious context! Remember, we said the potential viability of the term "fatuous" had to do with context ! What makes the "you-create-your-own- reality" evangelist fatuous (rather than a demonstrable God of the most egregious solipsism) is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one "decrees" in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum. There is a variegated World of myriad "pulls" and "claims" coexisting along with the private desires and designs of the given ego-subject.

But "so what?" we hear the die-hard "reality-creator" claim "don't we remain untouched by those 'co-existents' as long as we keep secure in the confidence of our own private deservedness, our own authoritative affirmations and specific commissions of positive thought-re-inforcement?"

Report To The Commissioner

No. Man does not live by "commission" alone. This is why you do not create your own reality, but merely generate reality-hypotheses or scenarios which are continuously reflected and tested against the Whole; and the Whole, being inseparable from the Potential of your own innate-global Being, is constituted by the explicit and implicit alike, by that which is produced through active or positive commission and that which results from the gaps, blind-spots and vacuums of interpretive omission. All the lines, potential and actual, exist within one's being and are inevitably calculated into the total account! This is what it means when we say there's a context in which all our desire-formulation and "decreeing" takes place.

This is a Deity-centered reality, not an ego-centered reality. Only the totality of the soul-nature is in touch with the Totality of Spirit-being. Anything else necessarily involves a partial perspective, a conceptual self-estimation producing inevitable blindspots, negatively-recessed lacunae as well as "positive" outlines to be filled in obligingly by experience. What you have selectively omitted from "your reality", is manifested as well! Gaps in thinking and experience which develop one "side" at the expense of the other, or which temporarily prevent a latent potential of certain centers or combinations of centers from being realized, do not simply "pass by" as a domain of non-experience. They aren't just quietly tucked away as surplus "potential" with which you're not obliged to have any relation.

On the contrary, such gaps show up; they manifest in the unstoppable/inexplicable erosion of all those things you've materialized as expression of "personal preference". They appear as unanticipated, unexpected or unwanted circumstances which nonetheless bear a negative-identity to the self-selected "positive profile".

Although the deep zero value characterizing the Total potential of the mind- body pattern definitely allows for what the Ra material calls "random catalyst" (a variable which simply cannot be taken into account by the "you create your own reality" proponents), most products of omission have very identifiable correspondence to the personality-structure in question. They are drawn into the field of that personality as inevitably as the "positive" products of commission (like the mugging received by the "developer", along with his projected profits). We can of course say the "victim" still deserves his fate or has drawn his fate to himself by a quality of callousness embedded in his characteristic thought-formulae; and occasionally this interpretation may touch on some real factor involved in the negative effect. But neither the simple presence of some attitude toward elements of the ultimate negative resultant, nor explanations of residual "karma" (or anything of the kind) may adequately account for all cases in the same category.

It is just simply not true that every rape victim somehow "invited" the experience as a personal form of "commission"; the fact of each Soul being a global microcosm of Total potential, automatically means that a certain amount of experience is going to be the resultant "invitation" of sheer aggravated emptiness on the balance-sheet of the (symmetrically self-compensating) soul- record.

Note: aggravated emptiness. This then is a magnified deficiency with respect to certain outstanding principles involved in the event; it is a smooth break in the soul record with respect to a whole class of potential, the burgeoning neglect of which progressively builds a magnetic charge placing great stress upon the Whole requiring precipitous compensation. (Note again: in a world where you "create your own reality",this potential area of being needn't be taken into account as everything is strictly a reflection of personal commission i.e. what's explicitly thought, actively desired, consciously believed etc.)

Since such general deficiency with respect to a given area of being produces a massive potential for precipitating "experience" involving just those gapped elements (therefore usually a jarring experience), we may indeed be justified in concluding that such doctrines as "you create your own reality" serve unwittingly to irritate the probability of so eruptive an experience taking place. Experiences "foreign" and out-of-left-field in nature do manifestly characterize the things that sometimes befall us; they can't just be "owned" by arbitrarily identifying some active or positive thought-structure which by tortured interpretation can be teased into disgorging some vague parallelism ("Oh yes, I must have gotten that dysentery because of my dislike for Mexican architecture!").

It is, then, the standard of the Whole which weighs the balance of thought and Rules on the quality of experience. As long as one is taking an interpretive perspective on that whole which isn't directly aligned with It, the resultant reflection of one's personal self- estimates in the form of experience will resemble a maze of fractionated mirrors, first one side and then the other of one's total Presence being represented in the medium first the overt and then the hidden phase of the overall figure being shown to view.

The converse implication of this, of course, is that only in alignment and integral consonance with the Whole-value of Being may Reality be accurately manifested through the medium of "personal expression" for then there is no discrepancy between "personal" and Universal, the perspectival "part" and the indeterminate Whole. It is under this condition that the "impossible" can be manifested (i.e. that which is self-evidently beyond the power of anyone to "personally" manipulate or control).

Do you see then how AAA and MT have accomplished this Impossible thing under the noses of everyone? how, despite the disbelief and repeated double-take of the senses, the evidence of their Thaumaturgy is persistently present no matter how many times one blinks, unmistakable to anyone who'll simply look, smiling up right in the public midst of the most avid concentration? (i.e. the "Lotto", where no one ever takes his gaze away from the shuffling shells?).

Do you see how this has been an object demonstration, on an inconceivable scale, of precisely that which Drummond Riddell (and countless others for whom he implicitly speaks) has asked to know? Do you see how indeed it succinctly and fantastically (indeed absurdly!) demon- strates the "correspond and print out" reality about which Mr. Riddell and others continue to be so concerned? (for surely this literally prints out an identifiable correspondence, hmmm?). Do you see how it manifests for your general edification (and education) the truth involved in the "Visualize- Assert-Demonstrate", wishes- can-be-made-to-form principle as Mr. Riddell expresses it, without affirming the inaccurate "you create your own reality" thesis? how instead it demonstrates inconceivable efficacy and head- shaking puissance as expression of precisely that true Initiatic formula of Being taught as precious extract of the hard-won struggle characterizing every authentic Adept, i.e. alignment and integral harmony with the Spiritual Whole?

For, understood in this way (and only in this way) it may be seen that unimaginable effectiveness results when the expression of one's "personal" will is not different than or removed from the Spirit of Divine Will, i.e. the Will to reveal Spirit as the Truth and authentic character of everyone's illimitable Being. This means that, in terms of "personal will", only the Spirit of the Teaching Function remains. There is no will remaining in the repertoire of "personal will" except that which expresses perfect alignment, integration and identity with Divine Will. This is the Destiny of everyone.

Therefore, when we say for example "AAA and MT" determined "they" would make a Demonstration of the spiritual truth of Being that would be visible to and identifiable by eve- ryone in the least receptive to it, such determination cannot be accounted a strictly private decision nor can it be said to be independent of the Will of the One. (In the same way that, where Drummond believes it was strictly an act of "personal decision" to write MT his fateful "letter-of-inquiry" serving as efficient point-of-departure of the Demonstration he cannot really be confident of the "personal" Origin of that impulse.)

It's for this reason such a Demonstration, where it truly shows the "impossible" efficacy of an Awakened unity with Whole-Being Value and Spiritual Intent, doesn't simply manifest as a "magic trick" no matter how extraordinary. It is not just a pulling-of-rabbits out of a velvet Topper, or providential holding of the winning ticket of the Avatar Sweepstakes. Since such a conjuration comes about as authentic Demonstration and Expression of awakened consonance with Whole-be- ing Value, it takes the inevitable form of a thorough Teaching in Itself. It expresses in its very self-revelation the principles and processes by which it appears; it demonstrates through its own contents the Instruction of Spiritual Truth, rather than the stage-illusion of "you create your own reality". As an Expression inseparable from the Will-of-the-Whole (and, indeed, enforcing that Will in its very Intent), it has embedded in all its parts the give-away character and tell-tale identity of just that Spiritual Presence, the tireless Being of the Teacher of Man.

One last word: contrary to unwarranted popular opinion, such initiated alignment with the Will of Absolute Spirit-being does not result in "working one's will unopposed". On the contrary, the very presence of the Awakened Truth in the form of the Spiritual adept has always generated immediate opposition; it has always "awakened" a corresponding reaction from the collective ego's self-protective slumber. This fact does not belie the Whole-being efficacy of that "will" which is so aligned with the Totality. It simply means that such opposition itself, having become part of the manifesting pattern, incorporates as occasion of the Teaching Demonstration as well in whatever form expresses through the "confrontation". Initiated alignment of will with the creative Whole doesn't guarantee "smooth personal circumstances"; on the contrary, look at the story of every adept, examine the events surrounding the Masters known to history. Rather it ensures that such events will possess the character of an authentic teaching-demonstration, to all who have the Soul to see. It ensures the Will of the Whole is always done, regardless the partiality and prejudice by which that Whole may be perceived in any given case.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom