2000-9-12 10:08:00
Concerning the book on money, Peter, I basically agree with you that the historical part is especially good, but I don't think the guy is consciously creating a scam. I do not think his plan will succeed and some may lose money because of future financial problems, but I would guess the author is moving ahead with good intentions. [The book referred to can be found at: http://users.netmatters.co.uk//startingout/xat/index.html]
As far as predictions of financial doom go -- someone mentioned they have been hearing such predictions for 20 years. Actually, I have been hearing them for about 35 years. Believe me, no one who read anything about conspiracy theory in the sixties and seventies expected us to move into a new century without a major depression. I know the economy is fragile and we always have a danger facing us in it, but the problem is that there is little that we as individuals can do about it except in preparing the best we can for emergencies. Let us hope things hold together until the time of the gathering.
Lee writes:
"JJ, help me out here. I want to try to stop biting your finger and see where you are pointing. With all due respect, the only one I see calling someone an extremist is you. I don't think it is correct to call the majority of the human race anything but children of God, growing up. What is the point of discussing our brothers in such a light? It seems like it just creates more separatist and/or elitist thinking."
JJ:
First let me say that I am pleased you are enjoying the list. With that said, I thought I would make a few comments on this statement you made.
I am not calling anyone in particular an extremist, but have been discussing a principle. If a principle is true then there is no finger pointing about it, it just is.
You must not be reading the newspaper, watching television or listening to radio if you do not hear and see people pointing fingers and labeling those who do not agree with them as extremists. I see this extremists-name-calling going on daily. It is done by specifically labeling individuals and groups, and not merely discussing a principle as I have been doing. I find it amusing that each time this happens I see that the person pointing the finger is usually more of an extremist than the one accused.
Lee:
"I don't think it is correct to call the majority of the human race anything but children of God, growing up."
JJ:
Why make such a limited judgment as to what is correct as if you expect us to not step out of this limitation? What is meant by the term "children of God" anyway? It means different things to different people. Actually any view which describes the present condition of mankind would be describing them as the children of God and observing how they are growing up would it not?
It is important that we be tolerant of completely honest communication so all can accurately portray their observations whatever they are. In this state all are free to describe humans as a bunch of devils trying to ruin the universe if we want. In fact, even this extreme view has elements of truth, there is some devilishness in all of us.
Lee:
"What is the point of discussing our brothers in such a light (extremism)? It seems like it just creates more separatist and/or elitist thinking."
JJ:
Separatist and elitist thinking doesn't come from observing or describing what is, but by the distortion of what is. One person can observe the tendency of the majority to miss the truth in the middle, as Jesus did, and yet not have a separatist attitude because of it. Then another can preach inclusiveness and love for all; yet, be extremely separative and elitist, thinking that he or his group alone understands the true meaning of love.
The point in discussing this, my friend, is found in one word. Truth. If we have any religion here, it is truth and wherever that may lead us.
I said that most people are extremists. Now that statement is either true or false. If it is false, I should be corrected and the real truth should become manifest. If the statement is true, then this goes against the thinking of the majority and should be explored.
Why?
If the majority does not see a particular truth, but we have the opportunity to, there will be a definite advantage to turning on the new light. Knowledge is power; all truth uncovered gives us greater power to bring about the dominating good. Conversely, all truth ignored, denied, or covered up allows that which is not good to continue for a while longer.
Now when I say that almost all people are extremists, what do I mean?
In the normal context, an extremist is one who greatly deviates from the norm. In this sense only a few fit into the category of the extreme from the masses point of view. If we use this word in its normal context, it is true few people are extremists.
Most people believe the mid-point to be a point between the two extremes of thinking and action because it is the norm. The problem with the standard equation of the norm is that it is a floating target. Fifty years ago, people with values like Dr. Laura were the norm and anyone advocating gay rights was the extreme. Today, consideration of gay rights is the norm and Dr. Laura is seen as the extreme.
If we accept wide deviation from the mid-way point of truth as extremism, then indeed most people are extremists. The true judgment at the mid-way point remains the same throughout the swing of the pendulum. The true extreme is then measured from the angle of truth at the real mid-point, not the illusionary norm of the masses.
To illustrate my point, let me throw out this challenge. Can you think of a famous person or well known group that is not extreme (or headed full speed in that direction) from the midway point? If you think you have found this person or group tell us why you believe this and why you think they are following the middle path.
"Time and space are states of consciousness."
--Djwhal Khul (DK)
Copyright © 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved