![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheSexually inviolate. I put that term in my introduction, but never returned to it specifically. I didn't deconstruct my own symbolism. What does it essentially mean to be sexually inviolate? It means that one's level of violence done unto one by another, is determined by a second or third person--*never oneself*.
It is a fundamental right to claim when one's own person has been harmed in some way. It is a fundamental right to cite when violence has been done unto one's self, whether that self be the physical, mental, spiritual/psychical, or syncretic.
What, then, is the essence of self-defense, in my paradigm. When is one justified in attacking back (especially to the point of death)? In our legal system, it is the *level of _perceived_ threat*. Who determines this level? The would-be victim. Who validates this system? The government. Who defines this system? Not us--but instead our representatives.
There is never, in a meta-level perspective of defense, no psychically acceptable level of "self-defense." Self-defense is, in this manner, simply a means of pre-emptive strike. Kill, lest ye be killed. This is *still* the essence of the Old Testament.
We are in a newer age than the days of Moses, of Isaac and Israel. Jesus, the Christ, showed us how to follow him, become Christ in spirit and live on earth as though it literally is heaven. Yet, instead of following the path he pointed out, for millenia we have--rather obscenely--sucked Jesus's finger, seeking nourishment and comfort.
The mere memory of Jesus's existence, acts, and words will not provide such ambrosia, such milk and honey. Only living within the Holy Spirit can inspire that level of living.
Now. The difference between me and most Protestants is that I've redefined what ambrosia is, what the Holy Spirit is, what Jesus's message represents, and what constitutes living on earth. Living *in* the world, yet not *of* it (or only of it). I believe in using psychoactive sacraments in order to commune with the Divine Light.
The above paragraph, nearly by definition, sounds incredibly New Age-y. This is why I term myself "New Age". I realize that what I say may sound ridiculously idealistic and rather crazy; it may sound like I'm proposing heresy and desire to form a cult. In some people's perspectives, I guess I reflect that reality. But in MY reality, everything is as it is, and if I get enough time to explain myself, maybe it won't seem so much that my vision is mistaken or blasphemous.
It is a fundamental right to claim when one's own person has been harmed in some way. It is a fundamental right to cite when violence has been done unto one's self, whether that self be the physical, mental, spiritual/psychical, or syncretic.
What, then, is the essence of self-defense, in my paradigm. When is one justified in attacking back (especially to the point of death)? In our legal system, it is the *level of _perceived_ threat*. Who determines this level? The would-be victim. Who validates this system? The government. Who defines this system? Not us--but instead our representatives.
There is never, in a meta-level perspective of defense, no psychically acceptable level of "self-defense." Self-defense is, in this manner, simply a means of pre-emptive strike. Kill, lest ye be killed. This is *still* the essence of the Old Testament.
We are in a newer age than the days of Moses, of Isaac and Israel. Jesus, the Christ, showed us how to follow him, become Christ in spirit and live on earth as though it literally is heaven. Yet, instead of following the path he pointed out, for millenia we have--rather obscenely--sucked Jesus's finger, seeking nourishment and comfort.
The mere memory of Jesus's existence, acts, and words will not provide such ambrosia, such milk and honey. Only living within the Holy Spirit can inspire that level of living.
Now. The difference between me and most Protestants is that I've redefined what ambrosia is, what the Holy Spirit is, what Jesus's message represents, and what constitutes living on earth. Living *in* the world, yet not *of* it (or only of it). I believe in using psychoactive sacraments in order to commune with the Divine Light.
The above paragraph, nearly by definition, sounds incredibly New Age-y. This is why I term myself "New Age". I realize that what I say may sound ridiculously idealistic and rather crazy; it may sound like I'm proposing heresy and desire to form a cult. In some people's perspectives, I guess I reflect that reality. But in MY reality, everything is as it is, and if I get enough time to explain myself, maybe it won't seem so much that my vision is mistaken or blasphemous.