Goethe’s Faust reworks the late medieval myth of a brilliant scholar so disillusioned he resolves to make a contract with Mephistopheles. The devil will do all he asks on Earth and seeks to grant him a moment in life so glorious that he will wish it to last forever. But if Faust does bid the moment stay, he falls to Mephisto and must serve him after death. In this first part of Goethe’s great work, the embittered thinker and Mephistopheles enter into their agreement, and soon Faust is living a rejuvenated life and winning the love of the beautiful Gretchen. But in this compelling tragedy of arrogance, unfulfilled desire, and self-delusion, Faust heads inexorably toward an infernal destruction.
The best translation of Faust available, this volume provides the original German text and its English counterpart on facing pages. Walter Kaufmann’s translation conveys the poetic beauty and rhythm as well as the complex depth of Goethe’s language. Includes Part One and selections from Part Two.
The corporate “yes man,” the wife-beater, the hot-shot male junior executive and the emotionally distant father are all boys pretending to be men, observe the authors of this liberating guide to self-transformation. Writing within a Jungian framework, they perceive symptoms of “Boycaps per book psychology” all around us–in men’s abusive behaviors, passivity and inability to act creatively. To help males become more nurturing and mature, Moore and Gillette identify four archetypes of masculine energies from myth and literature: the Lover, brimming with vitality and sensitivity; the Magician, guider of the processes of inner and outer transformation; the selfless and wise King identified with Adam or primordial man; and the Warrior, whose energies often go awry in destructive activity. Dream analysis, meditation, Jungian “active imagination” and ritual processes are among the tools set forth in a clear, concise map to territories of masculine selfhood.
Since the realisation that I was attracted to men in my early adolescence, I’ve never had any doubt that the desire was entirely innate and immutable.
I’ve never been attracted to women, and I couldn’t imagine feeling any other way. Not everybody attracted to the same sex feels this way, however. A minority of gay men, and – according to psychologists, such as Lisa Diamond at the University of Utah – certainly many gay women, feel that their sexual orientation is something more fluid and malleable; something that can change, can be shaped by experiences, and is intensified by attachment.
Over the past two decades, there have been many studies that together reveal a strong biological component to being gay (I use the term ‘biological’ instead of genetic because, although the trait is innate, it is not explained by genes alone).
Others suggest that homosexuality serves a useful evolutionary purpose – more on that later. The overall picture of sexual orientation is complex and different factors may be at play in different people.
I have friends, for example, who are identical twins: they possess the same genes and had the same upbringing, but only one of them is gay. There may be a significant genetic component to being gay, but it’s not the whole picture, and is unlikely to be reduced to anything as simple as a single gene. There is an argument that the search for a ‘gay gene’ would be bad for the gay rights movement, because it could lead to parents aborting ‘gay’ foetuses. In fact, I believe the search for the biological basis for being gay is essential if we are to understand the basic nature of our humanity.
Unfortunately, at least for the moment, most of the studies looking into the genetics of homosexuality are about men, not women. There could be an element of sexism to the bias of this research, but it also could be that it’s more difficult to reduce female same-sex attraction to a simple number of factors. Some studies suggest that male same-sex attraction is about 40 per cent genetic, while the genetic component of female same-sex attraction is perhaps 25 per cent.
Whatever the basis for homosexuality, we know it is hard-wired into our bodies and not purely psychological. The first study to find structural difference between the brains of gay men and straight men was published in 1991 by researchers including American neuroscientist Simon LeVay, who has since gone on to write a series of books on the biology of sexual orientation. In 2008, a larger study from the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden scanned the brains of 90 people and found that although the gay men and straight women tended to have symmetrical brains, lesbians and straight men tended to have asymmetrical brains, with left hemispheres that were significantly smaller than right ones. These results built on earlier studies that seemed to show that some gay men and straight women had better language skills (left hemisphere), while some straight men and lesbians had better senses of direction (right hemisphere).
The first study to reveal a genetic component to being gay was published in 1993 and led by geneticist Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute in the USA. His team revealed that a region of the X chromosome – labelled Xq28 – was likely to be shared by brothers who were both gay. A 2014 study, presented at a conference in Chicago in February, looked at 400 pairs of twins. It backed up the role of this gene region, finding that it could explain about 40 per cent of the chance of a man being gay.
“Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight,” lead author Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University in the USA, told the UK’s The Telegraph newspaper. “But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”
No such genes or gene regions as Xq28 have yet been found for gay women, but we know there is a genetic component because of patterns of homosexuality in identical twins. Some of the best evidence that being gay is partly genetic comes from twins. Identical twins (where both have the same set of genes) are much more likely to both be gay than non-identical twins (where they are only as related as any brother or sister, sharing about half their genes). This strongly suggests there’s a genetic element to being gay, but it doesn’t account for the entire picture; when one identical twin is gay, only in about 20–50 per cent of cases is the other twin also gay.
So if genetics doesn’t account for the whole picture, what other factors are at play? This is where the complex world of ‘epigenetics’ comes in. Our DNA is not the only factor in deciding whether our genes are expressed or not. The way our DNA is packaged up into bundles and packed away within our cells also determines whether genes are hidden away or available to play an active role in our bodies. In effect, genes can be switched on or off – a phenomenon known as epigenetics. It may be the genes that account for same-sex attraction could be switched on by an environmental effect (‘environment’ in this context could be the womb or your upbringing; it could be chemical or psychological). This may mean certain people have the genetic propensity to be gay, but may or may not encounter the environmental conditions that cause that trait to be switched on.
Researchers led by William Rice, at the University of California, published a study in 2012 arguing that epigenetics could be a major factor in explaining both male and female homosexuality. The researchers believe that so-called ‘epigenetic marks’ – a kind of annotation on top of DNA – control how susceptible foetuses are to hormones in the womb. For example, some male babies are made much more susceptible to the effect of maternal hormones than others, and are not able to develop fully masculine traits. This could account for why one of a pair of identical twins ends up being gay, while his brother is straight.
Other research points to hormonal and chemical processes in the womb as having an effect on sexual orientation. Perhaps the best known is a theory labelled the ‘fraternal birth order effect’. A string of studies seem to show that men with many older brothers are more likely to be gay. This is certainly biological and not social, as it’s not seen in cases of younger brothers with older adopted siblings.
Scientists behind these studies suggest that fraternal birth order is the cause of same-sex attraction in about 15–30 per cent of gay men. There’s a certain irony in these statistics, because it means that gay men are more likely to be born into the families of religious conservatives, who may or may not have a problem accepting them, as these families are more likely to have large numbers of children.
A possible explanation for the birth order effect has been put forward by Ray Blanchard, at the University of Toronto in Canada. His work suggests that male foetuses produce a male-specific ‘masculinising’ antigen in the womb, which a woman’s immune system rallies against (anitgens are chemicals foreign to the body that elicit an immune response). With enough antibodies from the mother, this antigen is neutralised and the male foetus is no longer capable of producing a straight-male sexual orientation. As a woman has more male children, she produces more and more of these antibodies during pregnancy, thus making it more likely the child will become gay.
Some gay equality activists have a problem with this scenario, with its implicit assumption that same-sex attraction is a developmental defect which could potentially be corrected in the womb. But these activists are missing the point: whether being gay is caused by genetic effects, epigenetic effects or the environment of the womb, it may still have evolutionary benefits.
Evidence is building that homosexuality is not an accident and that it serves a useful evolutionary purpose, whatever the biological basis behind it. A 2008 study showed that male homosexuality occurs at low, but stable frequencies across many different human societies, suggesting it is not present by chance alone.
More than 450 different species of animal, from penguins to giraffes, have been shown to exhibit gay behaviour, or form gay pairings. Many studies, such as one from the University of California, have argued that these behaviours offer benefits to a species.
There’s plenty of evidence that homosexuality may play a useful role in humans, too. This is either because the genes responsible for same-sex attraction are linked to other useful reproductive traits, or because gay men and women play an important role in societies, which benefits the group as a whole, increasing the overall rate of reproduction.
Some experts have suggested that – at least historically, in hunter-gatherer societies, where the complement of genes we possess today was largely built – gay aunts and uncles may have assisted their siblings in the care of children, even if they didn’t reproduce. In this scenario, the gay aunts and uncles are still winners in the evolutionary sense, as they share many genes with the offspring of their siblings, and the family group produces more offspring overall as a result.
