The Guru and dictatorship- Goodbye to International Law

Elena: 

Phenomenon like the following are simply the same as that of the unlimited power of the guru but in the political arena. It's interesting that no one is there to responds but that the "invisible" authority is in power. In cults, it's the assumption of the "divine" what is supposed to be behind the authority of the guru. In politics its the authority of the law what is manipulated without there being anyone responsible for the law to make accountable. This is an aspect of the mechanism so that a whole "class" with immense power is not made responsible. Everyone is allowing for it wether directly or indirectly. As someone said: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. 

Goodbye to International Law

by Lawrence Davidson on September 23, 2011

Spread it!

4 |

18Share

1
inShare

2diggsdigg

print

Part I - The Erosion Universal Jurisdiction
Back on 12 February 2011 I put out an analysis on the subject of Universal Jurisdiction. Here is the first paragraph from the piece:

"One of the really progressive acts that followed the end of World War II was the establishment of the principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ). UJ is a legal process that allows states that are signatories to various international treaties and conventions (such as the Geneva conventions) to prosecute alleged violators of these treaties, even when these violations are committed outside the country’s borders. This is particularly so if it can be demonstrated that the home government of the accused has no intention of bringing them to trial for the alleged offense. The assumption behind this principle is that the crime committed is so egregious as to be seen as a crime against humanity at large. In the wake of the Nazi Holocaust and other such crimes against humanity, UJ was accepted as a necessary and positive legal step by almost all Western nations."

It has been 66 years since the end of World War II and the memory of the concentration camps has faded (except when invoked as a political tool by Zionists). Nor has the subsequent holocausts such as those in Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia been sufficient to keep the issue of crimes against humanity front and center in the governmental minds of the great powers. The historical fact is that such truly horrible crimes committed at the edges of the European world or beyond have never been seen as symbolically important in the same way the Nazi holocaust was. And so we cease to pay attention. That allows for the erosion of the safeguards against these crimes such as UJ.
Now we have proof of this process of erosion. On 15 September 2011 Great Britain changed its UJ law to allow the government, in the person of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to veto any arrest warrant referencing universal jurisdiction issued by a British judge. What that means is that when crimes against humanity are committed by representatives of a power friendly to Britain, the government can negate any risk of arrest for those persons while visiting British soil. This happens to be the British government’s response to warrants issued for the arrest of Israeli personages such as former foreign minister Lzipi Livni in 2009. The British UJ law exists by virtue of Great Britain being a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention but that does not seem to matter. For the sake of friendly relations with Israel, the British government is willing to render its obligations under international law moot.

Of course the British government does not explain its actions that way. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke insists that the government is "clear about our international obligations." This change in the law is simply designed to "ensure...that universal jurisdiction cases are only proceeded with on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to successful prosecution." The fact that Israeli crimes against the Palestinians are among the best documented seems not to be part of Clarke’s judicial world. Indeed, according to Matthew Gould, Britain’s ambassador to Israel, warrants issued against Israelis for war crimes and crimes against humanity are only "abuses" of Britain’s judicial system carried out "for political reasons."

Part II - Double Standards

In truth, what the British government has done is institutionalize double standards. Just imagine what would happen if the head of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassem Brigades (Hamas’s military wing) flew into Heathrow to see some sick friend. The British Zionists would have a judge issue a warrant within the hour and the British government would enforce it without question. Now imagine that at about the same time Israeli Major General Yoav Galant arrived. Galant was Israel’s Chief of Staff during Operation Cast Lead and publically stated that the operation turned Gaza into an "ideal training zone" to test new weapons that were often themselves banned under international law. With this new qualification of the UJ law, nothing at all would happen to Galant. And that double standard is absolutely in place "for political reasons."
This is a disastrous precedent because other countries will almost certainly follow the British example. However, it is not the only case of erosion of international law. The international law referencing behavior on the high seas has recently been called into question and guess who forced that issue. Israel again. This is function of the fact that all the major powers, and the UN as well, proved willing to let the Israelis off the hook for attacking an unarmed Turkish vessel in international waters and killing nine passengers. Only Turkey has taken a stand for international law. Then there is the U.S. corruption of the International Criminal Court (see my analysis "International Law and the Problem of Enforcement" posted on 4 June 2011) and finally the repeated use of a U.S. veto at the Security Council to protect its ally–again Israel–when that country violates international law by moving its own population into occupied territory and commits daily crimes against the Palestinians.

