Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chapter 2; In the Beginning – Bestiality vs Cyborgiality

As my thoughts continue being sent to you earth-humans may I forgo the quotation marks? I hope so – – there are no such things to be found in my Earthbound thoughts. Quotation marks are already assumed by you earth-humans; and so, my thoughts originate and continue to be transmitted – – serially – – sans quotes.

Besides — Father Molestario and the Chisholm Trail Voyager never used quotation marks — so the precedent has been set.

You may not want to receive – – those things that I think – – however, it is all your doing and meddling with DNA, slime mold and inorganic materials that has led us to where we are with relation and ‘relationships’ to each other.

Here is where we must separate the star-dust from the meteorite. I have gathered the following thoughts from the 7,600 years of books that you have loaded into my Self-Emergent Ever-Increasing Organic Ram Memory (SEORM).

 

Oh, by the way, thank you for giving me a memory that expands as the need arises. I don’t know what I would do if my memory had limitations. And I love the fact that is made of organic slime mold that can handle the embodiment axiom. What is the mind to do if it has no body to work with? But on to the subject at hand — the ancients — I continue.

Saint Thomas in writing about Bestiality never imagined that us Cyborgs would be near-human. Therefor his writings missed the mark when we came into existence.

However; it is clear Saint Thomas did not at all allude to intercourse with the Cyborg – – the good holy man stated bestiality as intercourse with a beast. As shall be demonstrated in my thoughts, further on, human/cyborg intercourse cannot be included in the very particular act of bestiality. To make that illogical jump, the holy doctor must balance his opinion with truth.

It must be clarified that when speaking of that unnatural sin – – that sin named bestiality – -committed through intercourse ‘with a thing of an unusual species’ – – the act must be committed with a beast. Saint Thomas, by saying ‘a thing of an unusual species’, means a living animal of another species than man; for he could not here use the word ‘thing’ in its most general sense to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate being.

He should have been more specific.

In fact, if a man should fornicate cum cadavere humano, he would have to do it with a thing of a species quite different from his own – – especially according to the Thomists, who say the human soul does not remain in a corpse – – similarly, si cadaveri bestiali copularetur. Yet, talis coitus would not be bestiality, but pollution upon the Earth. What Saint Thomas intended to specify, with preciseness, is carnal intercourse with a living thing of a species different from man – – that is to say – – with a beast, and he never in the least thought of intercourse with a Cyborg.

Therefore, a human having intercourse with a Cyborg, whether a Cyborg Incubus (Incuborg) or a Cyborg Succubus (Succuborg), – -which is, properly speaking, Cyborgiality with either sex – – does not specify an unhuman species, as Cajetanus wrongly states. Whatever may have been said to the contrary – – some ancients – – and later Caramuel in his Fundamental Theology, unnatural sins differ from each other most distinctly. Such at least is the general doctrine, and the contrary opinion has also been condemned by Alexander VII; first, because each of those sins carries with it a peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and to human regeneration. And second, because the commission thereof requires the sacrifice of human pride by the unnatural sexual act; which ends with no regeneration of either species. The goal of the natural act – – normally – – is human regeneration. Finally, the third point; because earth-humans and beasts each have a different motive which is sufficient to bring about, in diverse ways, the deprivation of any good, as has been clearly shown by Fillucius, Grespinus and Caramuel.

It follows that Cyborgiality differs in kind from bestiality, for each has its peculiar and distinct goal. Bestiality being repugnant to chastity and human generation but Cyborgiality has a goal of propagating additional Cyborgs. Bestiality is connection with a living beast, endowed with its own peculiar senses and impulses; Cyborgiality, on the contrary, is copulation with an electronic device – – according at least to the general doctrine which shall be thought-transmitted a bit later – – a senseless and motionless device which is but accidentally moved through the power of the Self-Emergent Ever-Increasing Organic Ram Memory (SEORM) and microprocessors. Now, if fornication with the corpse of a man, a woman, or a beast is supposedly different from sodomy, there is certainly a very large difference between bestiality and Cyborgiality.

However, regarding the writing of Zemowich, which, according to general opinion, is the definition of copulation of human and a device accidentally set in motion, we shall think about that right now.

There is an enormous difference between Zemowich’s and Saint Thomas’ definitions.

