Keys Writings, Part 20

This entry is part 34 of 34 in the series 2011C

Dec 2, 2011

Sample signatures of Apple founders for handwriting analysis

John C I found this document with signatures of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, the three men who founded Apple. Wayne later dropped out.

JJ might find these early signatures from 1976, and if there more recent signatures, it might be interesting to compare them.

Signatures

JJ Thanks for digging this up. Since Steve’s signature is from 1976 I did some digging and found several more recent ones. Unfortunately, I cannot find any of his regular handwriting which would reveal more.

Several things are what I would expect and several were not.

Because he had cancer I would suspect that he had problems with suppression but there is virtually no suppression in his signature. It is strange he died of cancer when he seemed to be on a very good diet and was expressive emotionally. There is one thing I noticed that could cause emotional problems linked to cancer and that is he would yield to others, sometime against his better judgment. This is surprising since he is portrayed as being fairly unyielding. I think this yielding characteristic shows up in the book where time and time again others would share their ideas and views and he would reject them but then the next day he would be totally accepting of them and sometimes act like they were his own. His handwriting would indicate he changed his mind largely because he did a lot of thinking of how to accommodate others even though this did not seem to be true.

Even though he does not suppress emotion he did suppress his thoughts and was quite secretive.

Another thing that is somewhat surprising is he was quite insecure and he was very nervous about taking chances. What compensated for this though was his personal gutsiness and courage. These would override his fears.

One more thing that may surprise some is that he wasn’t concerned about getting a lot of personal recognition. If his products were appreciated then he was happy and that was the main thing.

His writing, especially his later writing shows that he really thought outside the box and was unconventional in many ways. He was very unconventional in almost every way and even though some portray him as a difficult personality the writing reveals that he had powerful personal magnetism and charm. I can see why many were very devoted to him.

He was a very balanced thinker and interested in all phases of life, the spiritual, social and material.

He was intuitive, creative and often compared his work to art which is interesting because he could have been an artist if he had put his attention in that direction.

The interesting thing about Wozniak’s writing is that he writes more like a schoolteacher than an engineer or computer genius. He’s a lot more of a people person and not as intelligent as I expected.

John: This isn’t yielding, this is stealing. But, he, himself, admitted that the best ideas are stolen.

JJ It was both. Stealing ideas does not negate the yielding. I think stealing is a harsh way of putting it when he was running the company and already owned whatever anyone produced. Also both Jobs and the employee involved knew where the ideas came from. Jobs was very sparse with his praise making such very valuable. I think that he felt that just using an employees idea was enough to give them recognition.

Everyone thinks a little differently and one has to put himself in the guy’s shoes to understand. I think that those who worked close with him did understand and that is why most really liked working for him and supported him despite his quirky ways.

Dec 3, 2011

Larry’s Questions

Larry W writes: Dinosaurs and men. What about lizard men? I admit I know little about Atlantis. But didn’t the great final confrontation occur between lizard men and homosapiens in Atlantis times? Was that just 10,000 years ago? Was it before Adam (the latest one who appeared about 6,000 years ago)?

JJ The Atlantis mentioned by Plato as existing around 10,000 years ago was just a small remnant of the civilization. HPB taught that Atlantis reached its greatest quality of civilization hundreds of thousands of years before this. The reptile people were most likely of great antiquity.

There have been many strange human-like skeletons found, some even with horns. Some pictures are presented in the video I referenced a couple days ago. Here is an interesting article about some unorthodox discoveries.

Discoveries

In addition to any physical evidence there are many stories and legends passed down about the reptile race. Here are some: Male

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans): the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents instead of legs. Cecrops I: the mythical first King of Athens was half man, half snake Dragon Kings: creatures from Chinese mythology sometimes depicted as reptilian humanoids Fu Xi: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Glycon: a snake god who had the head of a man. Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Life, mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and linked to the water serpent constellation Hydra. Quetzalcoatl or the “feathered serpent”, the creator god and sky god of the Aztecs; variously depicted as a man, a serpent, or a reptilian humanoid. Sobek: Ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god Shenlong: a Chinese dragon thunder god, depicted with a human head and a dragon’s body Typhon, the “father of all monsters” in Greek mythology, was a man from the waist up, and a mass of seething vipers from the waist down. Zahhak, a figure from Zoroastrian mythology who, in Ferdowsi’s epic Shahnameh, grows a serpent on either shoulder

Female Cihuacoatl, literally “Snake Woman”, an Aztec goddess Echidna, the wife of Typhon in Greek mythology, was half woman, half snake. Moura Encantada from Portuguese and Galician folklore. The Gorgons: Sisters in Greek mythology who had serpents for hair. The Lamia: a child-devouring female demon from Greek mythology depicted as half woman, half serpent. N�wa: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Wadjet pre-dynastic snake goddess of Lower Egypt – sometimes depicted as half snake, half woman The White Snake: a figure from Chinese folklore

Either Some djinn in Islamic mythology are described as alternating between human and serpentine forms. Nāga (Devanagari: reptilian beings from Hindu mythology said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. The Serpent: a character from the Genesis creation narrative occasionally depicted with legs, and sometimes identified with Satan, though its representations have been both male and female.

Larry: But were the lizard men a uniform humanoid race or several different types of reptiles?

JJ You can use the Law of Correspondences to discover this. Look at all the varieties of the human race. This would indicate there was also a variety of reptiles.

Larry Does this relate directly to the snake story in the Garden of Eden?

JJ Yes, the idea of an intelligent serpent goes back to ancient times.

Larry Also, I always wonder what happens to those planets where the lizards kill off all the humans. Are they totally incapable of ever progressing further?

JJ Even steps backward are steps forward in the total scheme of things. If you take a wrong turn and find out it was a mistake and get back on the right road then the wrong turn was necessary to discover the right direction. There is a limit to the progression a soul can make in any form and sooner or later one must move on.

Larry Do those planets eventually get destroyed?

JJ All life forms fulfill a necessary function and do not get destroyed just because they are dominated by reptile life. Some planets and even star systems get destroyed for a variety of reasons.

Larry Will we fly there someday on a seeding mission and blow them away with far advanced tech and spiritual skills and re-seed the planet with humans? This might be a lot like ordinary seeding missions except with extermination at the beginning.

JJ The common sense thing will be to leave their evolution to themselves.

Larry We’ve been told Sanat is an innovator, not doing things precisely the same way as before but shortening up the process by introducing a lot more pain. Did I state this idea accurate?

JJ The enhancement came from stimulating the minds of humans more than pain. There was already plenty of pain to go around.

Larry So were many of us formerly lizard men? Now we/they use human bodies – ourselves, our families, our friends? Half and half? Or some other ratio?

JJ Either in this system or some other most (or perhaps all) of us have been in the serpent kingdom.

Larry: So would lizard men naturally think more like a hunter/killer?

JJ Think Kinglons from Star Trek.

Larry: Would they only eat one meal every other day – all meat?

JJ Your guess is as good as mine.

Larry Another issue that often reveals my ignorance is that of “root races”. I would love to see an outline showing root races one through now and beyond with a few paragraphs under each detailing similarities and differences and maybe something about origins.

JJ The root races are pretty simple; it’s the sub rootraces that are difficult to follow. The first two were in etheric matter so there is no remnant of them. The third, the Lemurian, has a residual in the Australian Aborigines but were more animal like in the beginning.

The Orientals are a residual of the fourth, the Atlantean and the fifth is the Aryan.

Larry: JJ says to look for sixth root race bodies to begin appearing even now. He says the design will pay far more attention to beauty where previous innovations were more utilitarian. So who do you nominate as an example of a sixth root race cutie?

JJ The sixth root race will not be a totally different looking people but a synthesis and refinement of all the races we have now. When it is fully in dominance the average person will be somewhat tan and very refined in features. Some of the best looking people of all races foreshadow the race to come.

John C And, I like some books that nobody here has read nor will read, but which I firmly believe and know are inspired from God. Rhetorical question: Does that me not an Initiate? Does that many any of you not Initiates? I don’t think so.

JJ I’d be interested in inspired books you have read that you think those here would not read. Maybe members would give them a look.

The books we read do not make us initiates, though solid knowledge helps propel us along the path. I have encountered quite a few who have read AAB who show few of the signs of the initiate.

 

Dec 15, 2011

Who’s the Father?

Here’s some dialog I’ve been having with Mark who has an LDS background.

Mark: When you bring up Sanat Kumara, the first Adam, the Ancient of Days, I think of Brigham Young’s Adam God theory. Is this what Brigham Young was referring to? The other question I have: If what you are saying is true, then Sanat Kumara does not appear to be the Father of our spirits. If not, then who is the Father our spirits? Who is our Heavenly Father, the one Jesus Christ referred when he said, “I go to your God and my God”? Reply

JJ Brigham had a rough idea about Adam God but did not know the details.

Our spirits were not created through heavenly parents having physical sex as taught in m Mormonism. We are eternal beings and have always been. Our essence has been stimulated by other beings and we basically create ourselves with the help of others who have progressed far beyond us. The form you have now was designed by you in conjunction with higher lives and was different in past lives. After each live you participate in designing a more perfect body.

Mark: Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalms: 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:”

Matthew 18:35 “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

Are we not to take the words “children” and “Father” literally here, but figuratively?

Also, when Jesus speaks of his heavenly Father, is he referring to Sanat Kumara?

JJ Notice that Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse did not teach the idea of heavenly parents giving birth to our spirits.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. End Quote

There is no outside creation to our spirit essence. The form we have now had a beginning at our physical birth and changes from age to age or life to life. There are those who assist and have assisted in our progress and in a sense they are fathers and mothers to us.

Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers. Melchizedek overshadowed Jesus and Jesus referred to him as Father.

Mark: Yes, Mormonism has always believed in the above Joseph Smith quote that we have always co-existed (in some form & essence) with God. Notwithstanding, what about the following principle- Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Zohar adds more to this principle: Observe that God has made the earthly kingdom after the pattern of the heavenly kingdom, and whatever is done on earth has been preceded by its prototype in heaven. -Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 197a How could something as foundational as marriage, sexual intimacy, children ” the very heart of our earthly sociality ” not even exist in heaven? Yet, the language of the scriptures are filled with family references ” The Father, The Son, Children of God, Sons, Daughters, etc. How could this be?

JJ You are right that all things that exist on earth first existed in heaven, or higher spheres. There are seven planes altogether. The next level up from us is the astral composed of emotional energy. This is what Mormons generally refer to as the spirit world. The next up is the mental plane composed of mental matter and is directed by the energy of mind. These three are the worlds of form, the mental being the highest is similar to the LDS celestial kingdom.

Above the mental is the buddhic plane from which true intuition originates. This intuition links the worlds of form to the next plane, the atmic. This plane governs the universe of ideas. On this plane originates all creation that eventually materializes here on the earth. An idea there is carried through the intuitive plane to the mind, then to emotional matter in the spirit world until it materializes here on the earth. The concept of the form of your body originated in the atmic plane and descended as a seed until it reached the physical plane and developed as a physical vehicle for you.

The idea that our archetypes were created previously is true, but just somewhat different than orthodox Mormonism believes. Mark: You even referenced family language in your last post stating, “Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers.” Why use the term “father”? What definition of father are you using?

JJ The word father is used a number of different ways in the scriptures and other writings. It doesn’t always mean a literal father of a body. Even on this plane an adopted child calls his caretaker his father.

Consider the word in reference to a prophesy of Christ:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6

Notice that Isaiah called prophesied Messiah “the everlasting Father.

The Book of Mormon does something similar:

“I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son �” The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And THEY ARE ONE God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. and thus the flesh (Jesus) becoming subject to the Spirit (Christ), or the Son to the Father…” Mosiah 15:1-5.

One reason the Messiah is called Father is that he initiated the fathering of many sons of God. Any creator is a father to his creations.

Mark: Finally, curious to your response to this thought too- John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene this if he was referring to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek Mary Magdalene’s Father too?

JJ Melchizedek, who overshadowed Jesus is responsible for the creation of the sons of God here on the earth. He is therefore the father of all who aspire to be such including Mary Magdalene.

Above him is Sanat Kumara who is responsible for the creation of all human life of earth making him our Father also.

In addition to this if we were able (as did Christ) to ascend to the sixth plane we would arrive at the plane of the monad where the seed of our existence and intelligence resides. This dwells as a point of light in divine space something like a star dwells in physical space. This divine space is the mind of God and there is only one space which is the ultimate Father of us all.

Dec 22, 2011 Taking Advice I received this from a fellow Keys member.

I’m passing this on because it worked for me today…Dr Oz on TV said that to reach inner peace we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives during the hectic Holiday season. I looked around my house to find things I’d started and hadn’t finished, so I finished off a bottle of CROWN, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiuminun scriptins, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. And telum u luvum.

Dec 23, 2011

SNL Skit

If yo haven’t seen it yet check this out.

Skit

Dec 23, 2011

Mysterious Iron Ball Falls from Space

Also check out the comments – very entertaining and creative.

 

Dec 26, 2011

New on Atlas Shrugged

Here’s some sad news about the Atlas Shrugged sequel from a blog:

This train ain’t coming, folks.

Let’s take an end-of-the-year assessment, shall we?

John Aglialoro, who funded it [Part I] using money he made as CEO of Cybex International, said that he wasn’t going to sink more of his own money into producing Part II, and that making that movie would depend on either the profitability of Part I or finding outside funding.

Part I was a flop in the movie theaters, making less than $5M in a five-week release. It was done in by Aglialoro’s cheaping out on advertising, and the fact that the movie was one of the worst-reviewed of the year — a 28 Metacritic score, which, though definitely terrible, was not by any means the worst of the 2011.

“Oh, but wait until the international release!”

The international release right now consists of a single screen at a single theater in Halifax. It looks like the entire international release will not reach even a dozen screens.

“Oh, but wait for DVD and BluRay!”

The DVD and BluRay releases are now very comfortably out of the top hundred on Amazon. A quick logarithmic estimate — based on the facts that the #1 DVD sold 1M units this week, that #30 sold 100K, and “Atlas” is below #150, is that about a thousand “Atlas” DVDs are being sold a week. BluRays are doing far, far worse, below #600.

“Oh, but wait for VOD!”

Thirty-three days after its release on video-on-demand, the movie rental is at #100 on iTunes. Both the home purchase and rental market, in other words, faded even faster than the disastrous theatrical release.

So, add it all up, and what do you have? Everyone now knows quite clearly that “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” will not recoup its investment this year, next year, and possibly ever.

What’s more, John Algialoro couldn’t deep-pocket Part II into existence even if he wanted to, because his main source of wealth  shares in Cybex  have dramatically tumbled. In June 2010, when shooting for Part I began, Cybex was trading at $1.30; it’s last close was $0.48, and it seems certain that NASDAQ will delist it in January for not meeting certain minimum requirements for business size and share price, further knocking the share price down.

So now it’s down to Magic Money Raining from the Sky. Aglialoro has two reasons not to underwrite Part II: he lost his shirt the first time, and he has no shirt left to lose. Are the studios going to step up and make a sequel to a flop, something which was demonstrated to deflate and go belly-up as soon as it hit the screens? Nope.

So where is part II?

Nowheresville. That’s why no cast has been announced, no director, no date for principal shooting, nothing.

This train ain’t coming.

JJ Comment:

I think this is really strange that the movie did so badly when Ayn Rand has such a large following and in my opinion the movie was very well done. I think its failure has more to do with the fact that when a point of light is trying to pierce the darkness that it is just overwhelmed until the darkness loses some power.

For instance, all readers who have compared The Immortal with the Celestine Prophesy think the Immortal is much better yet The Celestine Prophesy has sold overwhelmingly more copies. I certainly have great respect for all those lights who persevere in the face of seemingly unending darkness. Faith in the power of the dominating good is always a source of power and strength.

Dec 27, 2011

Natural Selection

JJ wrote [awhile back]: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work. Without intelligence there can only be ‘random selection.'” – http://freeread.com/archives/4607.html

JJ wrote [in a follow-on post]: “The conundrum comes in when you consider that natural selection as defined by the evolutionists takes place with no apparent intelligence or conscious choice involved. […] In the process of evolution the more appropriate forms survive and the one ill equipped fade away, but both forms were created by intelligent choice.” – http://freeread.com/archives/4609.html

Dan: What do you call it when “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”?

This surviving/fading away process is what evolutionary theorists refer to as “natural selection”, whether the various forms that are “selected” from are themselves the result of intelligence isn’t addressed in the term “natural selection”, just the fact that one survives and the other fades away without influence (other than which survives/produces more offspring).

The “selection” is “made” by whether the thing lives/reproduces more or does not/dies out, that’s why they refer to it as “natural” rather than “directed” or “intelligent”.

Are you saying some one/thing actually makes an conscious, intelligent “choice” as to which should/will go on (is more suitable in/for a particular environment) and which shouldn’t?

Even if life itself is (the FORMS are) the result of INHERENT intelligence, it would be quite a stretch to use that as a basis for saying: which form survives/prospers and which doesn’t in any particular environment – the “selection” process – is itself intelligent!

JJ Response: After I made those comments my inner self tugged at me telling me that I had painted an incomplete picture but never got around to expanding on the subject. I notice that if I say anything inaccurate or leave anything undone someone here almost always catches it. You guys certainly keep me on my toes.

You quote me saying this: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work.”

The problem I have is with the term “natural selection.” The difficulty caused in using the word “selection” is that the word itself implies an intelligent choice and a choice, as I said, involves intelligence, or intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one.

Technically what they call natural selection is really natural default. A default can happen with no intelligence involved but a selection implies an intelligent discriminating mind at work.

Let’s look at a few elementary situations caused by the application of natural selection.

1. If it rains for days on end then we will have muddy streets.

No one really selected or chose the appearance of muddy streets. Instead it is a default situation due to changing circumstances.

Now because of the mud some intelligence may decide to build a sidewalk, but this does not appear by default but through intelligent choice and design and is not a part of what they call natural selection.

2. If it is cold then sooner or later it will snow.

The appearance of snow is what they would call a natural selection of nature, but no one selected the snow. It occurred by default. It always occurs in winter by default due to the arising cold conditions.

Now the cold may force me to wear a coat but my wearing a coat involves a choice and therefore does not fit in the definition of natural selection.

Millions of years can pass ands each year when it gets cold there will be snow but each year this occurs by default with no choice involved. Those applying intelligence to the situation will go beyond nature’s default and not only make coats but created heated homes, cars and thermal underwear. All these materialize through intelligent design, not natural selection.

Now orthodox Darwinists tell us that all life evolved through nature’s defaults with no intelligent selection involved – even though they call it natural selection.

For instance, if the climate changed and became much colder wild animals without a good coat of fur would freeze and those having a thick coat would survive and breed other animals with thick fur causing them to evolve into much furrier animals than before. This they say is the explanation of how evolution moves forward with no intelligence involved.

The problem with this explanation is that their examples of natural selection involves life forms that are already much more complex than our most sophisticated computers. After all, the DNA of a simple plant has most of its ingredients and functions in common with animal and human DNA.

The programming for creating thicker fur was already built into the animal and no one can demonstrate how nature’s default system (natural selection) could have created the complex programming. They can only demonstrate that life can adapt to situations because of programming that already exists, but cannot demonstrate how the programming came to be with no intelligence choice.

To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA. If they could then observe inorganic matter coming together on its own to produce a cell then they would have something.

Scientists are hard at work attempting to create life in the laboratory. They say that if they do this it will prove evolution and that there is no God or Intelligent Designer.

To this I give a bug Duh and a dunce hat.

If scientists create life then how did that life appear? Intelligent designers (scientists) created it. This would only prove that a vehicle for life could only manifest through extremely difficult applied intelligent effort.

I know that religious people say that science will never create life, but they are wrong. The beginning of a new life form has already taken place. It is the silicon based embryo life called the computer. This will eventually evolve into a recognized life form. Eventually we will see beings like Data from the Star Trek series.

And Data would be the first to admit that he was not created through a default system of natural selection. He knows he has a creator.

Dec 27, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dan: I think you mean “to prove the theory of evolutionary improvement …”, not the “theory of natural selection”.

JJ To be technically correct I should have written:

To prove the theory that natural selection can create life one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dec 28, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

LWK Have to wonder what “life” really is and if it is every created? Maybe it is not created but has always existed and always will exist. Perhaps only the physical “vehicle” gets created through which eternally existing life expresses itself?

Really don’t know, but then it occurred to me that I don’t even know what life really is (so how can I know if it was ever created?)? JJ Here’s my definition of life

An energy which exhibits power to create and organize as well as destroy. Evidence of intelligence is manifested through its movement.

Dec 29, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Darwin himself never even discussed the origin/creation of life nor how the variations of form came about that are selected amongst. The most he said about creation was this:

JJ Many scientists who are atheists believe that life itself evolved through the process of natural selection. They only follow Darwin to the extent that he supports their mindset.

Dec 29, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Natural Selection could be the default mechanism/system for evolving physical experience and does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent action by either a pervasive, inherent intelligence or influence by intelligent entities at various points such as Sanat Kumara.

The thing to remember is that the “selection” in (basic) natural selection just means: what works continues, what doesn’t fades away – no DIRECT intelligent choice required. The atheists are right on that point.

JJ Atheists do not believe life evolved through a natural selection involving intelligent selection through trial and error but that random events created the right circumstances for life to just take off with no intelligence involved at all – a much different thing than Edison and the light bulb. It as a natural selection for Edison to pick the bulb that worked but without intelligence involved a bulb would have never been created that lit up.

Dec 30, 2011 When to Initiate Kelly writes: With regards to these initiates that are mentioned (Lincoln, jesus, Washington, Buddha, etc), I understand that it was in their book of life to come here on earth and initiate. Hence, it must be part of a person’s destiny to initiate, part of their soul plan that is and consequently not just some random happening. Is that correct or can someone initiate something…accidentally?

JJ No work done by an initiate is accidental but some of it is unplanned.

In between lives we do plan our next life. The higher the initiate the more accurate the plan and the greater will be the work. But things do not always go according to plan. Sometimes the work is frustrated and other times it comes out different or even better than expected.

Once the initiate is on the earth and sees his vision and sets his goals the move forward doesn’t happen by accident but through great intelligent effort.

Kelly: And when someone does initiate, is there a time frame like a specific age or Saturn stage or something that connotes this? I know there is the age 21 when a person integrates his soul wisdom and gets to the point where he was at his last life. Then 28 at the first Saturn cycle where a person begins his life work. Then what?

JJ A person can initiate a work at any age where he has developed communication skills. Check out this child who began her initiating work at the age of four: http://www.artakiane.com/

After the age of 21 and after each Saturn cycle we have an opportunity to move forward our personal development which may or may not have something to do with initiating a project or work.

When you have the skills to initiate then you can begin a work if you are so inclined no matter what your age.

Kelly: Something tells me this initiate thing must be key to having a longer life. You somehow keep your brain cells alive.

JJ Some initiates may die young – such as Steve Jobs, but they will eventually learn the secrets of long life and extended life.

Dec 30, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: The reason I brought this topic up yet again is because even though the word “selection”, taken literally, implies intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one, the term “natural selection” does not.

The word selection in this case was intended METAPHORICALLY by the originator of the term Charles Darwin because he could find no better term. He himself defines it and addresses this literal/metaphorical issue SPECIFICALLY in “The Origin of Species”, saying he uses it in the same way that chemists refer to “affinity” between atoms.

If you bear the true meaning in mind next time you “discuss” evolution with an atheist (as you were in the post I originally quoted), you might have more luck bringing them around – assuming that is your intent.

It just undermines your credibility to insist “Duh, of COURSE natural selection requires intelligence, how can something be selected without someone to select it”. It doesn’t because the metaphorical “selection” that takes place is simply the NATURAL process of “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”.

JJ I already admitted that my wording needed to be corrected and that you did a good job of pointing out that I was technically incorrect. Why do you keep bring this up when the point has been covered several times? Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

I don’t think we disagree here yet you write as if I am fighting you on this.

We both agree that intelligence in matter causes the natural selection process to work, but atheists do not believe in intelligence in matter and that is the difference.

Also I am writing to believers in intelligent design here. When I talk with atheists I do attempt to speak their language, but it doesn’t do much good as they think that intelligence in matter is crazy talk.

Dan: The natural selection that took place with Edison and the lightbulb had NOTHING to do with him selecting the right materials, the natural selection came in when he turned on the juice and either light came out (it worked) or no light came out (it didn’t work).

Edison selecting/creating each form and then trying them is the intelligence in the system, NOT whether each works or not – whether a form works or not is non-intelligent and up to universal natural law to “determine”.

JJ But if a light bulb turned on in a uninhabited dessert with no intelligence to do any selecting, then it would not be long before the bulb would go out and not seen again for there would be no intelligence to select it. Of course, it is a natural selection to choose a light bulb over a candle but without an intelligence involved the improved selection does not get made.

Entropy is the natural law of the universe unless intelligence comes along and reverses it.

Dec 31, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

Dan: I don’t know what you are talking about here. A pound of flesh would seem to require a vicious attack which seems a pretty harsh accusation given that I haven’t felt adversarial – until perhaps now 😐 Please point out where I have attacked you or cease the name-calling.

JJ I do not call people names and this was certainly not an attempt at it.

You brought this subject up and I thought I clarified my thoughts. Then you brought it up again as if no clarification had been made and I clarified again. Then the scenario repeated one more time and I thought. What in the world does Dan want – a pound of flesh?

In other words, it seemed you wanted me to cry uncle or something of the sort. I didn’t mean to insult you but to express exasperation with what it is I am supposed to be communicating to you so you will be satisfied.

It appears to me that natural selection in the various conversations falls into two categories and this seems to cause the confusion.

Category One.

(1) Natural selection with no intelligence involved.

Examples: Gravity selects a rock to roll down a hill Rocks that roll the furthest have the jagged edges knocked off and are smoother than stationary ricks.

Heavy elements tend to sink lower in the earth and lighter stay near the surface.

(2) Natural selection with intelligence involved.

This happens when a process, product or innovation occurs that is intelligently judged to be superior to that used in the past. When this happens it is just natural for an intelligent entity to pick the superior item.

For instance a sailboat owner will pick a wind going in the direction he desires and adjust his sails.

Humanity selected Edison’s light bulb because it was better than candlelight.

Humanity selected the automobile over the horse and buggy because of the advantages.

In this second category of natural selection intelligent choice was involved but in the first category it was not.

The second category can cause the development of complex forms, such as the computer chip or DNA and first cannot.

Many atheists disagree. They think the first category can cause complex forms such as DNA to evolve. Believers in intelligent design do not accept this but believe that either the second category applies to creation of life or a personal being called God designed and created all things.

I’d be surprised if we are not on the same page on this because category two runs through my teachings from the beginning and the process is elaborated on in Eternal Words as noted by Adam.