“The gay uncle theory, where you look after your nephews and nieces…makes sense in a wild ancestral human,” says Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University evolutionary biologist. You can imagine a scenario in which the straight men go out hunting, leaving the otherwise vulnerable children in the care of these gay men, says Dawkins, adding, “the gay gene was passed on in the bodies of the children who were being protected.”
Dawkins is also an advocate of what he calls the ‘sneaky fucker’ theory, or “the idea that [many of] the males who possessed the homosexual ‘gene’ may have been bisexual”. He says that while the dominant males in hunter-gatherer societies may have trusted their women in the care of these men, the gay males may have occasionally had sex with the women, fathering some of their children.
There have also been some interesting studies that seem to show that genes which cause a brother to be gay might lead his sister to have a larger-than-average number of children. For example, a 2004 study from the University of Padua in Italy (which involved 98 gay men and 100 straight men) found that the female relatives of gay men were likely to have more offspring than the female relatives of straight men.
This ‘sexy sister’ hypothesis suggests these women are reproductively successful enough to discount the fact that their brothers don’t have offspring. It’s also very possible that the genes that make lesbians attracted to women have a reproductive benefit for their brothers, but this is yet to be found by scientists.
A twist on the ‘sexy sister’ idea came from researchers led by Brendan Zietsch at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in 2008. His team argued that the male siblings of gay men may benefit from a number of genes that partially feminise their behaviour, making them more empathic, agreeable and caring. This made the straight male sibling more attractive to women, leading to a larger number of sexual partners. For their gay brothers, Zietsch suggested, the feminising effect was too great, leading them to be attracted to men instead of women.
The overall conclusion here is that the biological factors that cause homosexuality in men and women very likely have a genetic component, but these are varied and complex. Following the 2014 study on the Xq28 chromosome region, a spate of opinion pieces argued that the search for a ‘gay gene’ was folly, and could potentially set the gay equality movement back if tests were developed to diagnose ‘gay’ foetuses. For example, Alex Andreou, a columnist for The Guardian, wrote: “That a single cent of medical research should be devoted to explaining whom I choose to share my bed with, is utterly obscene.”
This is a head-in-the-sand approach. The pursuit of all knowledge is valuable, particularly when it helps us to understand the very basic nature of our shared humanity. It’s akin to arguing that we shouldn’t have strived to understand the structure of the atom because it led to the development of nuclear weapons. It’s not the knowledge itself that’s a dangerous thing, but what people choose to do with it.
The fear of the development of a diagnostic test for ‘gay’ foetuses is over-exaggerated, because it’s likely the genes only account for the propensity to be gay – one that requires environmental and other factors for it to be realised. This means that any diagnostic test would have a very poor chance of predicting a gay child. Would conservative or homophobic parents be prepared to abort a foetus when there’s a 70 per cent chance it will be straight? It remains to be seen. There’s also the point that many conservatives are against the concept of abortion, in any case.
There’s also very little chance of homosexuality ever being removed as part of the human evolutionary landscape, because it’s likely that it is passed on by heterosexual siblings, for whom it confers a reproductive advantage. Homosexuality is here to stay, and I for one am very keen to understand the genetic and biological basis behind it.
John Pickrell is an award-winning science writer. He has worked in London, Washington DC and Sydney for publications including New Scientist, Science, Science News and Cosmos. More of John’s articles can be found online and in print at National Geographic, Scientific American and the ABC. He is also the editor of Australian Geographic magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @john_pickrell
1 Comment
Tobin Saunders 4 years ago ReplySlave to the binary! Sexuality is a spectrum and people sometimes move around on this spectrum during their lives. Many sit at either end and don’t move, lots defy description. I found this piece an old school and lazy cobble job!
