Founder/CEO

Sunday, March 07, 2010


The Mathematics of Love

Love... What is it, where do many of our ideas about it come from, and how do we even know how to identify it “if” we cee it? The inspiration to write this is based upon various Articles/Notes I’ve read concerning the subject. While reading these Articles/Notes I immediately recognized that very little, if any, time was spent on discussing the Virtues of ‘Love’. Qualities such as ‘Caring’, ‘Loyalty’, ‘Consideration’, ‘Forgiveness’, etc… usually went “unmentioned in these” Articles/Notes (28/1-40), yet the Authors went on to talk about compatibility and employing certain methods to obtain what was never clearly defined in the first place; ‘Love’ and a relationship. One thing I’ve encountered and have ceen many people encounter is a definitive roadblock when it comes to ‘Love’ and relationships. Most of the time people assume that when they say ‘Love’, people define it the same way. This is a huge mistake, when it comes to a word that’s as broad and ambiguous as the word ‘Spiritual’. ‘Spiritual’ is used by Satanists and Pentecostals alike, as ‘Love’ is used to define Natural Childbirth and the Wedding Vows of Zoophiles. Today's Article, The Mathematics of Love, will provoke thought, generate meaningful dialogue, and expound upon the Concept of ‘Love’ and relationships. ENJOY!!!!!


What’s Love got to do with it?
I think that one of our biggest miscalculations, especially amongst Gods/Earths, is the usage and promotion of an Ideology called ‘Romanticism’. Historically speaking, the ‘Roman’ aspect of this word can be traced all the way back to the story and psychological backdrop of the Founding of Rome. This tale speaks of twin feral infants, Romulus & Remus, who were abandoned by their Parents, and raised/sucked by a she-wolf named Lupa in a cave. Romulus slew his Brother Remus and eventually founded the City of Rome. This also ties into the Lupercalia Celebration popularized as ‘Valentines Day’, and various other concepts that serve as the colorful pallet we’ve learned to paint our ideals of ‘Love’ and relationships with.

The Concept of Romance itself can be traced back to Europe’s Aristocratic Society, particularly during the Victorian Era. As a form of prose, Romance emphasized Man’s chivalrous, heroic, adventurous, super-human ability, etc.. used to win the favor of a Woman. Tales of Knights in shining armor winning the hand of a Female, monster slaying Warriors rescuing the Damsel in distress, and life/death adventures to save a Woman make up the underlining Themes of these Romantic ‘Stories’. Because of the cold, unemotional, gender oppressive conditions throughout Europe’s Patriarchal Society, Romance Novels became a very popular form of fairy-tale like entertainment for Women who were otherwise grossly insignificant to Men, unless of course they were satisfying his biological needs. A literary genre of ‘wishful thinking’, ‘emotionalism’, ‘sensualness/sexuality’ and ‘hedonism’ (especially in France)-, Romance gave Women an imaginative opportunity to live out their dreams of being ‘felt’, at least, as “an object” of Man’s undying ‘affection’. So the basis of Romance is sentimentality, emotions, feelings, sensuality, sexuality, hedonism, etc... Although these qualities, minus hedonism, are very important in all relationships, they never served as the basis of a relationship.

America, as Europe’s ‘New World’, brought with it many things, including these Romantic Concepts, and this Ideology called ‘Romance’ still serves as the basic template of many Movies, Music, Books, etc… we cee today! Because this Theme became an integral part of American Values, many People, especially Women under the same overt/convert gender oppressive conditions, learned to expect Men to model the same chivalrous, heroic behavior, no matter how unrealistic it may be. Men have also bought into this fairy tale idea, and have learned to approach relationships with an “S” across his chest. Ultimately, this Theme often serves as the psychological model of how we knowingly/unknowingly define ‘Love and approach relationships. So what does this really have to do with ‘Love’? Nothing. ‘Love’ is not based on feelings or emotions b.u.t. Romance is. In a Romance, a dude might sell all his belongings, travel the World for 20 years, and then receive a vision to jump on a plane to Bora Bora where he eventually tracks down THE Woman he’s been longing for his entire life -only to find out she’s betrothed to a guy and the Wedding is 3 days from now on some date where all the Planets will be aligned! -sigh- Not only is this fantastic story completely unreasonable, b.u.t. the shit’s unrealistic. That isn’t a ‘Love Story’ people, it’s Romance, and many of us have learned to assume AND expect that our ‘Love Life’ must consist of the same dramatic fiction.