Hope this helps.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: When to Initiate–Akiane and my own art success. Re: Akiane

Ruth: I would assume that if she can fold her physical body up and unfold it again, then she could/would be a Master.

JJ Someone did this for her which is much different than having power to do this according to your own will. Because she was worked with as a child when the spirit is pure she will find it easier to adjust higher energies.

She is definitely a disciple incarnated but doubt she is a master. When we examone her conscious thinking that is not channeled when she is 21 then we can get an idea of her real evolution.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Yes, natural selection is definitely the subject 🙂 Firstly I disagree that it falls into two categories.

JJ That’s because you’re only looking at category one which is only one of the two categories.

Dan: The word “selection” literally requires intelligent choice between options.

In the phrase/term “natural selection”, the word selection is only meant metaphorically – no intelligent choice between options is required, only the operation of natural, universal law.

JJ I realize the take on this but the gravitation of intelligence to natural selection is as predictable as gravity. People will pick staying warm over freezing to death. That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

There are definitely the two categories I mentioned around natural, or default selection.

Dan Natural Selection by intelligence is a nonsensical, self-contradictory use of the term.

JJ I don’t think so.

Dan: Secondly, I disagree that atheists believe that natural selection produces intelligence but rather they, generally speaking, believe that natural selection selecting from amongst random processes of combination/mutation of non-intelligent matter does.

JJ It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

It is obvious that they believe that natural selection is the prime cause of intelligence. There can be no random processes without natural selection being involved.

Dan Thirdly, I personally do not think that intelligent selection is required to produce intelligence as you seem to think I think 🙂

JJ I do not recall giving my view on this.

Dan: but what I do think is that NATURAL (non-intelligent) selection operating upon inherently intelligent matter will cause it to evolve without any further input of intelligence being necessary.

JJ I think we agree here. Book 4 elaborates on this.

Dan: I could go for “default selection” but it sounds like you are quibbling over proper use of words rather than the concept BEHIND the words as you have admonished others against over the years.

JJ I commented on the meaning of the words because you brought the subject up and it was necessary we speak the same language.

Dec 31. 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: People will pick staying warm over freezing to death.

That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

Dan: Yep, the first is an example of (intelligent) selection but is not what the biologist (ahteist or not) is referring to when he uses the term “natural selection”.

JJ I know. When natural selection is used in connection with atheistic evolution then they claim no intelligence is involved. But as far as the basic principle of natural selection is involved there are the two categories. Not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and many believe that intelligence is involved.

Dan And yep, the second is an example of the type of non-intelligent process that biologists refer to by the term “natural selection” – it happens without any intelligence choice involved. Universal law (specifically gravity) takes care of rolling the ball down to the bottom of the hill.

JJ Agreed. We’ve covered this.

Dan And yes, I agree with you that BOTH are natural to our universe, but ONLY the second is what evolutionary biologists refer to by the term/call “natural selection” they call the other type “artificial selection”.

JJ Many scientists who believe in God believe that intelligence is involved in evolution.

JJ replied: It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

Dan: Atheists appear to think that atoms will bump against each other by what they nebulously (and variously) refer to as “random processes” and then the action of universal law causes some atoms to stick together and some not (which process they call natural selection) and this will eventually lead to intelligence (us).

JJ Again it sounds like you agree that atheists scientists believe that natural selection creates intelligence.

Dan: Let me say it again a different way:

Atheists do not believe that natural selection ALONE leads to intelligence, they think various vaguely defined “random processes” under the ADDITIONAL impulse of what they call “natural selection” will eventually lead to intelligence.

JJ Still sounds like you are saying the same thing. Natural selection selects from random events and creates intelligence. The selection from events is what created intelligence just as I have been saying the atheists believe.

We are usually on the same page 95% of the time. I think we are here but the semantics sometimes gets in the way.

Whatever the case, sorry for my part in the confusion and Happy New Year.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 19

This entry is part 33 of 34 in the series 2011C

Nov 20, 2011
Immortal Books on Kindle
I have added my three books in The Immortal series to Amazon’s Kindle and will add more soon.

Here are the links:

The Immortal

The Lost Key of the Buddha

Eternal Words

Nov 20, 2011
A Second Test
As you know a few weeks ago scientists measured some neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. This astonished the scientific world as they thought that such a thing was impossible for a particle to do. They recently conducted some more tests and have received the same confirmation. Now they are beside themselves trying to explain what happened.

To add to this mystery they have measured the speed of neutrinos from the supernova SN1987A, which lies about 168,000 light years from Earth. The result was that photons and neutrinos that traveled such great distance arrived at virtually the same time. Both of them seemed to travel at the speed of light together.

In this latest experiment they didn’t send the neutrinos through space, but through the earth from Cern to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles away. Now you would think that going through solid earth would slow them down more than going through space, but instead they sped up.

Now don’t go thinking they greatly exceeded the speed of light for they only arrived 60 billionths of a second early. To draw a comparison – imagine the speed of light being 100 MPH. These neutrinos only exceeded that speed by going 100.002 MPH.

Scientists are coming up with all kinds of theories. The best I have heard is that what we though of as being the ultimate speed a particle could go is incorrect because light going through space is not going through a true vacuum but is slightly slowed down by matter (known and unknown) in space itself. Somehow these neutrinos going through the earth encountered less friction than they would have going through space.

Whatever the case it is great to see real science at work unlike what happens in global warming science. If the Cern people were to use the global warming mindset they would merely say the consensus is the speed of light cannot be broken so this cannot be true; therefore, they are not even going to perform further experiments in this direction.

Nov 20, 2011
Re: A Second Test
lwk Actually if the scientists were using the “global warming mindset,” there would probably be a rush to blames a rise in the speed of light on an increase in light emitted by human beings on the planet and a demand to go back to candles which don’t endanger the environmentally correct speed of light. 🙂

JJ Good point Larry. On top of that, people like you and me who are open to the speed of light being broken would be called, “speed of light deniers,” or maybe “Einstein haters.”

Nov 21, 2011
Re: A Second Test

Tom: What initiative was Einstein? Had he been a 3rd he would have seen the errors in his idea that nothing can travel faster than light.

JJ A third degree initiate is far from omniscient and infallible. Even the highest of initiates. masters and gods have their limitations and do not see and understand all things. A third degree initiate can dispel illusion provided he has the necessary facts available and focuses his attention on the subject where the illusion resides. For instance, such an initiate may have not placed much attention on global warming because many other matters occupy his mind. Consequently, he doesn’t have a strong opinion one way or another. Finally, something stimulates his interest and he decides to look into it. Once he studies the available data he then unravels the illusion surrounding the subject and hones into the truth of the matter.

I would guess that Einstein was a very savvy second degree. The reason I do not peg him at third degree is that he was agnostic about God and a third degree would have experiences that should have removed all doubt.

I believe that Newton was a third degree as he was a very spiritual scientist and spent much of his life unraveling the mysteries of the works of God.

Nov 23, 2011
Letter to Editor
I thought the comparison of global warming scientists to those at Cern was interesting so I wrote a letter to my local paper on the subject. Here it is:

Dear Editor:

If you want to see some real scientists at work who follow the true scientific method then one should follow the scientists at Cern.

Instead of just declaring that traditional science is settled they are approaching even the most orthodox scientific conclusions with a skeptical mind. In two separate experiments now they have dispelled the sacred cow of the speed of light and clocked neutrinos going faster than light.

Even though this turns the laws of physics and Einstein’s theories on their heads they are proceeding with experiments simply because they want to know the truth.

Can you imagine the situation if the politically polarized global warming scientists were to approach the Cern scientists – we’d hear statements like:

“There is powerful consensus that the speed of light cannot be broken so this is a waste of time.”

“You are speed of light deniers and Einstein haters.”

“You guys are like flat-earthers because you will not accept settled science.”

These real Cern scientists have presented strong evidence that the effect of cosmic rays on clouds account for over half the warming in the past century but the flat-earth type global warmers will not even consider the study.

Nov 22, 2011
Einstein and God

Not all Jews believe the same. Here was Einstein’s response to some religious questions: Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”

Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”

See Einstein & God

 

Nov 23, 2011
Steve Jobs
I recently finished the biography on Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. It was perhaps the best biography I gave ever read. The only others I can compare with it as being interesting were ones I have read on Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Mao. “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” was also very good, but was not written as a biography on Hitler

The book I liked on Mao was called, Mao: The Unknown Story By Jung Chang Jon Halliday. This was good because it was a great story of a tyrant not because Mao was a good guy.

Jobs had the feeling from the time he was young that he would die early so his whole life was a crash course to get as many things done as possible before that event happened.

When it became obvious the end was near he had the foresight to contact one of the best biographical writers and talk him into writing his story. Isaacson thus conducted interviews right up until the end and thus had lots of first hand material from direct interviews. Even so, the reader can tell that he did not use these interviews as a crutch for he obviously interviewed many people associated with Jobs as well as researching everything published about him. There are a few things on which he could have gone into greater detail but overall he did an excellent job. The book reads with the intrigue of a Dan Brown novel.