TEDx Talks Meet Shaolin Master Shi Heng Yi in his serene talk about self-discovery. Learn why rainfall is an essential part of each flowering. And every small step – part of the journey to the highest peek. The hindrances along the way to self-discovery and personal growth are easy to overcome. Learn how from his talk. For more than 30 years, Master Shi Heng Yi has been studying and practicing the interaction between mind and body. His strength is the ability to smoothly combine this knowledge with physical exercises and to practice Martial art –Kung Fu and Qi Gong. He has an academic background but he prefers to live at the Shaolin Temple Europe, Monastery located in Otterberg, Germany. Since 2010 he has been taking care of the settlement and he personifies the sustainable development and spreading the Shaolin culture and philosophy. As a contemporary monk, Master Yi holds a smartphone in the folds of his clothes as he sees no contradiction between living together with ancient knowledge and high technology. “The universal law of being successful and happy at the same time means finding the balance”, says master Yi. And as for flying – yes, he really can do it! He only needs a stick and a little space. We expect him to fly-in and share about the Shaolin way at TEDxVitosha 2020. Artist: Secret Garden Album: Earthsongs Track: Lotus This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx
TEDx Talks War is hell, but war is also a brutal teacher. War teaches you about brotherhood, honor, humility, and leadership. In this riveting talk, Jocko Willink explains from personal experience how war teaches you the most when things go wrong. Jocko asserts that when a team takes ownership of its problems, the problems get solved. JOCKO WILLINK is a decorated retired Navy SEAL officer, author of the #1 New York Times bestselling book Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win, host of the top-rated Jocko Podcast, and co-founder of Echelon Front, where he is a leadership instructor, speaker, and executive coach. Jocko spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy SEAL Teams, starting as an enlisted SEAL and rising through the ranks to become a SEAL officer. As commander of SEAL Team Three’s Task Unit Bruiser during the battle of Ramadi, he orchestrated SEAL operations that helped the “Ready First” Brigade of the US Army’s First Armored Division bring stability to the violent, war-torn city. Task Unit Bruiser became the most highly decorated Special Operations Unit of the Iraq War. Jocko returned from Iraq to serve as Officer-in-Charge of training for all West Coast SEAL Teams. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
“You say ‘I’ and you are proud of this word. But greater than this- although you will not believe in it – is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say ‘I’ but performs ‘I’.”
“Against this cosmic background the lifespan of a particular plant or animal appears, not as drama complete in itself, but only as a brief interlude in a panorama of endless change,” Rachel Carson wrote in her poetic, unexampled 1937 essay Undersea as she incubated the ideas that would awaken humanity’s ecological conscience. “There is grandeur in this view of life,” Darwin had written in the closing pages of On the Origin of Species in the middle of the previous century, as though to offer preemptive succor for humanity to steady itself against as he dismantled our comfortable and complacent age-old certitude that we are the pinnacle of “creation,” finished and complete — a certitude applied to the evolutionary, but stemming from the existential, for what is true of the species is true of the individual. As the Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert aptly observed, “human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they’re finished.”
But we are — as individuals, as a species, as a society — unfinished and incomplete, our story unwritten. Darwin and Carson both intimated that while there is disorientation in accepting ourselves as increments in advancement the arc of which far exceeds our lifetimes, there is also transcendence, for a story yet unfinished is a story with myriad possible endings — a story that forestalls despair by the sheer force of possibility; a story in which our individual lives matter not less but more, for they are the pixels shaping the panorama of endless change.
That is what James Baldwin (August 2, 1924–December 1, 1987) explores a century after Darwin and a generation after Carson in the final essay from the forgotten treasure Nothing Personal (public library) — his collaboration with the great photographer and his former high school classmate Richard Avedon, which also gave us Baldwin on the ultimate lifeline for your hour of despair.
James Baldwin by artist Marlene Dumas for the 2020Solidarity project — a series of charitable posters by international artists to help cultural institutions around the world survive during the 2020 crisis. Available as a poster, benefiting Pioneer Works — birthplace of The Universe in Verse.
Baldwin considers how we “emptied oceans with a home-made spoon and tore down mountains with our hands” — a sentiment referring to the failures of human rights and social justice he had witnessed and experienced in his own life, but drawing on nature for a metaphor that renders it all the more poignant in the context of our present ecological undoing — and writes:
One discovers the light in the darkness, that is what darkness if for; but everything in our lives depends on how we bear the light. It is necessary, while in darkness, to know that there is a light somewhere, to know that in oneself, waiting to be found, there is a light. What the light reveals is danger, and what it demands is faith.
In consonance with Viktor Frankl, who upon surviving the Holocaust two decades earlier had written stirringly about the moral obligation to “say yes to life, in spite of everything,” Baldwin reflects on the stubborn light that must have blazed in his own parents’ eyes in order for them to survive what they survived, in order for him to exist, and adds:
This is why one must say Yes to life and embrace it whenever it is found — and it is found in terrible places; nevertheless, there it is.
