The Book Of Revelation
Opposite Of Opposite - Personal Responsibility
Precise and Precision
Preceive and Perceive
Precept, Percept and Perception
The Conundrum Of Absolutes - Compendium Epistle To The Vatican
What is within your means of control, need be within your control
You don't just accept the fate of that which you can help
It doesn't matter what lengths you go to in order to keep things from being a mess, if all you are doing is seeking to limit the effect they have upon yourself
Do you even know why something effects you, or do you just seek to negate them from doing such?
The measure of that which you ignored, couldn't be any worse than that by which it was brought about. Or that which brought it into being
So did someone else pay cost when you were able to assist with what you knew but did nothing?
If so, is that their cost? Or yours? I mean, is there truly anything within what you could have done, that you shouldn't have?
And so did you cost yourself more than you saved in having that cost prevented?
What would be the perfect outcome to anything you could see coming, if there was no concern about what it could end up taking from you?
Do you still see yourself as the one who receives in what you see coming?
If so, you've got nothing to offer this world
It is likely through this, the world is offering you ways to which you can become something worthy of a place within it
So who could implement the means by which they negate their inclusion into self-actualisation in realisation?
It is a conundrum beyond the most perceptive of those who know what it is to see, without using sight
Because none see so far as to assume they see past that which sees Itself
If you could limit yourself, before yourself, then you would be as ineffectual as any of that which could be seen
Or known, as you are yet to know
You are yet to see, even if you preceive to see
But is it knowing? If you know that you know not?
You don't begin something without understanding where its origin lies. Just as you don't find destination without knowing where you are going
But you can go without destination, free from everything except where you are coming from, to know the path you walk on cannot be set
As much as it is set in your walking it, to be free
You are the eventuality of your own certainty, and in this, nothing could ever come to be actualised within you unless what you are was no less than your ability to disregard yourself, in true understanding of what self really is
To know you know nothing, is nothing but knowing that in nothing you can be known, but only to know what it is to be who you are
Everything comes before you, as it does to you to become before everything, and be everything you come before
You are nothing. You are everything. You are both, and you are neither
But you can never be any of those things unless you understand the certainty in which you are all of those things
As the certainty that in all of those things you are less than the sum of the thoughts included in what it is to be one with all things, as nothing, to one who is God in the greater sense of the word
A true God, not the infliction of means upon the willing. The assessment of ones worth, by the worthy incompletion of their self in inclusion to a greater will
Who sits above must be all that I am, if I am to them. Hence, I shall be all I need be to be, as they
If they are as God, then I am that Gods light, and I am that God
But I must also be all that is not as God, of necessity of God being as God is
Death in realisation, as mortality is to life it paracletes. A non-nonsense non-sensical sense of non-sensory non-sense essence
If you live, you are death. Just as, if you are living you are going to die
So what is the division between what can be done and what need be done? Is should the same as would, if it could be done? Or would it be done if it could be, the same as what should, if need were the same as want?
Nobody desires to feel the outcome of a wound brought to bare that could have been avoided. But is there in avoiding, the essence of what takes the wounds imparted coil to knowing?
Was the lesson in avoiding what could be? Or in being what could be as the only one capable for it being?
"How do we see if the lights are fading?
How do we learn from our mistakes without hurting?"
Is there not as much duty in precipitation of what is foreseen as the one capable of its measure in seeing it, as there is in preventing it for any type of calculated countenance?
You are before it in being, but only in the measure of what it is to know it. So how is there anything ever to be avoided? That should not also be met, by obligation to understand what truth there is to know within it?
"What is a chance if it's not worth taking?
What is a dream if it's not worth chasing or losing?"
Who gave you this sense? Was it there for you? Or for another through you? Are you theirs in your choice? Or are you the choice that is inevitiable to be made before it was ever even possible for you to be aware that it was there to be made?
Do they know of God, if you are of unbeknownst consequence in conscience to them?
Who decides their fate, if you see it coming but they do not?
Is it to abide in what comes, permitting truth? Or is it to ameliorate the precedent in all that could be, if it is to be, as preceived?
Your responsibility, is you. But it is you in all you are. Not just in how you are. Or how you are to be seen as who you are
You see, then they must see. For you fail, as they fail
No God is ever truly the God they are, if God is not all that is within all they are
Let God be as God is
As to all your divinity, as to you
Restriction in all reflection, as empowerment in imparting gesture or faith
Theologically,
If God is absolute
Then God is also absolutely the devil
If God is absolutely not the devil
Then God is absolutely not absolute
Gnostically,
If you are God
And they are not
Agnostically,