‘Love’ is indicative of stability and fortitude, not flightiness, rash decisions, emotionality and ebb & flow feelings. Because emotions and feelings change, they don’t represent stability. The only thing that is stable about emotions and feelings is that they change! LOL In The NGE we teach that “Love is the highest degree of Understanding”. Why? Because in order to be together and grow in a relationship, you must have Understanding. You must have an ability to cee things for what they are, not what they simply ‘feel like’ or appear to be, especially in a Society that thrives on the socioeconomics of appealing to one’s desires and over-stimulation! Understanding is the ability to comprehend the bond between Knowledge and Wisdom, and how these Principles must be used to “advocate for one common cause” (8/1-14); maintaining the relationship. Knowledge is to look, listen, observe and respect. Knowledge is also awareness and ‘knowing the ledge’ or limited, subjective, experiences we bring to the table in a relationship. Wisdom is discernment or right judgment. Wisdom is also the ability to recognize the inter-relationship between what we know and the wise (right) way to use it. This is not to say that ‘Love’ and relationships should be on some unemotional, rigid, unsentimental, Dr. Spockian Math, because feelings do exist. My point is that feelings/emotions must be stabilized and put within a proper context because they’re volatile. Feeling change! And anything volatile is never the safest thing to stand on! LOL

In conjunction with this, we, The NGE, teach the Principle of “Love, Hell or Right”, as found in our Supreme Alphabet. This Principle operates as a Quality Control Mechanism, designed to reinforce the standards in the above Concept “Love is the highest degree of Understanding”. How? Because if we define something as ‘Love’, then that highest degree of Understanding must ultimately adhere to what’s ‘Right’! Although ‘Hell’ is symbolic to tribulation and/or temperance, this is only a temporal/transitory state that should lead us to what’s ‘Right’ (Righteous; Just and True). So although one may claim that “Love is the highest degree of Understanding”, you must also ensure that this ‘Love’ has sustainability through ‘Hell’ in order to be ‘Right’. Now if that isn’t enough, our Lessons, 120, further elaborates on the above Perspectives by highlighting PROCEDURES that uphold or undermine them. 120 also ‘spells’ out the CONSEQUENCES of upholding or undermining these Perspectives. Ultimately, it is through our Lessons that Perspectives such as “Love is the highest degree of Understanding” and “Love, Hell or Right” are clearly defined.

