Law 66 Commented


The fear which installed in the sense of how to control the desires of the woman, for these being unlimited, equal to the power of the creator, it was previously thought in an intelligent way. This intelligent way was revoked, the clause which follows, and this is also its interpretation, the desires of the woman can only be regulated by love, but this would also generate incomprehension, in a way that, for the understanding, it’s the natural fluxes, the saudade [to miss] comes and the saudade goes: it follows the path of pain. The desires are never alone, because there’s nothing alone on nature: the will and the pleasure would always be over the table, discussing the sexual problems: the only point they would reach is the extraction of the judgement. And the sex is something that never existed, except for the concept of moral.

The Nature disconsiders such understanding, just as the firmament is called heaven. In a way that the image that follows is an interpretation. In a way that’s about a judgement that will be never fulfilled, of which reactive effect is its own destruction. The essentialities of the woman will not be destroyed, as the earth will not be transformed into ground.

What the human being called Unity is about an interdimension.

The Love will never be treated as an object of the contract.

The Nature thanks the broken of the virtue, it was never natural.

“The addiction is the judge of the pleasure’

66 –what is the man and what is the woman, a receptacle of an juridical ordainment, or personal observants’ of themselves?

It’s a human puzzle, it’s that girl that you ate than you threw out because you didn’t liked. Man and woman is a conditioning, an obligation, a result, a purpose: and this is all that’s known about man and woman.

For this, marriage doesn’t exists, because both don’t belong to each other, they do not possess one another. For this, love is a funny answer, a joke, which one cannot take seriously.

It’s as the one in the flesh must be understood, as the fingers and the hand, that, if they’re together, both will belong to the body: but they’ll be separated by an institution.

This is not natural.

The Love is not a store of social increments, where that which one dresses is a common well, love is undressed.


The four essentialities of nature were so configured as:


The desire – the sin

The pleasure – the suffering

The will – an obligation

About the sex, the contact is superficial. One must question itself, the contact and its unidimensionality, the bodies. Example: God and Virgin Mary, what kind of contact was that[?]

Desire, understood as sin, the betrayal: who desires, desires another body: this is the concept of Unidimension: and, for this, every desire is sex. For such understanding, desire was that which was forbidden.

In the same way, how must it be understood the contact in Christ? Could it be understood as a sexual contact? Is it possible to touch Christ and be touched by him? And will he be present when we touch in someone else? Will he be touching too?

The pleasure is understood as the will which sex is not present: for this, thepleasure with God is not sexual. In a way that God had no pleasure with Mary: at the same time, misunderstands that there was no desire: the smell was stepped away of the desires for a most simple question: if someone didn’t liked the smell of Christ: he could have a bad smell. You would answer, ‘Christ has no smell at all’, and I’d reply, That’s why there’s no desire in Christ.

In the Nature, that which has no smell has no flavor.. And if it has no flavor, it has no taste.

The taste: the will. Example: Eve, what did she felt when she touched the apple? What was the smell, what the taste, what the flavor? That was tasty, for this, she offered to Adam. And for this, she committed a sin. The nature was judged by its essentialities.

The woman is already born possessed, to dispossess her it’s the question. So, come back, follow the story and also the Judgement of the Desire , which is the official jurisprudence of the Law against the moral, that, which defends the prostitution. It’s not about a matter of freedom: as it was already said, this one is about a separation. Questions quite simple: if you’re going to masturbate on the bathroom, take someone with you: you will see that the pleasure is different. The only one who hides it’s sex: And when this happens, love will be absent.

The jurisprudence of the law approaches complex questions such asposse and property. its realization: what’s it’s impact over the woman and over the nature, and the consequences for man, for virtue and all its concept of beauty.

Dispossess the Nature, and she’ll dispossess you.

The love happened. But it was looked for another explanation: “It was a Creation”

Featured Posts
Recent Posts