Ads

Part II - Conclusion
Generally speaking, if it is a great power or allied to one, a government can do just about any horrible thing it wants as long as it does it to its own citizens and within its own borders. Thus, if Hitler, as chancellor of a great power, had just stuck to killing every last German Jew, communist, retarded person, etc. he almost certainly would have gotten away with it. That is the power of sovereignty. If Saddam Hussein, as a U.S. ally, had confined himself to killing Iraqi Kurds and Shiites by the tens of thousands no one would have intervened. But in both of these cases the dictators made the mistake of incurring the wrath of great powers by crossing a border for reasons other than blatant self-defense. Now the Israelis have shown that this criterion (sticking to your own territory when you do your killing) to be an arbitrary one. They cross borders all the time (as does their great power patron). My guess is that, unlike Iraq, the Israelis could have invaded Kuwait and gotten away with it! That is because they are more than just protected by the United States. Washington does not control its ally, its ally controls Washington. Israeli front organizations such as AIPAC control the information flow and dictate relevant Middle East foreign policy to the government of the "greatest power on earth." That is why joint resolutions, standing ovations for the likes of Netanyahu, and such stupid proclamations as "Israel has the right to annex the West Bank" flow uninterrupted from the halls of Congress.
It is odd. The only thing that stands between all of us and the next holocaust is international law and treaty provisions such as universal jurisdiction. But who cares? Not the U.S. or British governments and not the Zionists. No.. Memory fades and double standards are, after all, a universal human failing. So it is just a matter of time before it happens all over again. Not in some far away place like the Balkans or Africa or the Far East, but once more right here in the West. Just as if the primary civilian disaster of World War II never happened.
* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion.html

The FOF Blog

It's good to hear that the people in the fofblog are at last considering the possibility of doing something besides talking about the Fellowship to make it accountable for its crimes. 

It takes time for the time to come but it's never too late. 

An office to counsel people would be good. Anything that helps, helps.

40. Nick Bishop - September 23, 2011

Ames.

I understand what you say about knowing your limits in relation to helping others.

However, much of what you say doesn’t make a lot of sense, and doesn’t even tally with your recent [helpful] actions. For example :

“Saving people from themselves and their foolish mistakes is not my mission. Saving people from understanding that their decisions have consequences, sometimes irreversible, is not my mission.”

Quite clearly that IS your mission. A few weeks ago you wrote an impassioned plea to ‘Meetup’ members of the faux-Eckhart Tolle group not to swallow the Fellowship bait they were being offered. Judging by the number of replies you say you received, you helped save 5 people from both making a foolish mistake, and suffering the potential consequences of their further involvement in that group. They were being ‘groomed’ psychologically, and you helped stop the process taking root. If that isn’t saving people from their foolish mistakes, I don’t know what is.

“Spending thousands of dollars which I can ill afford on office space and consultants to ‘help’ people who may or may not come along is to me a ridiculous proposition, so I won’t bite on that one, thanks.”

Why see yourself as the main ‘investor’ in all of this? I don’t think I suggested that you should be Santa Claus. $5 per month from 200 good souls on the GF would give a workable financial base. Office space is an option not a necessity, the operation could be run from an office at home. If 10 volunteers contributed 3 or 4 hours of their time per week, then you have a full working week. The point is, the idea would easily be workable on a shared charitable/volunteer basis, without huge expenditure.

I’ve no doubt that he benefits of even a one-hour interview with someone with your weight of experience in the Fellowship would be invaluable for say, a current member contemplating leaving. Face-to-face contact means far more than words on a page.

However, organised support implies a greater note of seriousness and sense of responsibility to those who now fill the shoes we once occupied. For whatever reason – and I don’t feel you’ve yet given the real reason – you don’t seem to want take that step despite your commitment to the Blog’s virtual world. That is your choice.