In The NGE, our foundation is an 8 point Curriculum that corresponds to the 8 Points on our National Flag. These 8 Points are Supreme Mathematics, Supreme Alphabet, and 6 Bodies of Lessons known as “120 Lessons”. This Curriculum serves as the basis of our Cultural Worldview, and this Worldview consists of our Principles, Values, how we order our Priorities, and defines how we attend this World. When it come to ‘120’, it is through our Lessons that we learn what distinguishes the 5%, the 85%, and the 10%! This is why our Culture is more than just an emphasis on 2 Points: Supreme Mathematics and the Supreme Alphabet. Although these units, Supreme Mathematics and Supreme Alphabet, are integral parts of our 8 Point Curriculum, it is Lessons such as the 16/1-40 that identifies our Sociopolitical Status/Orientation as “The Five Percent”, the 18/1-40 that identifies our “duty”, etc… Without these, and other Lessons, we would not have access to various Principles, Values, or recognize the Priorities that define our Cultural Worldview. No where in the Supreme Mathematics or in the Supreme Alphabet do we learn who the 5%, the 85%, and the 10% actually is! So without having these Lessons to recognize these distinctions, it’s impossible to distinguish how the 5%, the 85%, and the 10% even define ‘Love’ and relationships. Those self professed Gods/Earths who lack this vital information and insight to relate these Lessons to their life, could very well be co-signing, promoting, advocating, and committing themselves to ideas about ‘Love’ and relationships that have no place in our Cultural Worldview. This sense of lacking is most obvious in any self professed God/Earth who tries to explain or expound upon our Culture without utilizing any Lessons as the basis of their Perspective. When talking about ‘Love’ and relationships, this makeshift, philosophical approach is no different than anyone else who has something to say about ‘Love’ and relationships. There is no difference because like 95% of everybody else who doesn’t have/use our Lessons, these Gods/Earths aren’t using these Lessons either! When a God/Earth is ‘building’ with another God/Earth, we cite our Curriculum to substantiate our position and psychological coordinates. We primarily cite/reference ‘120’ because these 6 bodies of Lessons comprise the bulk of where we derive our Principles and Values. It’s never been Traditional or Customary for Gods/Earths to just ‘speak’ our personal views or feelings using 2 points; Supreme Mathematics and Supreme Alphabet. Why? Because by just using Supreme Mathematics and Supreme Alphabet, there’s a lot of room to freelance, be bias and partial, based upon on our ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘what I want’, etc… Lessons are like Constitutional Statues, and demands of us a commitment to ideas beyond our personal feelings. For example, in the 9/1-14, we learn that it’s impossible to ‘Love’ some people “regardless to how long that they study”, even after “they devote” damn near a generation of time (35-50 yrs) to learn it! Why? Because they’re “trying” to learn, and since ‘try’ means to fail, this person ultimately has a learning disability when it comes to ‘Love’ and relationships. Under these circumstances, our only option is to deal with ‘em with a long handled spoon, “trading amongst them” when this interaction is resourceful. Because I’ve been wise enough to recognize the Principle, Value the procedures, and Prioritize applying this “Lesson” to my life, there are a lot of pitfalls I’ve avoided when it comes to ‘Love’ and relationships. Again, the Supreme Mathematics and Supreme Alphabet tells us nothing about the Principles, Values and order of Priorities clearly highlighted within the 9/1-14. That one Lesson alone gives us profound insight into the appropriate Principles, Values, Priorities, and defining moments of ‘Love’! It also teaches us how to properly attend our relationships, and when “we’re loosing time searching for that-that does not exist” in a potential mate (10/1-40), REGARDLESS of what we personally want! When a God/Earth is incapable/unwilling to use our Lessons as the basis of what they’re saying, we must ask ourselves the questions, “What is their perspective based on?” and “What standard are they using to measure their perspective?” This is not to say that as Gods/Earths we don’t study or reference various other “sciences of Life” (18/1-40). This is to say that all of these sciences are brought back to our foundation, 120, and this standard identifies if these sciences oppose or support our Cultural Worldview.


A Definitive Case for Love
Although the Lessons were constructed in Contemporary times (1930-1934), the Perspectives, Procedures, etc… within them that we use to define ‘Love’ and relationships is very Ancient! Courting was essentially a business transaction, utilizing Divine Unions (Marriage) to reinforce and sustain that which we held sacred; Cultural Interests (Principles, Values, Priorities). These Cultural Interest defined/shaped our Societies, which were a composition of collective Family Units. Regardless how people personally felt about it, our individual choices reflected a consideration for ‘The Collective’; our Family, Society, and World. WE, understood that OUR survival as a Group couldn’t be based upon one person’s personal feelings, so our relationships were based upon what “WE” need, not what “I” just want. This Perspective was rooted in our Elders Ancestral Knowledge about Life’s terrain, the Wisdom (right discernment) we needed in order to navigate it, and the Understanding that all things are interrelated, thus affected by our decisions. So in order to establish/maintain homeostasis, balance and harmony within the Universe and our Society, our Worldview and Language was an Axiology that placed the highest value in our “Relationships”. In spending a lot of time defining “Relationships”, we identified certain Virtues such as ‘Consideration’, ‘Family’, ‘Loyalty’, ‘Commitment’, ‘Responsibility’, ‘Equality’, etc… that sustained them. We also identified certain ideas that destroyed “Relationships” such as “Devilishment, Stealing, Telling Lies, and Mastering People” (4/1-14). Even a cursory glance at the History of people, ESPECIALLY warring people who promoted rugged individualism, will reveal a direct link between their endurance and ability to recognize/adhere to these, and various other Virtues of ‘Love’ and relationships. Simply put, WE, as Original People, have always pondered ideas of ‘Love’ and relationships, whether we chiseled it in stone, wrote it on papyrus, minted it in creative arts, veiled it in folklorian stories/religious text, or typed it in a FB Note. Yet, the common thread throughout all of these ideas, that served as the impartial standard to measure them by, was Righteousness, NOT compatibility, feelings, or anything else that’s subject to our personal desires.

