S.P. Quote

Once I’d survived coming over to Ireland, (everything worked out fine, the plane wasn’t struck by lightening, etc.), I hit the realisation, eventually, that this level of faith was not enough, actually. What I saw during some epiphany or other was the act of faith as existence, meaning the only thing that it was necessary for me to do actually, was declare it such, it is. That in itself made it veritable, the union. This was logical due to simple fact that the only place this thing has any sort of constitution or cohesion is in the perspective that exists in my own head. I’m the one who senses how many of you there are, knows when you show up, conceived the open entry, defined it to save its soul, I’m the only one who can see its existence as some sort of whole, and was raised in supply with a religious foundation to boot. Therefore it remains that I must exist in the faith of its existence, I must declare it is. That’s my responsibility. And in lieu of that, you’d have to wonder whether it was relevant to verify the injunction at all. If the assumption of faith is its existence then running to an injunction is perhaps the last thing you should be doing. Establishing its existence through a declaration of faith means you should neither seek to prove, nor disprove it. I’ve been through the argument that I wasn’t supposed to tell many times.

I realised that faith had to lie in the principle of sanctification. It has to lie in believing that the body entire can come through it, and survive wholly intact, in fact arrive in terms of my definition. It’s like this: As I graduate in terms of faith or sufficiency, where that faith must lie is not actually in the original injunction, but in the redemptive process itself. If it is not on par, if it does not work for me, then how is it going to work for everyone else? I have to accept the prospect that there is nothing for me in order to have the sufficiency to believe in the principle of sanctification; the circumstance that you may not recognise me forces me to be totally reliant on the sanctification principle.

Based on the argument that you might not even know what you’re involved in at all, in terms of how it’s affected my life, then for me to put my faith in the belief of a mutual injunction may well be putting my faith into something non-existent. It can be argued that my father’s position is not real, that in relation to me, you’re not real, (you weren’t serious about any of it; it was just artistic expression). What it really comes down to, what really matters to me, is the process in itself that was spawned by these circumstances. So it is logical for me to found my faith in that principle. It is required, in fact, for the sanctification process to be valid, as I have thus recorded it, that my faith in that process must be absolute, in the manner my faith was refined by circumstance. Otherwise there is no way it can be valid for the recovery of souls.

It was in the face of this discovery that you became my last gauntlet, the last thing I have to survive. The hardest thing for me to accept, you see, is the prospect that there is nothing for me, that this has no beginning outside of myself and thereby isn’t real. But it may be that it is my own perceptual existence, in itself, that verifies it’s real to begin with. I have acted in terms of its being real, in me it is real. Having put it through redemption, and having had elements of the body respond to this as I’d projected, means that even whether the beginning was in response to false environmental conditions (i.e. setting and conditioning, or a simulation; in your case, exploiting religious arch-types for crowd empathy), the fact that I reacted in terms of its being valid makes it real via redemption. Because then what you’ve come through is someone’s perception of his or her own reception of grace via the unconscious. And that happened with no environmental inducements whatsoever. It happened without anyone’s direct involvement, with an open-ended construct. It happened between perceptual beings who were thousands of miles apart, and yet both perceived the construct, or the process, as one and the same, with no pre-conceptions of mutual beliefs or origins. They’ve never even met before. One was its progenitor, and one was its recipient. For the process to be established as veritable there only needed to be one recipient.

Just as only one individual needed to know I’d walked away from the union completely. And what that does, is verify that the thing really was suspended at its origins, therefore it really did come back via resurrection of my perception. Hence it is provable, that my perceptual awareness and belief of this union was dead at the time that the conversion occurred, I wasn’t feeding it. It’s not even a subconscious synthesis. They really did perceive it for themselves. Furthermore, it demonstrates that my awareness was restored via a removed predestined source. In other words God worked Their way into the picture for once more.

Aside from that little corker, it can safely be concluded that since we’re dealing with the transmission of a process between completely separate persons, and yet this process was perceived as one and the same, we can veritably establish was achieved outside of environmental inducements. That there was transmission of an active process from its progenitor, to a recipient, without any pre-conceived identity or links, and yet despite the process had the same definition in both participants establishes that the definition exists beyond any human inducements or conceptions. Neither of us made this up on either side of the equation, yet it was common and real for both. Essentially we achieved common perception beyond our respective perceptions, beyond human perception itself. Which means Truth exists absolutely somewhere, beyond the eye of the beholder, doesn’t it? How can the same perception transmit beyond either party’s perception? And if it does, doesn’t that veritably establish it’s real, above and beyond any form of communication? And if you can pull that off without communicating, doesn’t that establish its reality beyond how events were construed? I mean if you achieve transmission of an active belief, beyond all perceived modes of transmission, that means all the accoutrements of perception did not transmit; no one was assuming, or being affected, by anyone’s point of view. The awareness transmitted beyond perception; hence it was purely awareness. Hence there is no way to argue that the awareness was humanly induced. Hence there is no way to argue that it was assumed. Hence there is no way to argue it was false. Which means there is no necessity, actually, to verify the nature of its origins, is there?

Now that the body has acknowledged itself (say by calling back my name) beyond the modes of human conception, and the dynamics within it have proven to be transformative, it is demonstrable that the contributing conceptual elements have repository in the body as a collective, and that the body is God-given. When I stepped off the brink, what I really was doing was taking the step of defining this as a self-determining body, beyond myself. The people who were born again, or converted, were people I’d already recognised as potentially part of the body, who considered themselves beyond grace. The fact that they underwent transformation in the absence of my involvement (I was ‘dead’) means it was their free will choice. This means that the body is capable of defining itself. They defined their own restoration. This means the body is capable of seeking and attaining personal definition, a unified constitution. It also means they are active in defining it. The fact that it is capable of this potential means I can, on principle, embrace it as a collective. What has come through the process of sanctification, and what destiny has wrought, is a marriage in terms of a collective body. What I believe in applies to the whole. You see now that I have defined the body, the body in itself is the result, so whether or not father’s right, whether or not you know, or even whether the resurrection dude knows, is actually redundant. And you know what, that was my motivation for the whole disassociation trick to begin with, was to put it in a place where none of you could destroy it with your individual perceptions. And the ramifications are writ large. (See Anecdote on disk.)

It verifies that on my part, how I reacted and applied the universal union was real. I could not assert its veracity based on my own aspirations and intent, nor on the assumption it was mutual with someone I had never even met. It is a risk that could not be taken. But now that my own awareness and belief was retained in someone else, via sanctification, in accordance to my own perceptual awareness, I know that it is veritable, at least beyond any human argument. I can demonstrate, also, how my restoration was only possible through Divine ordinance. This means that I do not need to inquire whether or not there was indeed a Divine injunction that spawned it originally. I don't need to ask you. I only need to apply the injunction as I see it; I'm free to institute it according to my original intent. I apply the marriage to the collective. Thereby the entire collective is free from my father's dictatorship and condemnation, escaping damnation.

By the principle of sanctification, and the restoration of my awareness, I know that I am already carrying the injunction with me. It is mine to define now, because I sanctified it. I’ve been trying to hit this space for years.