44. Ames Gilbert - September 23, 2011

Nick Bishop (#113-39 or thereabouts),
you got me, I’m such a fraud.
I thought a two-for-one wouldn’t stretch me too far. In the process of warning people about Burton’s sexual predation and psychological abuse, I thought I would throw in, gratis, my viewpoints that the spiritual part is bullshit and that seekers are likely to loose a lot of time and money as well.
Let me make it clear. I couldn’t give a damn if people want to float around the place with their noses in the air, thinking that they are the chosen; circumstances will usually reveal their self-deception in due course. I don’t give a damn that Burton exchanges large sums of money in return for folks feeling they are special or saved. I don’t care much that he got eighteen–hour days out of me and others for $90 a month plus food, with board the floor of the Lodge. I don’t care much that some people get a special thrill out of being a big fish in a small pond, and are disillusioned or hurt when their true worth is revealed. I especially don’t care if some people believe in some prediction and place heavy bets on it coming true, using this ‘inside information’ for their material gain––and then pouting when it doesn’t pan out.
If it was just the bullshit or the fleecing, I wouldn’t bother, even though I’m sorry that people lost money or didn’t save enough for retirement (both true for me). I mean, if every life lesson ended in restitution or status ante quo, then they wouldn’t be lessons, would they? But Burton’s abuse actually motivates me to act and warn seekers. It takes about the same amount of effort, so why not throw in the other warnings as well?

You are right, a few dollars a month from a large group would provide decent money (although I would think, or at least hope, that the GF audience would be a harder sell than most). You said (#113-17 or thereabouts), “Simply leasing an office space, with a few part-time counsellors, or researchers willing to use some of their time to interview members/ex-members and accumulate first-hand testimonies and contact appropriate authorities and media outlets.” When I said that IMO this was a poor return on investment (ROI), I meant that I don’t understand what value the product (interviews, first-hand testimonies) would have in terms of my goals. If there have been crimes committed that are actionable, why have the middleman? The legal route is clear; if you have knowledge of a crime, you must report that crime and let the law take its course (unless you are the lawyer for an exceptionalist organization like the Fellowship of Friends). Anything else is a collection of sob stories of one degree or another; is all this effort you propose worth that? IMHO, that is a poor ROI.

I’ve spoken to people face-to-face before, and I’m willing to do so when mutually convenient. Just in case, here is my e-mail again: nancyames (at) spiralemail (dot) com. I post here under my real name, and I’m in the Grass Valley, CA phonebook.

Back to simple things I can understand, like packaging my flower bulbs for customers.

Why do you take without a dialogue?

I'd be interested in knowing why you are taking from here without allowing for a dialogue? Do you not find that  somewhat questionable?

Desire

I'm interested in the subject of desire, guessing that it is from desire that karma is fed. If there's anything surprising about desire in the Fellowship cult, it is that Robert Burton designed and redesigned the lives of everyone in it simply to place them in the right place that would guarantee the fulfillment of his desire for sex with young men. The whole "gold alchemy" of the fellowship cult is a homosexual language meant to entice the young men into its feminine content and justify with its beauty the legitimacy of the "play". The fact that each and every member played into Robert's desire is what should be seriously studied to understand our misgivings more fully. The "father" "authority" figure that each projected on Robert made everything possible: even the deaths and suicides of those who got left behind in the enterprise.

Desire (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In philosophy, desire has been identified as a philosophical problem since Antiquity. In Plato's The Republic, Socrates argues that individual desires must be postponed in the name of the higher ideal.

Within the teachings of Buddhism, craving is thought to be the cause of all suffering. By eliminating craving, a person can attain ultimate happiness, or Nirvana. While on the path to liberation, a practitioner is advised to "generate desire" for skillful ends.^[1][2]

Contents  [hide] 1 History 1.1 Ancient Greece 1.2 Western philosophers 1.3 Eastern philosophies 1.4 Psychoanalysis 2 See also 3 References 4 Further reading

[edit]History

[edit]Ancient Greece

In Aristotle's De Anima the soul is seen to be involved in motion, because animals desire things and in their desire, they acquire locomotion. Aristotle argued that desire is implicated in animal interactions and the propensity of animals to motion. But Aristotle acknowledges that desire cannot account for all purposive movement towards a goal. He brackets the problem by positing that perhaps reason, in conjunction with desire and by way of the imagination, makes it possible for one to apprehend an object of desire, to see it as desirable. In this way reason and desire work together to determine what is a "good" object of desire. This resonates with desire in the chariots of Plato's Phaedrus, for in the Phaedrus the soul is guided by two horses, a dark horse of passion and a white horse of reason. Here passion and reason, as in Aristotle, are also together. Socrates does not suggest the dark horse be done away with, since its passions make possible a movement towards the objects of desire, but he qualifies desire and places it in a relation to reason so that the object of desire can be discerned correctly, so that we may have the right desire. Aristotle distinguishes desire into appetition and volition.^[3]

[edit]Western philosophers

In Passions of the Soul, Descartes writes of the passion of desire as an agitation of the soul that projects desire, for what it represents as agreeable, into the future. Desire in Kant can represent things that are absent and not only objects at hand. Desire is also the preservation of objects already present, as well as the desire that certain effects not appear, that what affects one adversely be curtailed and prevented in the future. Moral and temporal values attach to desire in that objects which enhance one's future are considered more desirable than those that do not, and it introduces the possibility, or even necessity, of postponing desire in anticipation of some future event, anticipating Freud's text Beyond the Pleasure Principle. See also, the pleasure principle in psychology.

In A Treatise on Human Nature, Hume suggests that reason is subject to passion. Motion is put into effect by desire, passions, and inclinations. It is desire, along with belief, that motivates action. Kant establishes a relation between the beautiful and pleasure in Critique of Judgment. He says "I can say of every representation that it is at least possible (as a cognition) it should be bound up with a pleasure. Of representation that I call pleasant I say that it actually excites pleasure in me. But the beautiful we think as having a necessary reference to satisfaction." Desire is found in the representation of the object.

Hegel begins his exposition of desire in Phenomenology of Spirit with the assertion that "self-consciousness is desire." It is in the restless movement of the negative that desire removes the antithesis between itself and its object, "...and the object of immediate desire is a living thing...", and object that forever remains an independent existence, something other. Hegel's inflection of desire via stoicism becomes important in understanding desire as it appears in de Sade. Stoicism in this view has a negative attitude towards "...otherness, to desire, and work."

Reading Blanchot in this regard, in his essay Sade's Reason, the libertine is one, of a type that sometimes intersects with a Sadean man, who finds in stoicism, solitude, and apathy the proper conditions. Blanchot writes, "...the libertine is thoughtful, self-contained, incapable of being moved by just anything." Apathy in de Sade is opposition not to desire but to its spontaneity. Blanchot writes that in Sade, "for passion to become energy, it is necessary that it be constricted, that it be mediated by passing through a necessary moment of insensibility, then it will be the greatest passion possible." Here is stoicism, as a form of discipline, through which the passions pass. Blanchot says, "Apathy is the spirit of negation, applied to the man who has chosen to be sovereign." Dispersed, uncontrolled passion does not augment one's creative force but diminishes it.

[edit]Eastern philosophies

Within the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism), craving is thought to be the cause of all suffering that one experiences in human existence. The extinction of this craving leads one to ultimate happiness, or Nirvana. Nirvana means "cessation", "extinction" (of suffering) or "extinguished", "quieted", "calmed";^[4] it is also known as "Awakening" or "Enlightenment" in the West. The Four Noble Truths were the first teaching of Gautama Buddha after attaining Nirvana. They state that suffering is an inevitable part of life as we know it. The cause of this suffering is attachment to, or craving for worldly pleasures of all kinds and clinging to this very existence, our "self" and the things or people we—due to our delusions—deem the cause of our respective happiness or unhappiness. The suffering ends when the craving and desire ends, or one is freed from all desires by eliminating the delusions, reaches "Enlightenment".

While greed and lust are always unskillful, desire is ethically variable—it can be skillful, unskillful, or neutral.^[5] In the Buddhist perspective, the enemy to be defeated is craving rather than desire in general.^[5]

[edit]Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan's désir follows Freud's concept of Wunsch and it is central to Lacanian theories. For the aim of the talking cure—psychoanalysis—is precisely to lead the analysand to uncover the truth about their desire, but this is only possible if that desire is articulated, or spoken.^[6] Lacan said that "it is only once it is formulated, named in the presence of the other, that desire appears in the full sense of the term."^[7] "That the subject should come to recognize and to name his/her desire, that is the efficacious action of analysis. But it is not a question of recognizing something which would be entirely given. In naming it, the subject creates, brings forth, a new presence in the world."^[8] "[W]hat is important is to teach the subject to name, to articulate, to bring desire into existence." Now, although the truth about desire is somehow present in discourse, discourse can never articulate the whole truth about desire: whenever discourse attempts to articulate desire, there is always a leftover, a surplus.^[6]

