Your Majesty’s
Two realities. One real one fiction.
Real is what is creation of nature and fiction is creation of the mind.
One need only observe to know what is real and what is fiction. I am real and BVR is a fiction. I am of nature but BVR is of the mind. I am life, BVR has no life.
The title judge, doctor, debtor, creditor, lawyer, Canada are creations of the mind. In other words, there is no man who is a judge or place outside of the mind that is Canada.
To say one is a judge is to say one is a fiction. One could say I am playing the role of judge. The latter would be accurate but still is fiction in that nature does not create judges. The creation of judge resulted from man deciding what is right and wrong which he has not the right to do, therefore, mans concept of right and wrong is fiction. I mean, which of us can say with absolute certainty what is right and what is wrong behavior?
We cannot, therefore, what we say or believe is right and what is wrong is as much fiction as the title judge and God does not judge. Not if you are thinking God is this power outside of yourself. The judge is our conscience and whether or not people have one is not for us to judge. For to judge gives rise to right and wrong and again, where or when did nature spit out laws or rules for mankind to follow or the penalties for breach? It did not, man did. It is not the laws of God that we should follow but observe and be one with nature to know ones role in the game of life. From where did the concept of laws originate but in the mind of man; hence, laws and the concept of such is fiction.
The point of this post is to get us thinking so we can distinguish what is real from fiction. So we can know when we are giving life to fiction, dabbling in that realm which is un-natural for us naturals, and that the result is not good. The result is – life must be lost to give life to fiction. We begin to be aware of how programmed we are and how deeply imbedded we are in fiction land.
The system is created of intellectual property. There is no tangible thing that is a system, thus the system exists in or is a creation of the mind, a fiction. Same goes for Canada or General Motors. They are, unlike an apple, creations of the mind.
Wikipedia: Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions. The term intellectual property is used to describe many very different, unrelated legal concepts.
The word ‘name’ is defined as a word or a phrase so we see names are intellectual property, creations of the mind. Are you so and so?
Now we have a good basis for the separation of real and fiction. The name then being a creation of the mind (THE source) is ‘intellectual property’ and we do not hold the property rights. So to use the fiction in a way that the user benefits is to receive a benefit from the system, not good.
A man walks up to you in court and says, I am the crown prosecutor. He is saying, I am here in the capacity of a creation of the mind with limited liability. If you accept that then you give life to the fiction, the system which is the intellectual property right holder of that title, because here again, such is not a creation of nature, is not energized, but you are. This is how fiction, the dead, is given the appearance of life, what gives its form life. Rather than give the fiction life one may respond to the prosecutor, I am a creation of nature titled man, if you are what you say you are then you are a creation of the mind and I only recognize creations of nature, such as man.
As names are creations of the mind they are certainly foreign to creations of nature. Furthermore, as the two are from completely differing sources, we can say the name is an agency of a foreign state. Not because it is written in statute but because from where we stand, with nature, creations of the mind are foreign and must be from some other source that is foreign to the state of nature. This is self evident or should be; thus no need to support it with quotes from codes that are creations of the mind.
I will expand on this some other moment.
Be well