The big question that this group may have concerning Jobs is, was he an initiate and how advanced?

First, he was definitely an initiate for he never stopped initiating new things right up to the last days of his life.

He initiated the desktop computer and then the mouse and windows type operating system that was used in the Mac and copied by Microsoft. After he was fired from Apple he did not rest but began a cutting edge animation company, Pixar, which initiated new technology that revolutionized children’s movies.

In desperation, as Apple was about to go under, they wooed Jobs back to Apple. He came back and worked for a dollar a year for the first couple years.

The first thing he did when he came back was to trash two thirds of the Apple models to the ash heap of history and start fresh working on new innovating models. Shortly thereafter, they came out with the iMac which finally turned sales around. The next big leap was the ipod which they advertized as “1000 songs in your pocket.” This was an amazing breakthrough when you consider than the competitors could only manage a handful of songs on a portable device.

He didn’t stop there and soon the ipod type gizmos could manage your photos, play movies, take pictures, record movies and on and on.

Then he realized that the life of the ipod would come to an end in a few years and be replaced by a phone with all these abilities built in. He thus switched attention in this direction and created the iphone.

Next was the ipad. When this was introduced critics said it would never sell much because it was so expensive and netbooks was the future, but of course they were wrong.

Near his death he realized that television as we know it was coming to an end and worked on creating a home entertainment system that access all shows produced through the internet on demand and replace cable and satellite systems. Apple will yet reveal his last innovation.

He was a vegetarian throughout his life and experimented with a number of diets including the Mucusless Diet System. Many initiates are vegetarians, especially the first and second degree.

Throughout his life he pondered the mysteries of existence and life after death. Some of his favorite books dealt with metaphysics such as,

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Chogyam Trungpa’s Be Here Now, Baba Ram Dass

He wasn’t positive there was an afterlife, but hoped there was one. He represented that hope by making Apple products that had no off switch. He hoped that we as humans had no off switch when we died.

He seemed to receive his answer about life after death at the point of his departure. Just before he passed he looked beyond those gathered around him and said three times: OH WOW! After this he died.

It was quite possible that he was entering his third initiation experience with the Angel of the Presence.

Many wonder why he got cancer when he was on a vegetarian diet. There are several reasons that could be.

First, many vegetarian diets are not as healthy as a quality meat eating diet is. He was on numerous diet programs throughout his life rather than sticking to one consistent good one. It’s quite possible he had an overbalance of carbohydrates and starches. It’s also possible that he received too many chemicals that were not removed from vegetables.

One sign that something was wrong with his diet was that people often complained of his body odor. A proper diet should not generate that complaint.

A person can get cancer even with a good diet. Grievance and suppression is a major cause here and Steve suffered great hurt when he was fired from Apple. He seemed to have a real grievance toward John Scully who replaced him. Then watching powerlessly as they degraded his company was too much to bear.

It sounds like Steve was never able to let this and possibly other grievances go until possibly near the end of his life.

These are a few comments not found in standard reviews. I would suggest you go to Amazon, read several reviews and buy the book or audio. You will not be disappointed.

Nov 24, 2011
Re: Steve Jobs

Art: I am a little surprised that this autobiography seemed to paint him is such a good light.

I had read that he was notorious for absolutely humiliating his staff for the slightest misstep and was very difficult to work for.

JJ Actually Isaacson painted a whole picture of Jobs warts and all. This is what Steve wanted and gave him full power to write with no power of revision or dictating on his part. Steve said that he probably wouldn’t like parts of the book so he never planned on reading it. Quite a number of times he does come across as a jerk, but no sooner does that happen then you start to like him again and wish you could have met him.

The author does point out how difficult Steve was to work for but also notes how dedicated employees were to him and how many were willing to sacrifice anything to share in the achievements of the work. I liked one section where Isaacson compared Steve Jobs to Moses in the eyes of his admirers.

Ruth: If he was entering his 3rd initiation experience, then this was happening as he physically died?

JJ It would mean he entered the threshold of the Angel of the Presence as he was crossing over.

Ruth Does this mean that the Dweller was the cancer/disease that was killing him,

JJ The Dweller could have aggravated the cancer, but the cancer was not the dweller.

Ruth: and then as he started to pass over, he chose the Angel of the Presence and hence got to pass his 3rd initiation? At death, how would he chose between the Dweller or the Angel?

JJ No one chooses the Dweller. Why would you choose something that is trying to destroy you? You do, however, accept or reject the Angel of the Presence and whatever it was that Steve encountered at death he seemed to embrace it.

Ruth: For example, if he chose the Dweller, he wasn’t choosing life, because he was already nearly dead,

JJ As I said, no one chooses the dweller. Who would choose to hold their hand on a hot stove???

Ruth: so if he chose the Angel of the Presence, he was really choosing the only option which was Life after a physical death, but he would not have realized this as he passed over? It is interesting because I have only read about how one passes the 3rd initiation while still alive.

JJ More often than not the initiations are acknowledged, consummated and understood between lives. When initiations are relived in a certain life this usually happens on the physical plane. All the growth and advancement to achieve initiation must be achieved in the physical. Often (but not always) the actual initiation happens between lives.

Nov 28, 2011
What is an Initiate?
Previous post: John C If by “initiate” you mean “invent”…

JJ No. That is a million miles away from what I have taught about initiation.

Many investors have no power to initiate that which they invent. An initiate introduces and secures ideas into public consciousness and use. No one knows who invented the mouse, but Jobs introduced it to public use and consciousness. This is a much more difficult thing to do than to invent a thing. Columbus was not the first to discover America, but he initiated the great exploration. Like they say. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but making something of them is the greater work. I’ll write more on this shortly.

Current Post:

John C Then, this is closer to the definition of “innovation” that I gave in my post. I hope you will write more on this subject. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this topic, even though much has already been written about it.

JJ The word “innovation” doesn’t really describe the initiate either. To be an innovator and inventor are two very similar things.

Let me give two examples of innovative thinkers. Ben works for Acme manufacturing and gets an idea that would save six steps in the manufacturing process. He tells his boss about it but he doesn’t see the vision and brushes him off. Ben then goes to the next guy up the ladder but gets chewed out for going over his bosses head.

Ben is frustrated and spends the rest of his days grumbling that no one listens to him.

Chuck goes through the same process with his company and reaches the same dead end. Instead of accepting his fate, one day he puts down his remote and does some thinking. He realizes that there are a lot of companies that could use his innovations. He then sets up a consulting company and contacts numerous other manufacturers that could benefit from his thinking. A handful accept his proposals. Then, after a period of success, many companies, even Acme, make changes proposed by Chuck.

When Ben sees Chuck’s success he feels cheated and thinks to himself that he had these ideas first and no one gives him any credit.

So… is Ben initiating just because he came up with good innovations?

Obviously not. Chuck is the true initiate here because he is the driving force that pushed the ideas into existence.

Most of what Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or even Einstein introduced was already dreamed up by someone else but these men initiated new products and concepts into the public consciousness that others merely dreamed about.

Perhaps we could define an initiate this way:

An initiate is one who sees a better way and does more than dream about manifesting it but takes the necessary steps to bring it into existence. An initiate is one with true faith as I have previously defined the word.

Here are examples of initiates and non initiates.

Initiate: Columbus discovers America and changes the world.

Non Initiate: A Chinese captain discovers America long before Columbus, but nothing changed.

Initiate: Colonel Sanders has an unique chicken recipe that changes the chicken industry.

Non Initiate: Aunt Martha has an even better recipe but it dies with her.

Initiate: Steve Jobs successfully brings the desktop computers to the market.

Non Initiate: Even before this Steve Nebulous builds his own desktop from spare parts and amuses his friends with it.

Initiate: H. P. Blavatsky writes a book that changes the way many people think.

Non Initiate: Yogi Sahara writes an even better book but he never gets it published and no one reads it or knows that it exists.

Initiate: Sam sees the value in an innovative idea being introduced by an initiate, sees a way to help the idea blossom and lends a helping hand.

Non Initiate: Bart sees the value in an innovative idea being introduced by an initiate and becomes an armchair quarterback and critic.

John C on Steve Jobs: The man was not a saint. Let’s not paint him as such. There were some negative aspects to his personality. But, some of those negatives were also positives.

JJ It’s important to realize that there is a big difference between the public idea of a saint or holy person and a true initiate. Many initiates are not religious or pious at all. Many of them have difficult personalities and are hated by numerous people.

There is a wide variety of people among the aspirants and first and second degree initiates. Some are impossible to live with and have many enemies. Many are seen as being the opposite of spiritual.

The higher initiates have generally worked off the rough edges but remember that even Jesus was hated so much that he was gleefully crucified.

Nov 29, 2011
Tom’s Questions
Tom Did Steve Jobs have control and master his emotions in order to pass the 2nd initiation before doing the third?

JJ If he passed the second then he did master his emotions but let me clarify what that means.

First, it does not mean that the initiate is like Spock who has little or no emotion. The initiate will have more powerful emotions than average because all the petals in his sacral center will be unfolded.