[…]
For nothing is fixed, forever and forever and forever, it is not fixed; the earth is always shifting, the light is always changing, the sea does not cease to grind down rock. Generations do not cease to be born, and we are responsible to them because we are the only witnesses they have.
The sea rises, the light fails, lovers cling to each other, and children cling to us. The moment we cease to hold each other, the moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us and the light goes out.
In this highlight from the fourth annual Universe in Verse — a charitable celebration of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, the creation of which was inspired by Rachel Carson’s work — musician, activist, and light-filled human vessel of change Morley — the visionary behind the wondrous Borderless Lullabies project — set Baldwin’s transcendent words to music, with Chris Bruce (her sweetheart) on guitar in their quarantine quarters and Dave Eggar on cello, invisible across the spacetime of distanced digital collaboration.
Guy Holmes popped the tapeinto the cassette player in his car and waited. The British record promoter was eager to hear new acts, but knew that the majority of them weren’t going to be good or unique enough to cut through the noise of the worldwide music scene. In 1991, it was still a multibillion dollar business, not yet smothered by file-sharing. Success was determined by decision-makers at record labels and radio stations, whose tastes were often mercurial and hard to anticipate.
The cassette had been given to Holmes by a friend, a 19-year-old named Tamzin Aronowitz. She was dating Rob Manzoli, the guitarist of an act called Right Said Fred, and insisted the group—which also consisted of brothers Richard and Fred Fairbrass—had a hook. He listened.
I’m too sexy for my car
Too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I’m too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat
What do you think about that?
Holmes was driving with a friend, a man of Russian descent who had been drinking vodka for most of the night. As Richard Fairbrass sang about other things he was too sexy for—Milan, Japan, parties, his shirt—Holmes noticed his passenger bouncing in his seat and mouthing the words.
This might be a dumb song, Holmes thought. A very dumb song. But it’s catchy.
By 1992, “I’m Too Sexy” was the number one tune in 32 countries, including the United States, and the Fairbrass brothers went from being gym managers and sporadic musicians to the kitschy pop act of the moment. But they wondered whether people knew they were in on the joke, and whether they had the ability to survive the plague that had taken down so many talented musicians before them—the affliction of being an overnight success.
* * *
Richard Fairbrass was born in East Grinstead, Sussex in 1953. His brother, Fred, followed three years later. Raised in a relatively well-off environment by Peter and Mary Fairbrass, Richard thought he might wind up becoming a politician; Fred was more interested in athletics. By their late teens, both had gravitated toward music, forgoing any thought of a formal career in exchange for odd jobs and band practice that led to small gigs with London punk bands. At one performance, an irate—or possibly enthused—fan managed to pee on Richard.
From 1977 to 1987, they performed under a variety of names, including Trash Flash and Money, and landed a series of not-quite-breakthrough gigs. Richard got a job as a session musician for three David Bowie music videos, while Fred had a stint backing up Bob Dylan. Their act wavered from punk to rock to a blend of the two.
After an unsuccessful tour of New York, the brothers returned to London in 1988. Both took to going to the gym to build their bodies back up and shaved their heads. They also met Rob Manzoli, a guitarist, and Brian Pugsley, who had access to computer synthesizers that the brothers thought might evolve their sound into something more palatable than their acoustic act.
Jamming in Pugsley’s apartment one night over a bass line inspired by Jimi Hendrix, Richard took off his shirt—it was hot in there—and proclaimed he was “too sexy” for it. From that line evolved an entire hook that played on the narcissism the brothers had witnessed both in the gym and among the models in New York’s fashion scene. The song wasn’t about the band thinking they were too sexy, but about the self-absorbed egos who really believed it. Supported by a backing track from a DJ named Tommy D, “I’m Too Sexy” was polished into an anthem about vanity.
* * *
Now going by Right Said Fred—a name they took from a 1962 Bernard Cribbins song about furniture movers—the trio started shopping the single to record labels. No one was interested. The only bite was from Holmes, who tried to entice executives but was met with the same resistance. In a self-admitted act of “belligerence,” Holmes produced copies of the single himself, while his secretary, Aronowitz, became the group’s manager. It was a homegrown operation, one in which the group was urged to formally record the final version of the song in an unheated studio because it was cheaper.
