True Meanings of Words – Intentions Part 1

Authors: Sławomir Majda, Małgorzata Krata. The identical recurring fragment, forming the core of the idea, is as follows:“our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact”.

Organized freeing oneself from burdens – links to texts, information about recordings, working with intentions, the bow technique >Link.

Technical issues concerning the idea and the construction of sentences when working with intentions.
Art. “800 intentions for cleansing” Link.“One-sentence scheme for intentions.”Link.
Film “The bow after performing intentions” Link.

The word “–not” added to some word while working with intentions means that it is worth expressing it also in its opposite, or even finding and saying aloud any synonyms that come to mind together with their opposites. For example — when saying: being poor, being sick, it is good to say it also with its opposite:–being poor, being sick, –not being poor, not being sick. This allows you to move a given pattern as broadly as possible, touching different aspects, including its opposite. It is also worth knowing that Souls often think or claim that they do not have such opposite patterns — for example, that they are not idolaters in a given case (in a given word). Another example: A woman’s Soul denies ever being a bad mother. Therefore, adding here the negating form — not being a bad mother — may allow her to understand the state she is in. Being a bad mother, –not being a bad mother–“—Oh, absolutely not, never in my life! These are certainly not my patterns. What I do is my private matter.” [—The Soul very often says or thinks this about itself.]

1. our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, trust, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from God Himself, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

2. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all genders of humans, Souls, beings, entities, constructs, animals, plants, extraterrestrials and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

3. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, all kinds, meanings, species, genders and forms of existence of, among others, active and inactive deities, goddesses, divine mothers, divine fathers, divine sons, divine daughters, divine families, Goa’ulds, associates of God, gods, demigods, Asuras, Saints, gurus, masters, teachers, Messiahs, angels, including astral among others Archangels, cherubim, seraphim, astrals, rulers, administrators, owners and creators of astral worlds and soul trees, prophets, and environments acting independently or through intermediaries and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

4. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, physical and astral snakes, worms, predators, viruses, pests, fungi, mold, insects, microorganisms, bacteria, microorganisms and macroorganisms, reptiles, parasites, symbionts, inhabitants of our and others’ energetics, as well as from, among others, all spirits, demons, strzygas, possessing entities, mythical creatures, mythical beings and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

5. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, our and others’ all kinds of miracle workers, healers, folk healers, bioenergy therapists, doctors of body and Soul, of miraculous divine healings, from owners, administrators, fanatics and structures of various initiatory practices, among others religious, parareligious and such as Reiki, from witches, magicians, shamans, visionaries, oracles, from signs in heaven and on earth, from sorceresses, sorcerers, from magic, from elements, yogis, tantrics, and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

6. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, all those establishing criteria of purity, guilt, merit and readiness, including the enlightened, those enlightening, whitening and correspondingly blackening themselves and others, among others humans, Souls, beings, parts of our and others’ Soul and being, from those striving for nirvana, for salvation, liberation, redemption, achieving them, from admirers and creators of all astral compressions, all heavens, hells, paradises, purgatories, astral worlds and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this,

7. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, all atheists, agnostics, heretics, followers of Baháʼí, tribal religions, polytheism, animism, totemism, Taoism, Shintō, Sikhism, Jainism, ahimsa, Ayyavazhi, followers of Wicca, followers of Buddhism, druidism, voodoo, Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Chan, Zen, Sŏn, Amidism, Pure Land School, Tendai, Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism, Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Jonang, Gelug, Bon and not only, as well as from their priests, creators, followers, promoters and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

8. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, Jesus, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, All Saints, the Our Father, the Holy Spirit, as well as, among others, followers, creators, priests and administrators of all Christian sects, among others Old Catholicism, the Utrecht Churches, national churches, Mariavitism, Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism, Greek Catholicism, the Roman Catholic Church, sedevacantism, conclavism, Palmarianism, Lefebvrists, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, from Byzantine churches, Orthodox churches, Old Believers, Popovtsy, Bezpopovtsy, Skoptsy, Old Calendarists, Oriental churches, Copts, Syriacs, Assyrian churches, Adventists, Millerism, Anabaptism, followers of Arianism, Baptism, Moravian Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, Hussitism, Calvinism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Quakers, Lutheranism, Mennonitism, Methodism, Pentecostalism, Salvationism, Unitarianism, Waldensians, Amish, Restorationism, the Bábí movement, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Association of Free Bible Students, Holy Missionary Movements, followers of Unitarianism, Mormons, Churches of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Community of Christ, Afro-Christianity such as Aladura, Harrism, Kimbanguism, Lumba and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

9. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, followers, creators, priests and administrators of, among others, cosmologies, ascetic practices, concepts of purity and defilement, enslavement, including, among others, Jainism, Digambaras, Sthanakavasis, Śvetāmbaras, Gnostics, followers of Manichaeism, Mandaeism, from all branches and sects, among others, Vaishnavism, Krishnaism, Shaivism, Lingayats, Shaktism, Mazdaism, Persian religions, Mazdakism, Mithraism and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

10. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from followers, creators, priests and administrators of the world of Islam, among others Alawites, Alevis, Kharijites, Sunnis, Shiites, Imamis, Ismailis, Zaydis, followers of Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Black Islam, Moors, the Nation of Islam, Druzism, Ahl-e-Haqq, Zikris, scripturalism, Quranism, Yazidism and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

11. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, promoters, creators, priests and followers of all sects and factions of Judaism, among others Falashas called Black Jews, Messianic Judaism including Hasidic, Conservative, Orthodox, Progressive, Reconstructionist Judaism, Karaimism, Mosaicism, Samaritanism and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

12. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, creators, organizers, administrators and followers of so-called new religious, spiritual and parareligious movements, charismatic such as, among others, Bábism, Baháʼí, Cheondoism, Cao Dai, Shakers, Cargo Cults, Falun Gong, Modekngei, New Age, Realism, Rastafari, Scientology, Quan Yin Method, Wicca, “I Am,” Asatru, Hellenism, Slavic Native Faith, International Intelligent Yoga, Transcendental Meditation, Divine Light Mission, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Neo-Sannyas (Osho), Radha Soami, Sathya Sai Baba, Swaminarayan Faith, Harrism, Confucianism, Santería, Sikhism, Shinto, Taoism, Zoroastrianism and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

13. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from promoters, creators, priests, administrators and followers of all, among others, beliefs, religions, sects and factions, as well as inhabitants of supercontinents, continents and prehistoric, primal and mythical lands such as, among others, Pangaea, Gondwana, Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Gobi, native religions of Africa, Australia, Oceania, Asia, Europe, the Americas and other places on Earth and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

14. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, all kinds of tyrants, despots, sociopaths, executioners, terrorists, blackmailers, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, accusers, masters, rulers, superiors, supervisors, employers, co-workers, clients, payers, manipulators, hypnotists, kings, princes, courts, advisors, messengers, notaries, secretaries, structures of state, religious and administrative authority, as well as from all creators and promoters of various destructive inventions and practices, including such as implanted substances, viruses, parasites, bio-robots, artifacts, as well as games and plays such as Jumanji, the Infinity Stones, the Rings of Power, Game of Thrones and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

15. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds of civilizations, among others carbon-based, silicon-based, crystalline, energetic, material, as well as, among others, all planets, constellations, cosmos, stars, moons, comets, asteroids, galaxies, cosmic dust, black holes, suns, celestial bodies, from their movements, positions, influences, among others gravitational, energetic, radioactive and symbolic, as well as all, among others, their owners, administrators, creators, tenants, users and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

16. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds, sizes and meanings of our and others’, among others, amulets, talismans, garments, artifacts, gadgets, objects and instruments, plasma, musical, magical and non-magical, from rings, seals, wands, elixirs, herbs, smokes, incenses, songs, mantras, sacred texts, plants, animals, divination methods, rituals, superstitions, from Holy Communion, from offerings made to someone or something, devotional items, images, figures, sculptures, paintings, states of intoxication, sacraments, drugs, sweets, addictions, alcohols, spiritual and physical ecstasies, shamanism, mysticism, all utopias, escape from reality or submission to promises of fulfillment, salvation, power or perfection and not only, as well as, among others, all kinds of their creators, promoters, owners, users, beneficiaries and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

17. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds, sizes and meanings of, among others, all forms and causes of enslavements, confinements, entanglements such as, among others, nets, ropes, chains, leashes, collars, cells, prisons, cages, hooks, stocks, restraints, pyramids, protomolecules, structures operating openly or covertly, temporarily or permanently, locally or systemically, their equivalents, substitutes and not only, as well as all, among others, their enthusiasts, creators, promoters, beneficiaries, victims, guards, witnesses and followers and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

18. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds and sizes of, among others, rituals, cults, nominations, anointments, permissions, guidelines, agreements, oaths, promises, contracts, orders, prohibitions, bonds, missions, vows, pacts, acts, arrangements, treaties, other forms of formal or symbolic binding of will, functioning through granting binding power to a given word, gesture or act, through sanctioning obedience and disobedience, regulating access, status and responsibility, reinforcing dependencies through promise, threat, reward or punishment, as well as normalizing subordination as law, duty, mission or destiny and not only, as well as all, among others, their creators, promoters, beneficiaries, priests, guards, victims, witnesses and followers and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

19. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from our own and others’, including licensed, among others, guards, verifiers, collectors, mediators, bailiffs, intermediaries, witnesses, creators, founders, security personnel, representatives of opposition, censors, promoters, beneficiaries, victims of our and others’ actions, intentions, manifestations and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

20. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, all kinds, sizes, meanings, genders, races, species of, among others, parents, caregivers, dependents, teachers, spouses, lovers, children, siblings, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, entire lineages, families, communities, social strata, grandfathers, grandmothers, relatives and non-relatives, from persons of the same or different gender, as well as from our and others’, among others, elements of physical and energetic structure, organs, tissues, cells, atoms, converters, systems and assemblies, biological, physical, chemical, energetic, clock-based, digital, their mechanisms of operation, feedback loops and boundary states, all programs controlling them at all levels, spaces, planes, elements and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

21. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, beliefs, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds, meanings, ranks, levels, genders of, among others, associations, brotherhoods, communities, communes, schools, unions, organizations, collective structures, including, among others, administrative, military, civil, secular, medical, financial, religious, messianic, spiritual, economic, public, political, criminal, intelligence, sexual, drug-related, alcoholic, state, global, cosmic, multidimensional, spacetime and not only, and not experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

22. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, weather, nature, elements, the time of day and night, the season, date, calendars, astrology, astronomy, numerology, meteorology, ambient temperature, pressure, frequencies, cycles, colors, sounds, rhythms, vibrations, humidity, the height of the Sun in the sky, from the factor of time and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

23. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, our and others’ codings, from thought-forms, blockages, burdens, patterns, points of view, ways of understanding, from entanglements, crosses and karmic knots, from karmic figures, relationships, schemes, from conspiracies of silence, from planetary cycles, from the wheel of karma, from the wheel of fortune, from flat and spatial geometric figures, from anomalies, from mirror reflections, from fate, chance, accumulation, from lotteries, statistics, feedback loops, from luck, bad luck, curses, spells, letters, words, signs, symbols, digits, numbers, alphabets, mandalas, tattoos, from confirmation effects, from repositories of burdens and patterns, from determinants, ornaments, chips, injuries, disabilities, diseases, from emptiness, vacuum, nothingness in the mind and life, as well as from their producers, promoters, victims, beneficiaries and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

24. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this through the normalization of the role of the human and the Soul as an object of worship, in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity, intentions and correspondingly their absence from, among others, our own and, through us, others’ all idolatrous figures, acts, intentions, designs, patterns, habits, as well as from those who pray to us as to gods, to deities, to beings not of this world, to masters, Saints, to the enlightened, to astral beings; as well as from those treating us, or others, as intermediaries to God, intermediaries to all deities, goddesses; as well as from those worshipping us, praising us, adoring us; as well as from those who pray for us to deities, goddesses, extraterrestrials in our name, in our matters, for our good, and correspondingly from those who curse us in prayers, cast curses and spells, who want to take revenge in all ways and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

25. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all, among others, varieties, associations, groups, circles, ideological, ritual and operational currents, among others demonic, satanic, Luciferian, war-related, military, magical, black-magical, tantric, black-tantric, white-astral, flame groups, the Left-Hand Path, as well as from, among others, battle shock, from pogroms, turmoil, from black suns, necromancers, beings of gloom, beings of darkness, forces of evil, demons, rulers of hells, guardian devils, Cainites, Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Kali, strzygas, beings and Souls that have fallen, horned, rebellious, deceitful, aggressive beings, filled with pride, egoism and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

26. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from all kinds, sizes, races, meanings and genders of conditions connected with sexuality, drive, role and behavior, including, among others, sex addicts, lesbians, gays, transvestites, rapists, sadomasochists, celibates, eunuchs, brothel madams, pimps, prostitutes, deviants, perverts, pedophiles, zoophiles, coprophiles, coprophages, incestuous persons, pansexuals, hormonal cycles, from inbreeding and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

27. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this because of, among others, our and others’ actions connected with the End of the World, in the period of 2012, with other Ends of the World, with the search for God and ultimate meaning, with Apocalypses, Armageddons, with the ends of civilizations, epochs, orders, with our and God’s actions in the area of the cosmic egg and during subsequent Aeons, with creating or blocking extraordinary actions, as well as through cyclical resetting of meanings, responsibility and identity in the face of an expected or postponing end, new beginning or rebirths and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

28. and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, and our own, and through us other people’s, from all causes and by all means, including being those who need clear meanings, understandable rules, consistency between words and actions, and the ability to recognize what is truth, falsehood, goodness, harm, responsibility, love, loyalty and betrayal, what the word God means, and what gods, goddesses and deities mean; respectively functioning best in a reality in which agreements have specific content, boundaries do not change depending on someone’s mood, and the same actions are judged according to the same criteria regardless of who performs them; respectively clashing with people who regard meanings, norms, rules and judgments as fluid, situational and dependent primarily on current needs, interests, emotions and the balance of power; respectively discovering that what remains a fact for us may be one of many versions for others, what we call a commitment may be treated by them as a temporary declaration, and what we regard as a lasting principle may apply only until the moment when it becomes inconvenient; respectively experiencing disorientation in relationships with people who at one time present a particular behavior as good and at another time as bad, depending on whether they themselves benefit from it or suffer its consequences; respectively observing that the same lie is condemned in an opponent and justified in someone close, the same betrayal called despicable when committed against us and a necessity when we are betrayed by a person protected by the system; respectively expecting rules to be symmetrical and reciprocal, while others regard them as tools applying mainly to people who are weaker, dependent or deprived of the ability to object; respectively discovering that truthfulness, loyalty, patience, forgiveness and responsibility are demanded from us, while those making these demands do not feel obliged to act according to the same standards; respectively clashing with relativism used not for honestly understanding the complexity of life and spoken words, but for avoiding the unambiguous naming of harm, guilt and responsibility; respectively hearing that “everyone has their own truth” when there are verifiable facts, that “both sides are to blame” when one side has used violence for a long time, or that “nothing is that simple” when complexity is meant only to obscure an obvious abuse; respectively experiencing helplessness toward those who do not respond to the substance of an accusation, but instead undermine the possibility of establishing any truth at all; respectively experiencing conversations in which every event can be explained in infinitely many ways and no interpretation leads to consequences, apologies, repairing the harm or changing behavior; respectively trying to establish a common point of reference with people who do not want to have one because fixed criteria would limit their ability to change their own version of events; respectively repeatedly returning to facts, dates, words, promises and consequences while the other person shifts attention toward intentions, emotions, alleged misunderstandings, other people’s imperfections or the elusive complexity of the situation; respectively expecting that explaining a contradiction will lead to its acknowledgment, while the person using relativization treats the contradiction as yet another version that can be defended; respectively losing energy proving that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same meaning when the other person is not striving for consistency, but for maintaining an advantage; respectively experiencing verbal agreements, promises and shared arrangements later being reinterpreted according to the other person’s current interests, thus hearing that something was never promised, that the words had a different meaning, that the context has changed or that understanding a statement literally demonstrates our rigidity; respectively remaining in a relationship in which no sense of security can be based on any message because its meaning may be changed after the fact and not only, all this in dependence and correspondingly in independence from, among others, the will, guidelines, opinions, actions, commands, resolutions, suggestions, inspirations, graces, generosity and correspondingly their absence from, among others, our Soul, our entire being and not only, as well as from being healthy or physically ill, energetically stable or unstable or mentally-psychically ill, curably ill, or chronically, or incurably ill, as well as from being disabled persons, persons with injuries, persons ailing, directly ill or having symptoms or karmic effects, inbred effects, among others, of various diseases, ailments, infirmities, from genetic, epigenetic, environmental burdens and not only, and experiencing that which is our own and, through us, caused in others, all effects of this

Opublikowano: 16/09/2026
Autor: Sławomir Majda
Kateogrie: Psychology – being yourself

Comments