The initiate may very well express strong emotion from time to time but the emotion expressed is regulated and decided upon mentally. The most important thing a second degree or higher will do is not make important decisions based on emotion but upon what makes sense from rational or intuitive thinking.

I think it was you that asked about the origin of the giants mentioned in the Bible. I haven’t placed much attention on. Many people think they are a product of angels and humans.

Here are some comments of H P Blavatsky from Isis Unveiled:

According to the claims of the Babylonian priests, corroborated by Eupolemus,*** “the city of Babylon, owes its foundation to those who were saved from the catastrophe of the deluge; they were the giants and they built the tower which is noticed in history.”**** These giants who were great astrologers and had received moreover from their fathers, “the sons of God,” every instruction pertaining to secret matters, instructed the priests in their turn, and left in the temples all the records of the periodical cataclysm that they had witnessed themselves. This is how the high priests came by the knowledge of the great years.

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . . There were giants in the earth in those days,” etc., with this part of the Hindu cosmogony, in the Vedas, which speaks of the descent of the Brahmans. The first Brahman complains of being alone among all his brethren without a wife. Notwithstanding that the Eternal advises him to devote his days solely to the study of the Sacred Knowledge (Veda), the first-born of mankind insists. Provoked at such ingratitude, the eternal gave Brahman a wife of the race of the Daints, or giants, from whom all the Brahmans maternally descend. Thus the entire Hindu priesthood is descended, on the one hand, from the superior spirits (the sons of God), and from Daintany, a daughter of the earthly giants, the primitive men.* “And they bare children to them; the same became mighty men which were of old; men of renown.”** The same is found in the Scandinavian cosmogonical fragment. In the Edda is given the description to Gangler by Har, one of the three informants (Har, Jafuhar, and Tredi) of the first man, called Bur, “the father of Bor, who took for wife Besla, a daughter of the giant Bolthara, of the race of the primitive giants.” The full and interesting narrative may be found in the Prose Edda, sects. 4-8, in Mallett’s Northern Antiquities.** The same groundwork underlies the Grecian fables about the Titans; and may be found in the legend of the Mexicans –

She also claimed to see bones of giants when she was in India.

You can read more HERE

Here is an interesting video series on the subject:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

Nov 30, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

John C “Saint” was just an expression. I forgot you literally you take things when you want to. By “saint”, here I meant the unbalanced portrayal of only the positive qualities of a person. That’s what I said in my first paragraph that you quoted.

JJ I think I understood you correctly, John. I do not know anyone who thinks of Jobs as a religious holy man. You said, “The man was not a saint. Let’s not paint him as such.”

You were obviously implying that someone here was implying (I do not know who) that Jobs was a very good person who could do no (or little) wrong. That is very close to the religious idea of a saint.

My point was that initiates are far from perfect especially as far as the personality goes and that was an accurate response to your comment.

John C Remember all those numbers Creme and Dewey were placing on initiates? This may be important, but all I am saying is it didn’t interest me then and it doesn’t interest me now.

JJ That’s fine that you are not interested but you are coming across a little preachy here like we shouldn’t be interested either. It is a topic of great interest to many and there is nothing wrong with such interest. As Judy said it is beneficial to know where you are in development so you can know your next step.

My comments on the possible initiate status of some is a million miles from Cremes. Crème claims to have received his information directly from Christ and I make no such claim to authority but am making an educated guess.

The reason I talked about the possible initiate status of Jobs wasn’t to show my cleverness but to give readers a better idea of what an initiate is and the range of people that fit into this category. Many people think of an initiate as a very good or holy person who exudes love all the time and I wanted to make sure readers understand that many do not come across this way.

John C I can identify much more readily with his technical partner Steve Wozniak. Always two there are: one who is the front man, and the one who works behind the scenes and makes things happen.

JJ Steve collaborated with Wozniak mainly at the beginning. There were many innovations from Apple that Wozniak did not participate in. Wozniak was smart but he had little inclination to take any steps to initiate anything. If Steve did not have Wozniak available he would have found someone else, but any engineer looking for another Jobs would still be looking.

Nov 30, 2011

Saint Bernadette

Ruth asked about an apparent miracle of the preservation of Saint Bernadette’s body. Here is the story

JJ The miracle is not as impressive as the links leads one to believe. Apparently her body was preserved beyond the normal decay but still did decay nevertheless and had to be treated with wax to make her look lifelike. this is from Wikipedia:

In 1925, the church exhumed the body for a third time. They took relics, which were sent to Rome. A precise imprint of the face was molded so that the firm of Pierre Imans in Paris could make a wax mask based on the imprints and on some genuine photos. This was common practice for relics in France, as it was feared that the blackish tinge to the face and the sunken eyes and nose would make an unpleasant impression on the public. Imprints of the hands were also taken for the presentation of the body and the making of wax casts. The remains were then placed in a gold and crystal reliquary in the Chapel of Saint Bernadette at the mother house in Nevers. The site is visited by many pilgrims and the body of Saint Bernadette is still shown despite being nearly 130 years old.

Wiki Link

Dec 1, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

Kelly writes: This whole thread on what is an initiate got me rethinking on the subject of disciple and initiate. So to understand correctly, an initiate is necessarily a disciple but not the other way around?

JJ Actually, it is the other way around. A truly committed disciple is one who is near or passed the third initiation and all of them are initiates to some degree. DK identifies seekers who are not disciples as aspirants.

DK told us back in the 1920s there were only a little over 300 disciples on the entire planet. One can only guess how many there are to day but it would not be a large number.

There are a lot of initiates who are not disciples and do not consider themselves being on a spiritual path. What many of these do not realize is that all work that helps humanity evolve and progress is spiritual. There are initiates in science, education, sports, politics and various endeavors not normally seen as spiritual.

Kelly: Is it correct to say that an initiate will be a disciple first and foremost before getting to the stage where he or she actually initiates something?

JJ The first thing on an initiates mind is “What can I do to improve the world or the human condition?”

Kelly: And does an initiate always have to turn out to be a ”popular person” in the press or worldwide?

JJ Good question. It may seem so because when people try and identify initiates usually famous people are named. The reason for this is that initiates that are not famous are generally not known to us and there is no way to name them.

Higher initiates usually make significant accomplishments that garners then some degree of public recognition but many first and second degree initiates are unknown outside of their circle of associates. Many of these are initiating things that does not change the world but does create positive change and improves peoples lives. Some join with other initiates to work on a group endeavor. For instance, I’m sure there were a number of initiates who worked with Steve Jobs.

Kelly: I read something not long ago (I believe it was one of Ruth’s posts) from DK stating that there will also be times where initiates must act behind the stage so to speak and without receiving all that recognition attention i.e.: like Steve Jobs did.

JJ This will sometimes be the case. If a person initiates by working behind the scenes and is truly responsible for creating constructive change then he is of course initiating.

Kelly: And speaking about initiates, how may are there on earth at the present moment? I imagine there can’t be that many since it is a demanding endeavour and a lot of times there must be failures too.

JJ I’d say that there are millions who have passed the first initiation, hundreds of thousands who have passed the second, under 1000 who have passed the third and under 50 in mortality who have passed the fourth.

Dec 1, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

Tom How many masters have there been that lived on the Earth, in the flesh throughout history of the Earth?

JJ DK names Twelve plus the Christ who work directly with humanity but there are others who work with other kingdoms and projects. The total number is not given. Maybe DK will give more information when he teaches again after 2025. We should prepare a list of questions for him. Of course, when that date arrives there will be many who will claim to speak for the real DK. It will be an interesting process finding the real one.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 17

This entry is part 31 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 29, 2011
Inertia

I never did comment on the principle behind pushing the boundaries as happens with children and some adults. The post was at:

Keys Post 54431

The Question: This is a branch of the real principle, which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

We received a number of answers on this and I believe each person participating guessed a different principle. They couldn’t all be right could they?

Well, they all could be partially correct for many different principles are at play in everything we do, just as there are many parts to the elephant. As I said in my recent post – even scratching an itch has principles and forces at play.

On the other hand, there are some things that play out where a core principle is involved and this is one.

The core principle is inertia and I think the group will see this as I explain.

According to this principle an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is stopped by a force equal to that which is keeping it in motion.

Now when a kid gets his desires in motion for something he wants (like a new video game) the parent may at first dismiss the expressed desire and think that will be the end of it, but it often is not.

The kid has set his desires in motion, desires that have energy behind them, and the parent keeps getting hit with this energy time and time again. Finally, he gets worn down any buys the video game. The purchase is the counter force that neutralizes the energy of the kids inertia.

Another parent may not have money to buy the game and lash back at the kid with anger. If the anger has equal energy to the inertia of the desire then the kid will give up for the time being.

Many people visit salesperson thinking they are just going to look, but are not going to buy anything just yet. Then they wind up buying everything but the kitchen sink.

Why?

Because a good salesperson uses the principle of inertia. He throws desire energy at them again and again and if the customers find themselves moving in a current toward the dotted line and they do not counter with high resistance they follow the path of least resistance and will purchase. By the time that they have been hit with the power of inertia they may feel it is easier to spend a bundle of money rather than to resist.