The misnomer ‘Iroquois’ is really a derogatory word meaning ‘black snakes’ that French Colonialist used to describe the Original People, whom they obviously saw as “all different” (7/1-14). The Name our People used was ‘Haudeonosaunee’ which means ‘People of the Longhouse’ or ‘They are building a Longhouse’. We called ourselves Haudeonosaunee because ‘Family’, Collective Work & Responsibility’, ‘Caring’, ‘Loyalty’, etc... were all Virtues we shared, living in one big long house. This was an example of the ‘Love’ we had for one another. We also took great pride in not disturbing Natures Balance and never killed an animal, uprooted plants, etc… for sport or play. When we did hunt or harvest plants, we used every part of these life forms and celebrated our thankfulness for having them. This was an example of the ‘Love’ we had for our Environment. Now on the opposite side of this spectrum you have People like Vikings who had no respect for life outside of their own. There was one such famous Viking who was known as “The baby lover”, simply because he didn’t participate in the customary game of tossing babies up and impaling them on your sword. Incidentally, the Vikings pillaging of Europe between the late 8th and 11th Century left more than Tales of Terror. Through rape and miscegenation, the Vikings left many acultural/cultural remnants that became the psychological backdrop to many aspects of Europe’s Aristocratic, especially French, Society and their Concepts of ‘Love’ and relationships.

Reflecting back upon my past relationships and weighing my present options, I learned to ask myself the ‘clinical’ question, “Will this endure?” when it comes to choosing a potential mate. I ask myself this ‘clinical’ question because, “What I want” may not be what’s necessary! What I want may not last, and what I want may not be what’s right! Sure I’ve experienced things in past relationships that I wouldn’t want to go through again, b.u.t. maybe it was because of my lack of understanding, a sense of immaturity, blatant denial about my idiosyncrasies, or unrealized social conditionings. The point in all of this is to emphasize the possibility that “What we want” may be nothing more than a freelancing approach to finding ‘Love’… I would even go as far as to say that our inability to even consider the possibility of having a tainted perspective of ‘Love’ and relationships, is what’s been responsible for most of our dysfunctional relationships.

Many of us feel, think, or believe we have a clear idea of what ‘Love’ is, and what we want in a relationship. Suppose I say, “I know what I want”, and approach ALL potential mates with this laundry list of qualities to determine if they are/aren’t compatible with me. What is the basis for my list or idea of compatibility? Is my list based upon what made me happy or sad in my past relationships? Is my list based upon my idea of what feels good? Is my list based upon what this person does/doesn’t know? An even greater question is, “Does my idea of compatibility, or being with someone who agrees with this list automatically mean that our concept of ‘Love’ and relationships is right and exact?” The flaw in this Methodology is the fact that we’ve taken a very subjective, unscientific approach towards viewing ourselves, a potential mate, and what we define as ‘Love’ and relationships. Anytime you hear someone using the language of ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘what I want’, etc… to describe and define ‘Love’ and their idea of relationships, you’re dealing with a person who substantiates ‘Love’ and validates their relationship based upon “the current of air they are in” (8/1-40). And just like currents are air, ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘what I want’, etc… CHAAANGE! If ‘Love’ and relationships are truly models for sustainability, then they should not change. Falling in and out of Love, is a prime indication that it’s not actually Love at all. It’s a failed attempt to define ‘Love’ and relationships using the climatic, emotional, roller-coaster Concept called ‘Romance’ as their model for stability. Again, this is the reason why in the most simplistic terms, we, Gods/Earths, teach that ‘Love and Understanding’ is one and the same. Why? Because ‘Love’ or Understanding (3) is a combination of what we know (1), and the emotionally charged experiences of our own words, ways and actions (2). I did not say we dismiss these things, b.u.t. they do not serve as the motivation or determining factor of how we cee ‘Love’ and relationships. Why? Because what we personally know and have personally experienced is limited! In order to understand or cee ‘Love’ and a relationship, we cannot allow what we’ve only known and experienced to define what we’re looking for, regardless if what we’ve known was good or bad. As Gods/Earths, we claim to be Scientists and unfortunately, that is not a scientific approach. That is the approach of someone who’s only looking for evidence to support a conclusion they already have about ‘Love’ and relationships. This is also the subjective/biased approach of a person who’s only trying to find someone who the last person wasn’t! Some people would say, “What’s wrong with that?!” Well what’s wrong with that is the fact that we’re not ceeing the whole picture. We’re using limited, subjective, bias experiences, and feelings, THAT MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG, to determine compatibility, and what ‘Love’ and relationships are or aren’t. Again, there is nothing Scientific about that! It’s no different than a White Supremist Paleontologist on a fact finding mission to prove that the Original Man is Caucasian. Aside from their personal Ideology, a TRUE Scientist should be on a fact finding mission to find out who the Original Man is period, regardless how he looks! To a TRUE Scientist, their ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘what they want’, etc… have nothing to do with the impartial information they’re responsible for disseminating to the Scientific Community. As TRUE Scientists our approach to ‘Love’ and relationships should be getting to know someone period, not looking to cee if they simply coincide with our ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘what I want’, etc…