“I’m Too Sexy” made its way into the hands of producers at the BBC and Capital Radio. “I’m not sure if this is good or it’s crap,” one radio producer said, then played it anyway. The song spread quickly, making its way to the top of the most-requested queues in England. A DJ from Miami was on vacation in Europe when he heard it. From there, it spread to the United States and abroad, topping the Billboard Top 100 chart for three weeks straight and becoming a perpetual club selection well into 1992. (It only rose to number two in the UK, trumped by Bryan Adams’s “(Everything I Do) I Do It For You.”) The pop icon of the era, Madonna, announced she was sexually interested in Fred. Truant students announced they were “too sexy” for school. Stewardesses asked the brothers if they weren’t “too sexy” to be on a plane, a variation on a joke that they would wind up hearing thousands of times.
“It’s part of the job,” Fred said of the jokes.
Almost immediately, Right Said Fred underwent what industry veterans would call an “image makeover.” A fashion designer squeezed them into vinyl outfits, fishnet shirts, and various half-clothed stage uniforms. Though they were in their early thirties, they fibbed and told reporters they were in their early twenties. They were advised to ease up on the weightlifting, as their pumped-up physiques were deemed too frightening for general public consumption.
Holmes produced their first album, 1992’s Up, and helped them spin off two more successful songs: “Don’t Talk Just Kiss” and “Deeply Dippy.” They made the requisite MTV appearances and fended off speculation that “I’m Too Sexy” was a sign of them being the prototypical one-hit wonder.
Unfortunately, “I’m Too Sexy” wound up proving exactly that. But the brothers would argue that it was not their fault—it was Holmes’s.
* * *
Up had taken just five weeks to record. Their sophomore album, Sex and Travel, took nine months. Released in 1993, it failed to capture the public’s attention in the way “I’m Too Sexy” seemed to reverberate with kids, teens, and adults.
The brothers would later point the finger at Holmes, claiming he had chosen to release the wrong single tracks; Holmes countered that Richard and Fred had final say over what got the “A” side of the records. Subsequent albums followed—nine in all—but none ever reached the heights of their event-filled summer of 1991.
“I’m Too Sexy” remains a popular jab at people who indulge in vanity, and the brothers still perform it as part of their regular gigs. (Manzoli left the band in the mid-1990s.) They approved a new version targeting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad (who was revealed to have had the song on his playlist) and debuted it on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in 2014. (“I’m too sexy for this shirt” became “You’re too awful for this Earth.”) To this day, however, Fred believes there’s still some confusion over whether the song is to be taken seriously. He tried to clarify it for Rolling Stone in 2017.
“They didn’t get the cynicism and the joke,” he said. “But the idea of the song is that you obviously can’t be too sexy, right? No one can be too sexy.”
Jake Rossen is a senior staff writer for Mental Floss.
This post originally appeared on Mental Floss and was published August 16, 2018. This article is republished here with permission.
Translators: Mike Zonta, Melissa Goodnight, Richard Branam, Hanz Bolen, Sarah Flynn
SENSE TESTIMONY: Power and influence can be obtained through dishonesty and deception.
5th Step Conclusions:
1) Truth is the only cause, the only effect; infinite, truthful, honest, honorable possession already in hand, always at hand; nobody’s fool.
2) One Infinite Consciousness Being, is the only Real commanding Authority — controlling and enabling absolute causative Principle to be realized, which is always in perfect accord with Truth, and only ultimately expressing Truth.
3) Truth is Omni Affluent ethereal flux, Being pure sound One Infinite Mind,, this enduring continued succession , continual retention, balanced feasibility; sensualness of delight, One Infinite Consciousness Aware sentient Abstract construct; captivating; Androgynous I AM THOU.
4) Truth is only and always the harmonious, graceful, effective, direct intention of whole, complete, perfect beingness.
5) Each and Every Individuation of One Being is holding the total source ability power influence of all one Being, clearly, abundantly in all agreement and all expression, now everywhere always, besides which there is none else. OR: All Individuations of One Being I AM hold the total source of Being clearly abundantly in all expression instantly, everywhere always.