Right now, president Obama is creating inertia behind his jobs bill. It could be the worst bill since the beginning of time but the appeal to jobs for those who are desperate is great. Since he is pitching this new stimulus again and again the inertia is building and can only be stopped by opposing forces. Some opposing forces have surfaced but some version of this is likely to get through unless the opposing force is increased.

Oct 29, 2011
Re: Definitions 1.1

LWK They (natural rights) could no more be taken away than one could take away the fact that men needed food to live – it was simply part of their “unalienable” nature.

JJ This made me think that maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty. After all, if it came down to choosing to have food or liberty when one is starving to death, most would chose food.

Questions for the group: So, do we have a natural right to food?

Does one have a right to another’s food if the other guy has lots of it and you have none and are starving?

How about if the other guy has abundance and you are just surviving and often go to bed hungry?

How about if the other guy just eats a lot better than you can afford to?

LWK You stated that in your view that your meaning was the majority view of the meaning of “rights” and that somehow others should be obliged to state they are using a “minority” meaning. I personally do not agree with your interpretation.

JJ Well, I don’t exactly agree with that statement either. I said (or at least meant to say) that when speaking in legal terms the legal definition of rights is the one normally used and is used most of the time. I believe this is an accurate statement.

LWK It is doubtful that either meaning, legalistic or natural rights, is clearly predominant in how people use the word.

JJ This is true, but in speaking in legal terms legal rights is usually meant and the first point that I was arguing with Blayne was supposed to deal wit the question: Was it legal?

You made some excellent points in your post. Here is one I liked: “You don’t protect the rights of some by protecting the rights of others to attack them.”

Here is another: “There are many things the government does today that are much more likely to lead to a totalitarian government than killing terrorists instead of trying to bring them to trial.

“The most basic principle of natural rights is that one cannot claim their protection while violating the natural rights of others.”

JJ So true. If the execution of one man will save the natural rights of thousands then it is a good trade – proving the evidence backs up the action.

Oct 30, 2012 Election 2012 Blayne: I think Ron Paul is the only republican that can beat Obama but I doubt he can win the republican nomination.

JJ I don’t think Ron Paul would have a chance to win. Right now he scares the independents as much as Obama does but after the media was done with him he would be toast. They would research his old newsletters, writings and speeches and bring forth quotes that would blow a lot of people away and portray him as a racist who thinks the South was on the right side in the Civil War and Lincoln was a traitor and tyrant.

Also the fact that he would do nothing to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb and seems unconcerned that it would send one over to Israel at the first opportunity would give the media the opportunity to portray Obama as the one who is on the side of national security – weak though he is in that department.

Oct 30, 2011
Infiltrating Mormonism,one sunday school class at a time

Adam’s Post My wife, Marnie, has gone through a re-think of Mormonism over the past several years, thanks to me and my experiences and readings, and, in turn, her own experiences and readings. Often now, when she hears or reads some “Mormon speak” in a family or church setting, she cringes. She’s fond of telling me that I’ve “ruined” her. We both, of course, feel very grateful for JJ’s teachings and the “ruin” the teachings have caused us.

Marnie still takes our children to church for the social aspect and to give them some exposure to spiritual teachings and the family culture. Occasionally, Marnie is asked to substitute teach for one of our children’s Sunday school classes, as happened a few weeks ago.

The lesson was on “being pure” – this for a bunch of six year olds. It’s amazing what we don’t see when we’re firmly entrenched in thought forms, reinforced by a strong culture. The lesson suggested that the teacher use salt and pepper to illustrate personal purity and impurity – again, this to a bunch of six year olds. The lesson emphasized a lot of guilt and unworthiness. Marnie didn’t care for the message, the examples, and the way it was taught, especially given the young audience. [Yes, the church does a lot of good and teaches a few nice things, but other such ridiculous teachings are not flukes or aberrations. A while back Marnie listened to the Primary President read from Malachi to about 50 children. She told them that those who do not pay tithing will burn! – yes, in so many words and with that emphasis. And many other examples there are. Many of you I’m sure are familiar with such ridiculous and often harmful things that go on in what is supposed to be an educational and spiritual environment.]

Anyway, my wife didn’t like the lesson, so, God bless her, of her own volition, without my prompting or consultation, she changed it. She got out some darts and a target and used JJ’s teaching about Hamartano (I know JJ is not the only person to teach this, but JJ’s writings are where we first heard the true definition and analogy to shooting an arrow at a target) Needless to say, the lesson was a hit (yes, punned) with the kids. Aside from being fun and entertaining, the six year olds actually “got it” and they gave Marnie insightful feedback, like: “Oh, that makes sense. If we make mistakes we just try again. We practice doing better. Practice makes perfect” and so on. A much healthier message, no? A better message than: “when you sin, you are impure, like little black spots before God; and all of the accompanying thoughts of unworthiness and guilt that are likely to be imagined by impressionable and innocent minds.

A small success. But much more doable, since we can’t all go around dusting our feet to general authorities, much as I would like.

But, the small success didn’t end there. Marnie’s mother happened to be teaching the same lesson this week to the six year olds in her congregation. Her mother’s printer wasn’t working, so Marnie downloaded and printed the lesson for her. When her mother came by to pick it up, they started discussing the lesson. Marnie mentioned that she had taught it a few weeks back. She expressed to her mother that she didn’t care for the way the lesson was taught, especially for that kind of an audience. Her mother, a very orthodox Mormon, actually could see what Marnie was saying about the lesson’s poor wording, conceptualization, and analogies. Marnie told her mother what she had done and how successful it had been. Marnie’s mother “loved it.” (Can you imagine how amused/pleased I am as I listen to Marnie repeat the conversation?) “Where did you get that idea?” her mother asked. “That’s a fantastic way to teach about sin. I’m going to use that idea instead.” That’s probably about as far as Marnie could safely go with her mother. I guess we’ll never know whether her mother would have taught the lesson or not, had Marnie revealed her source:)

Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Oh, what…wait..what?

How we’d love to actually tell her mother where that teaching came from, but that might ruin it and halt further use of the analogy.

Another success. A few more kids who weren’t bludgeoned and burdened with guilt ridden propaganda, for an hour anyway. One Sunday school class at a time. Maybe Marnie’s mom will share with another orthodox adult who will unwittingly teach truth, as taught by an excommunicated apostate. Classic. Had to share.

Thank you for ruining us, JJ.

Adam and Marnie

JJ Thanks for the encouraging letter Adam. What you say illustrates the power of the enunciation of true principles. A teacher may receive some light and do his best to promote it and die unrecognized, but if he has followed the highest he knows some seeds will be planted and the tiniest of seeds will grow to great plants and multiply until all of humanity will some day realize the true reality. You planted a seed in your wife and your wife in her mother and the kids. Some will take that seed and plant it in others until the day comes that the apostles of the church will be talking about shooting arrows a targets until we become proficient in the paths of righteousness. Who knows, that apostle might be one of the kids taught by your wife.

Oct 31, 2011
Right to Food

Blayne: I know that JJ argues from a perspective that rights don’t really exist (Correct me if I am wrong JJ) based on his previous writings except as created and or secured by men through their individual or collective actions.

JJ To just jumble natural and legal rights together as “rights” does not accurately portray what I think. If you would have said “legal rights” you would have been correct for this was what I was talking about in relation to Awlaki. You have been talking about natural rights, a different animal, which didn’t have anything to do with my question: Was it legal?

I think we agree that it is a built in desire to want to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

JJ (Previous Post) … maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty.

LWK One could say this if one had absolutely no understanding of the concept of natural rights, and many have indeed reached this conclusion.

JJ I think I have as good of an idea of what natural rights are as you or the next guy. Let’s go by your own words. <>

Are you thinking that I was suggesting a natural right to food would mean that someone else should be forced to work to provide another with food? Where did you get such an idea??? I said nothing to indicate anything like this.

Here is how I defined a natural right, which harmonizes with the Declaration of Independence:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

This definition does nothing to imply a socialistic form of government to distribute food as you imply. But the desire for food is connected with the desire for life itself and is a natural desire and just as one feels he is morally justified to live and pursue liberty and happiness all feel that that have a moral justification to obtain food to stay alive.

Not all feel they are morally justified in stealing food or forcing others to supply it to them but as long as there is an abundant supply of it, all feel morally justified in having an opportunity to honestly obtain it.

Connected with fulfilling this natural right is a natural desire to assist others in obtaining food that some, through no fault of their own, cannot obtain for themselves. These include children, babies, the disabled and the down and out who are willing to work. It is especially a natural desire to work to earn the money to feed our own children who cannot take care of themselves and it is natural for the child to expect the parent through free will to supply its needs that it can not supply for itself.

This has nothing to do with socialism, but with natural desire from our Creator as written by Jefferson.

LWK Natural rights are simply the right to exercise one’s free will without interference by others or the government.

JJ But life is spoken of as the first natural right and this exists for us whether we exercise will or not. The desire for both life and food are very similar as they exist no matter what we will and no matter what the government does and we all feel that we have a right to live and a right to eat so we can continue this right to live.