Many of the dysfunctional ideas/issues we’ve had, do have, and will have in regards to ‘Love’ and relationships is simply because we’ve been left to our own devices! Our subjective experiences, interpretations, etc…, often become a “makeshift” Philosophy for our idea of ‘Love’, and what we think works for us in a relationship. Like with many People, within The NGE, Gods/Earths often lack concise, definitive ways to articulate ‘Love’ and relationships. Many Gods/Earths will often use our Cultural Phraseology to simply say, “It’s how I cee it!” or “It’s my Universe!”, which ultimately translates into, “I do what I want and what works for me.” or “It’s nobody’s business.” The biggest thing that’s missing in this “makeshift” Philosophy is the fact that there is no concept of Righteousness governing that perspective. How do you know? Because the Principle of Righteousness isn’t partial and has nothing to do with ‘how we personally cee something’ or ‘what personally works for us’! Right? -grin- If a person isn’t speaking the language of Righteousness or articulating how this Principle is intrinsic to ‘Love’ and all relationships, what is their basis for distinguishing the right & wrong things to do in a relationship? Does it really even matter to them what’s right or wrong, or is ‘Love’ just all about what they want and how they feel?

In conclusion, Gods/Earths recognize ‘Love’ as synonymous with Understanding, not simply deep feelings, emotionality, sensuality, sexuality etc… Understanding that our ‘subjective experiences’, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, ‘desires’, ‘sexuality’, what we want’, etc… or even the use of this type of whimsical, romanticized language does not reflect the stability of our Cultural Worldview or a Family Unit. None of these terms are models for sustainability because all of these things will CHAAANGE, “depending on how heavy the mist is and which current of air we are in.” (8/1-40) In order to establish and maintain Civilized Societies, Strong Communities, and Functional Family Units, ‘Love’ and our relationships must be based upon Principles, Values, and Priorities that endure! So beyond what we personally want or think it compatible, there are Cultural Principles, Values, and Priorities that are intrinsic to ‘Love’ and relationships. As Gods/Earths, we find these Principles, Values, and Priorities defined and demonstrated throughout 120. Sure we can generally look at “Love, Hell or Right” (L; 12th letter/Supreme Alphabet), b.u.t. that tells you nothing about “Rules and Regulations including all Laws enforced while manufacturing the Devil” (28/1-40)! I mean, the Devil is native to ‘Hell’ so this is something important to Understand when it comes to ascertaining what’s Right? Imagine the kind of insight we’re missing about ‘Love’ and in our relationships, by devaluing or even glossing over our Lessons… This is not to say that I personally have all the answers about ‘Love’ and relationships. This is to say that when it comes to something as serious as ‘Love’ and relationships, there is a big difference between Cultural Integrity and Philosophical Freelancing -and the obvious results they produce. The Science of ‘Love’ and relationships isn’t about some Compatibility Standards we made up, or Biased Methodologies we’re using, that are based upon the limited experiences we did/didn’t go through or learned about. Our “Standards” of Compatibility can be wrong, and the person we think we’re not compatible with may be right! What is your standard to measure the difference? Your own past or what you were subjected to? The Methods we may be using to even define ‘Love’ and assess potential mates may be unsustainable models! Unbeknownst to us, we may be looking for the same romanticized, heroic model from a French Novel with ‘Allah’ as his last name! We may be expecting an Earth to be nothing b.u.t. an Urban Rapunzel with a long ass headwrap! When you strip everything down to it’s bare essentials and really analyze the choice of words, phrases, and concepts many Gods/Earths are using to define ‘Love’ and relationships, what you’ll cee is “Freelancing”, making up stuff as they go! And like with freestyling, shooting from the hip, flying by the seat of our pants, or improvising, Freelancing doesn’t always come off right…

Peace!


Post a Comment