In The Signification of the Phallus Lacan distinguishes desire from need and demand. Need is a biological instinct that is articulated in demand, yet demand has a double function, on one hand it articulates need and on the other acts as a demand for love. So, even after the need articulated in demand is satisfied, the demand for love remains unsatisfied and this leftover is desire.^[9] For Lacan "desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the first from the second" (article cited). Desire then is the surplus produced by the articulation of need in demand. Lacan adds that "desire begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated from need." Hence desire can never be satisfied, or as Slavoj Žižek puts it "desire's raison d'être is not to realize its goal, to find full satisfaction, but to reproduce itself as desire."

It is also important to distinguish between desire and the drives. Even though they both belong to the field of the Other (as opposed to love), desire is one, whereas the drives are many. The drives are the partial manifestations of a single force called desire (see "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis"). If one can surmise that objet petit a is the object of desire, it is not the object towards which desire tends, but the cause of desire. For desire is not a relation to an object but a relation to a lack (manque). Then desire appears as a social construct since it is always constituted in a dialectical relationship.

[edit]See also

• Desire (emotion)

[edit]References

1. ^ Steven Collins, Selfless Persons: Thought and Imagery in Theravada Buddhism." Cambridge University Press, 1982, page 251: "In the end, the flowing streams of sense-desire must be 'cut' or 'crossed' completely; nevertheless, for the duration of the Path, a monk must perforce work with motivational and perceptual processes as they ordinarily are, that is to say, based on desire ... Thus, during mental training, the stream is not to be 'cut' immediately, but guided, like water along viaducts. The meditative steadying of the mind by counting in- and out-breaths (in the mindfulness of breathing) is compared to the steadying of a boat in 'a fierce current' by its rudder. The disturbance of the flow of a mountain stream by irrigation channels cut into its sides it used to illustrate the weakening of insight by the five 'hindrances'."
2. ^ Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "The Wings to Awakening," [1]. See specifically this section.
3. ^ e.g. Rhetoric 1370a18-27, trans. W. Rhys Roberts
4. ^ spokensanskrit dictionary with निर्वन as input
5. ^ ^a b David Burton, "Buddhism, Knowledge and Liberation: A Philosophical Study." Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, page 22.
6. ^ ^a b Fink, Bruce, The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance (Princeton University Press, 1996), ISBN 9780691015897
7. ^ Lacan, J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book I: Freud's Papers on Technique 1953-1954 "...what is important is to teach the subject to name, to articulate, to bring desire into existence" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), ISBN 9780393306972
8. ^ Lacan, J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book II: The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955 (W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), ISBN 9780393307092
9. ^ Lacan, J., 'The Signification of the Phallus' in Écrits

[edit]Further reading

• Middendorf Ulrike, Resexualizing the desexualized. The language of desire and erotic love in the classic of odes, Fabrizio Serra Editore.
• Nicolosi M. Grazia, Mixing memories and desire. Postmodern erotics of writing in the speculative fiction of Angela Carter, CUECM.

From the FOF Blog

Page 112

You didn't have it in the fofblog either, that is, compassion. You banned what opened your eyes about your reality. You are only learning about it as you dare to communicate with each other, tell and retell what you could not bare to hear when I participated. How long will you take to act against harm as healthy people should do? Are you going to talk about it for ever without moving a finger to change it? How many more suicides do you need to look at to move your selves out of your passiveness? Being passive before crime, and crime is what happens in the Fellowship cult, is both denial and complicity. 

70. Just the Facts Ma'am - September 13, 2011

My comments in bold below.
Time to name names:

6. Bares Reposting – September 8, 2011
111/184. Shirley – September 7, 2011
‘. . .We didn’t have much compassion in the FF. Kindness, yes, but I don’t think there was true compassion.’

Here is limited example of the kindness and compassion of the Fellowship of Friends (FoF), Pathway to Presence, Living Presence, BeingPresent.org, Church of Robert Earl Burton:

FoF Blog Page 5/#15:
‘No accounts Says:
March 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am:

My friend Be, who was 76 and had been in the school for over thirty years, was asked not to go to dinners because she ate one too many biscuits at a tea.
Gl*r** C.