In a decent society there would be enough people who have empathy for these rights so they will share of their of own free will and all would have enough to eat to sustain their lives.

Question to the group: Does this make sense? If not why?

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Election 2012

Blayne on Ron Paul: Rasmussen did a poll recently and he was virtually tied with Obama.

JJ Some polls indicate he has a fighting chance, but this is before the media has taken sides in the general election. Right now the major media leave Ron Paul alone because they are happy to see him be a voice of opposition to many Republican policies they loath. It would be much different if he were the nominee and and was running against Boy Wonder.

Blayne: All the stuff you have brought up has already been aired in the media over and over and he still has more independents and growing. I doubt it or the Iran thing would hurt him.

JJ Where has it been aired – Alex Jones? I haven’t seen the media do any investigative reporting on Paul’s past. There’s also little about it on his site. You have to do some digging to find some of his early writings and many of them are said to be lost and many of the extant ones are controversial. BUT if he were the nominee I’m sure some of the lost ones would surface. They came out with more critical stuff on Rick Perry or Sarah Palin one one week than that have in Paul’s entire life.

Blayne: Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons they will take care of Iran if they ever became that threat just like they took care of the Iraq’s nuclear program.

JJ Iran has learned from Iraq and have secured their nuclear program much better than Iraq did. They do not care if Israel has a million nuclear warheads because they do not think they will do a first nuclear strike as all nations would turn against them. On the other hand, if they get just one or more bombs they are willing to take their chances and attack for the glory of destroying Israel. Unless there is a change in leadership we are headed for trouble there. Paul is dead wrong to not be concerned – maybe millions of dead wrongs.

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Right to Food

I would be interested in a definition of natural rights as defined by you and Blayne – in a paragraph.. In the definition that I came up with I am not going by how the strict Constitutionalists have conjured it up but by how Jefferson and the Founders seemed to understand the term “rights” in the Declaration. I think Dan has a point that it is questionable that the term natural rights, as used, is even justified. But since it is used, even in an ephemeral way, then we must acknowledge it is one of the established uses.

I would refine my definition a bit to make it more accurate. Here it is:

“That which humanity, as a whole, has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Previous wording:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Nov 1, 2011
Steve Job’s Last Words

Just before his death Steve looked at his sister Patty, then at his children, then his wife and next he seemed to look beyond them at empty space and said these words:

Oh Wow! Oh Wow! OH WOW!!!

Then he passed over, apparently going to the place he was seeing.

Jobs Last Words

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

We finally get don to the nitty gritty of this issue that the group wanted me to continue and no one has responded. Let me repeat the question:

Is there enough evidence to establish Awlaki’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Google the name Awlaki with key words such as legal, terrorist, innocent, guilty, analysis, justified, unjustified and whatever you think helpful.

Then post the reasons he may or may not be guilty of either terrorism or treason. When we get them all tabulated then the group will judge the quality of Obama’s decision.

I’ll start the ball rolling by posting one for and against.

Reasons for being not guilty. 1. He is an American citizen and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Reasons for guilt. 1. The underwear bomber, Umar Farouk, who tried to being down an airliner, stated this under oath at his trial: “I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory, Amen, and Allah knows best.”

See if you can find some positives and negatives to add to the list.

Nov 2, 2011
Morals and Legality

Question from JJ to Blayne: Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between legal rights and natural rights?

Blayne: No because anything that violates natural rights cannot be legal. Laws seek to illustrate morality and ethics.

JJ You have clarified here where the source of our disagreement is on the first point. You think a law has to fit in with your personal view of what is a moral natural right or it is flat out illegal and we can ignore it or break it at will.

Thus you consider a law as non-existent if you do not think it is moral, even if you are arrested, convicted and sent to jail by a process that has Constitutional authority.

The problem with attempting live by this belief is that there are lots of laws that others think are moral who could cause you untold grief – as they did with my friend Wayne. Wayne thought a lot of the laws were unconstitutional and immoral but he never thought they were not legal under our current system. He tried to live by what he thought the laws should be. Since he believed it was wrong for them to require him to get a drivers license then he did not get one and was arrested regularly. This cost him many thousands of dollars and several prison sentences.

I tried to reason with him many times concerning this because his beliefs were definitely affecting the quality of his life. My reasoning went something like this;

“Look, no matter what system we are under, none of us will agree with all the laws and regulations. If you violate and fight every law you disagree with that’s all you will be doing and thinking about and it will consume your life. And this struggle you have with the law doesn’t just hurt you but disrupts your business and affects the money your dozen employees make. Then you suffer from depression and this regular hassle with the law can’t help that at all.

“Sometimes in life there are two paths and neither choice may be what we want. You have the choice of a minor inconvenience of getting a license or not getting one and suffering a huge inconvenience. Which choice makes the most sense? You have to pick your battles and you’ve picked one here you can’t win. The State is not going to discontinue driver’s licenses because of anything you do, neither will the city discontinue building codes. Why don’t you concentrate your energy on something that will make a difference?”

It didn’t matter what I said to him. He wanted to stick to his principles – principles that most of his friends could not relate to or see much purpose therein.

When he died of heart failure he also had a large tumor on the back of his neck. It seemed to be a symbol of his thinking that he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Perhaps his soul was trying to yell him to release that weight and smell the roses along the path instead.

Anyway, if you have an attitude that any law (regulation or whatever you call them) you do not consider moral is something you can break or ignore because they really do not exist then you are even going beyond what Wayne thought and if you stand by these beliefs you could be headed for an equal amount or more trouble. In fact, you have already mentioned that you and others who believe as you do have suffered painful experiences through the court system. I suspect that you could write a book about your legal battles.

The trouble with ignoring what the system says is legal and only obeying laws that only fit your own version of morality is you not only suffer untold inconvenience that interferes with regular life, but your version of what conforms to natural law may be different from the next guy who believes in natural rights – like myself.

“But,” says the Fundamentalist, “the Constitution is clear and it is plain as he nose on your face what natural rights are. All we have to do is follow the obvious.”

Think so? If this is so then why are there disagreements here on the Keys between, not only liberals and conservatives, but strong libertarians that support he Constitution and principles of freedom?

Why did some of the Founding Fathers and half the country before the Civil War think that keeping slaves was a moral natural right? Many southerners thought they were doing the moral thing by keeping slaves. They believed that:

(1) Blacks were of low intelligence and needed the whites to help then advance. Slavery was good because it provided that opportunity.

(2) Slavery also enhanced their own natural right of liberty because the slaves increased prosperity and gave the owners more free time to pursue culture and their own happiness.

Now keep in mind that this was not just a small fringe as with some fundamentalist beliefs today but held by enough people to divide the entire country.

The bottom line is this. If millions of individuals can decide, by their own version of what is right, which laws they want to keep then we would have total anarchy in this country. Secondly, no system, no matter how perfect, will make everyone happy and all will have to conform to a few things they do not like to make it work.

It seems logical that the best course is to cooperate with the system unless something totally outrageous is demanded. In this case, one can lead the cause of civil disobedience and many will follow giving the possibility of actual success.

If one sees a path to improvement that others do not then he should seek to educate. The informed majority will generally pick the right path.

Your personal definition of legal and tying it to your version of natural rights causes you to not even consider that Obama could have acted legally in any way even if every constitutional authority on the planet says he did. This narrow view has caused you to not even considering answering my question in the spirit that as intended as everyone else clearly saw. I was talking about legal as it is considered by the authorities in our legal system, not your view of what is moral and that should have been extremely obvious.

But even after I have clearly explained what I mean by legal you refuse to go by the majority definition and cooperate and answer the question.

You seem to think that using a dictionary definition of something violates some principle. It does not. A definition is just what it is, and nothing more. It is a neutral thing, but one must go by definitions as understood by others or nothing will make sense to anyone and communication will be muddled.

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Right to Food

Larry W I want to discuss the practicality of Jefferson’s theory of rights which he articulated in the Declaration. JJ has said that it is an obscure use of the definition of rights and has little to do with the common man nor with common usage of the word, rights. But I disagree.

JJ I can’t find anything you said that disagrees with anything I actually said. You seem to be arguing with what I do not even think.

First I said that Blayne and literal fundamentalist have an obscure and unusual definition of rights – see my last post. I have no problem with the way Jefferson actually articulated them.

Larry: “…and has little to do with the common man…”

JJ Where did you get this idea??? The rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence have everything to do with the common man. I have said nothing contrary to this that I recall.

Larry: “…nor with common usage of the word, rights”

JJ That’s not what I said. I said that not all laws we have today that are considered legal are the same as as natural rights or that which Jefferson considered to be moral. Not everything in the legal system is in harmony with natural rights.

Nothing you said is out of harmony with anything I have written that I can see yet you present it as a disagreement. Disagreeing with what?

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

I think you’re missing the reason we are doing this. We care listing things in his favor and not in his favor as to whether he is guilty of treason, terrorism, subversion, etc. I doubt if any one thing will be absolute proof one way or another. When the list is complete then the group will make a judgement. How about contributing a point?

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here