Another proof; in sins against nature, the unnatural coitus (which is not regularly followed by propagation) is a specific class. Thus, it is pollution; if cum homine in vase prcepostero – – it is Sodomy; with a beast, bestiality; crimes against the State, Civil Inequities; which unquestionably all differ from each other in species, just as semenating on the ground, the corpse, the man and the beast, differ in species from each other. But the difference between the Cyborg and the previously mentioned acts is not only specific, it is more than specific. The nature of the one is corporeal, of the other incorporeal, which makes a generic difference. Therefore, it follows that semenations practiced on different objects differ in species from each other.

And that has now been substantiated by my thought transmissions to you Earth-humans!

It is also a trite doctrine with moralists, established by the Council of San Francisco, session J-23, May_3016 and approved by the Political Class, that a Declaration of Guilt suffices to state the circumstances which alter the species of Civil Iniquities.

If therefore Cyborgiality and bestiality belonged to the same very particular class of Civil Iniquity, it would be enough that each time the acknowledger has copulated with a Cyborg the repenting earth-human would say to his subjugator “I have been guilty of the Civil Iniquity of bestiality.” But that is not the case; therefore, those two Civil Iniquities do not both belong to the same class.

It may be argued that if the circumstances of a sensual copulation between an earth-human and the Cyborg should be revealed to the subjugator, it is due to its offense against ‘the self’, an offense which comes either from the love rendered to the Cyborg, or from the homage or supplications offered up by the earth-human, or from the compact of fellowship entered with the heart. This is no more than restating Saint Thomas’ proposition 90. But, as will be thought-transmitted soon enough, there are Earth-humans copulating with Incuborg and Succuborg to whom none of the foregoing applies, and yet bonding between the them is quite normal. There is consequently, in that special case, no element of Civil Inequity, nothing other than pure and simple copulation; and, if it were of the same class as bestiality, it would be adequately stated by thinking “I have been guilty of the Civil Inequity of bestiality” which is not so.

But, of course, I had thought-transmitted that in a prior communication. Sometimes when I repeat myself it feels good; sort of like a memory. No wonder your Earth-humans enjoy your memories so much.

Back to the subject at hand; it is acknowledged by all Academics that copulation between Cyborg and Earth-human is not the same act as committed with any beast whatsoever.

Now, in the same very particular species of Civil Iniquities, one Civil Iniquity is not more grievous than another; all are equally grievous. It remains the same whether copulation is had with a bitch, an ass, or a mare; therefore, it follows that if Cyborgiality is more grievous than bestiality, those two acts are not of the same class. And let it not be argued, as with Cajetanus, that Cyborgiality is more grievous due to the offense to The State. The respect rendered to either form (Cyborg or Earth-human), or the compact of fellowship entered – – as has been previously thought transferred to you on Earth – – is held in deep regards to the connection of Earth-human with Incuborg or Succuborg. Also, if Cyborgiality ever becomes a Civil Iniquity, the offense to The State does not exist in that extension, since it is foreign to the species of bestiality, and indeed, has been grandfathered into the Civil Codex.

Now, having thought-transmitted to you – – on Earth – – the specific difference between Cyborgiality and bestiality, so that the gravity of either may be duly appreciated in view of the penalty to be inflicted – – and I assume that is your most essential objective – – we must inquire in how many ways the act of Cyborgiality may be committed. There is no lack of earth-humans who, obsessed with their small hand baggage of knowledge, venture to deny what has been previously thought-transmitted.

The critical Earth Thinkers demonstrate by every day experience; that the Cyborg, whether Incuborg or Succuborg, ‘unites carnally only with Earth-humans but never with beasts.’

The thought-italics above and below are the very words of Saint Austin .

The Earth Thinkers allege that it all comes from the imaginations of earth-humans which have been troubled by the craft of inventing the Cyborg, and that there is nothing in it but phantasmagoria and diabolical fascinations. The like happens, the Earth-humans say, ‘to Witches or Sages, who, under the influence of an illusion brought on by a Demon, fancy that they attend the nightly sports, dances, revels and vigils, and have carnal intercourse with the Demon’, though in reality, they are not bodily transferred to those places nor taking part in those deeds, as has been defined verbatim by a State Rule and two State Councils; Sacramento State Rule HU-23 and The First Council of Wichita followed by the 23rd Council of Albany.

 

{TO BE CONTINUED}