[If you have articles to contribute please send them to email@example.com]
By The Oracle
This is a list:
These are purposes:
This is step 3 of a doubt formula:
Decide on the basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.
You are given a list. Are the items on this list your items? One of them was an item for me, “help”. The other items on this list are not my items. But when you are asked to do this condition, you are given this to choose from and you must choose one. Because this is considered “standard tech”.
What if you don’t have purposes to harm attack and suppress? Then you are expected to mock them up. And you are supposed to do this for the sake of “ethics”. So, people can just get restimulated into this or mock up these purposes and over time you get a group of pretty mean people. And a lot of harming attacking and suppressing going on.
Then you can buy more auditing to handle these “purposes” you mocked up that are harmful purposes!
What I did was, I extended this list so my items were on the list. I have other items that work for me in dealing with people that do not involve harming attacking or suppressing them. If you have your own methods, you can extend the list too and put items that are yours on the list.
If you look at a grade chart the awareness characteristics that aligns with clear is CONDITIONS. That is where a person should hopefully become aware of conditions. It worked for me. But I see no reason to put the ethics book on someone who not a clear because then you are going to tell them things and you are going to give them lists and if that person is not up to speed as a P.C. and listing, and knowing about items or wrong items, you are going to have someone doing things and saying things because you told them to or enforced it on them. You can also summon up purposes that can get in their way between them and their fellow man.
I hope this is helpful to someone else.