My friend Hold, who is half blind, was asked to take a leave of absence because he closed his eyes at a meeting.
St*v*n M.

My friend Pray, was hit by her husband various times and told nothing would happen to him because he belonged to the Teacher’s inner circle.
Ann* T., Sh*ll*y M., plus untold number of others.

My friend Back, was told to take a leave absence because it was feminine dominance to ask for help for an 87 year old woman with alzheimer.
Cl*r* El*n* H*v*n, caring for D*r*thy B.

My friend Act, gave up dancing after 15 years because she never fitted the “form” of the school.
Not sure, but could make a good educated guess.

My friend Leave, left because he was never able to share his gracious Art within the form of the teaching.
J*s*ph M.?, plus untold number of others.

My friend Kneel, had to play the part of being the teacher’s stable mate so that it all looked more legitimate. Not a word ever came out of his mouth.
Stablemates aplenty.

My friend Drop, served for years in any octave and was then dropped.
J*n*th*n P., plus untold number of others.

My friend Use, was used for years in any octave and then dropped.
G*rd* A., plus untold number of others.

My friend wit, was told not to speak.
G*rd* A. (blind servant to Teacher who spoke out of turn), plus untold number of others.

My friend Look, was told not to speak.
J*hn B**gn*n, plus untold number of others.

My friend Move, was told not to move.
Not sure, but could make a good educated guess.

My friend Taste, was told not to taste.
See ‘Be’ above, plus untold number of others.

My friend Hear, could not hear for no one talked.
Abr*h*m G., plus untold number of others.

My friend Think, could not think because consciousness is not functions.
G*r*rd H*v*n, plus untold number of others.

My very best friend Read, was prompted to leave her husband because he never lay with the Teacher.
Not sure, but could make a good educated guess.

My friend write, was forbidden to write.
Not sure, but could make a good educated guess.

My friend Child, shot herself and survived.
H**th*r N.

My friend Serve, served all these.
Legions of third line volunteers.

My friend Scale, brought Scale and Relativity to it all.
Scale the walls and get out before it’s too late.

My friend Aim, said: The shot turned around against them and killed them all.
Not sure on this one, but: ‘Remember, when you point a finger, three fingers are pointing back at you.’
Page 112/#43. WhaleRider – September 9, 2011

My friend Time, gave up her child and was still unable to find compassion for herself after twenty years.
G**n*v*re M., plus untold number of others.

My friend God, turned his back.’
Robert Earl Burton could care less.

This is only a partial list. Others welcome to contribute.

* * * * * *

By the way, here is the list of:
The Thirty Imperishable Work ‘I’s
1. Be (Be Present)
2. Hold (Hold the sequence with Presence)
3. Pray (Choose the theme of the sequence; i.e. Look, Hear, etc.)
4. Back (Watch the lower self)
5. Turn (Return to the theme of the sequence; i.e. Look, Hear, etc.)
6. Long BE (Prolonged Presence)
7. Act (Engage Presence)
8. Peace [Pax] (Avoid the entire spectrum of negative emotions)
9. Leave (Avoid identification)
10. Kneel (Do not resent friction)
11. Drop (Do not judge or keep accounts)
12. Use (Use voluntary suffering)
13. Wit (Avoid wit)
14. Now (Think neither of the past nor of the future)
15. Look (Look with Presence)
16. Move (Move with Presence)
17. Taste (Taste with Presence)
18. Hear (Listen with Presence)
19. Feel (Feel with Presence)
20. Smell (Smell with Presence)
21. Talk (Speak with Presence)
22. Think (Think with Presence)
23. Read (Read with Presence)
24. Write (Write with Presence)
25. Child (Remain in essence; avoid false personality revolving around chief feature)
26. Serve (Do not inner consider, externally consider)
27. Scale (Use scale and relativity)
28. Aim (Keep aim and complete octaves; be aware of third forces)
29. Time (Remember the brevity of life)
30. Gods (Remember the gods)

I hope all that read here, read in Presence about the crimes committed by themselves, their fellows and the organization they have supported.

So many ways that things can go wrong; so few ways things can go right.