Left, Right and Science
I’ll make a few comments about the evolution of those on the spiritual left and right.
There are no disciples of the left or right until a certain degree of evolution is reached. That point is reached after the first and second initiation is passed and the physical and emotional natures are placed under control. As the third initiation is approached the two paths become clear for the first time and a decision is made. The decision on the left hand path is centered around the motivation that the needs of the self must come first, even at the expense of the many.
For example, if the cells in the body eat each other the whole is injured and will eventually die. The cannibalistic cells are fed for a short time but in the end they will die with the body.
The decision on the right centers around the idea that the good of the whole must come first and may require some sacrifice from the individual. The value of the individual is seen and nurtured, but a realization is gained that the individual cannot receive full benefit unless the whole is nurtured. The understanding is basically this. If the body dies the individual cells also die. If the body lives and is healthy the cells also live and are healthy.
All disciples progress in evolution until this decision of the two paths is reached. After it is reached the disciples on the right continue to progress toward life and spirit. On the other hand, the disciples on the left begin to move away from life and spirit toward death and the lower material spheres.
From this point on, their spiritual evolution comes to a standstill and they begin to devolve rather than evolve. They can gain some additional concrete knowledge, but these become as pieces to a puzzle where half of them are missing and the whole picture can never be clearly seen. He who has chosen the dark path sinks further into illusion until he is engulfed and eventually suffers a spiritual death.
He who chooses the right-hand path rises out of illusion and begins to see clearly the next steps to take to move toward spirit.
DK tells us that Hitler was a second-degree initiate. One on the dark path such as this can have very good concrete intelligence and appear to some to be even more intelligent that a higher initiate on the right. This is because most people judge intelligence only as it relates to data and the material world. The higher initiates have intelligence that ascends to pure reason and spirit but it is not comprehended by the average individual.
The average people of society are neither on the right or left, as far as the path is concerned, for they do not yet have the consciousness to see and chose either one. They can be deceived by agents of Dark Brotherhood and used by them. Then there are others who are influenced by the Brotherhood of Light and used by them.
Many more, however, are attracted to the deceptions of the Dark Brotherhood than are attracted to additional light presented by the light. The main advantage the Brotherhood of Light have in dealing with humanity is that through the process of time they have anchored many valuable truths that humanity now sees as obvious. One example is the earth is not the center of the universe but moves around the sun. This and many other truths are anchored and cannot be denied by a sane mind today.
Even so, it is amazing how the Dark Brotherhood can take the obvious and twist it so the truth becomes obscure to further their ends.
A person from another group quotes me as follows: “The chemist calls the male atom a positive particle and the female atom a negative one. Within the atom we also have the positive or male nucleus, and the negative or female electron shells which are married to the nucleus to produce something greater than themselves – a whole atom.” (endquote) JJ Dewey, The Molecular Relationship
Then he says: I don’t know a single scientist who would professionally refer to parts of atoms as ‘male’ or ‘female’. This statement of JJ’s is BS…. it’s misleading. It would be much better for JJ to leave the chemist out of that statement because it isn’t true.
JJ Response: You totally misread what I was saying and are taking it out of context. I never said that science refer to particles with a positive or negative charge as male or female. This is what I call them and in the statements above I am saying that which I call male in charge the chemist calls positive and that which I call female in charge the chemist calls negative. This is a true statement.
I point out that the male charge is a sending energy and the female is receiving which are the foundation energies or duality of energies from which all things are formed.
You seem to have a bias against calling the positive and negative energies male and female but the correspondence is accurate as I point out in my book.
Comment: Hey, you have a university professor and chemist (Ph.D. in Biochem, 1986) right here talking to you. And I’m telling you that this statement of JJ’s is inaccurate and misleading in referring to what a chemist would say.
JJ: Again, I’m not saying that male-female in relation to energies are the language of the chemist, but the opposite. I am saying the correspondence is accurate.
He quotes me again: “Let me add this. I have published over 2900 articles on the web, many of them with scientific data and information. So far not one person has found one scientific error in anything I have written. If you think I am so much in error then go ahead and find even one. Make my day.”
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that any fool with a $50 computer and $10 of internet access can publish all they want. So, why are you claiming this as a ‘badge of greatness’? It seems foolish to me.
You likely haven’t gotten much feedback because most scientists would look upon your claims as spurious and inconsequential… not worth their time.
JJ: Not a badge of greatness but evidence of my scientific accuracy. I do get reasonable comment on my writings. In fact we have some good analytical thinkers in our group that will call me on any obvious error. I refer to scientific data regularly and one of my treatises deals with nuclear energy from a practical standpoint.
You shouldn’t be confused by this treatise because I use orthodox terminology.
Another reader says this: I’ve not been following this dialogue very closely, but poked my head in for a little this evening, as I was curious what the fuss was about. I’m a scientist by training (B.S. Medical Microbiology, with two years grad work in Physiology, Bioelectrochemistry).
What probably piqued my interest the most was your assertion that in 2900 hundred articles you haven’t made a scientific mistake.
My goodness. I would urge you, JJ, to back away from such statements as they drip with ego. I know you know better, and I’m would suggest that you curve it. It is the “I’m an infallible prophet” complex, and is unbecoming of what you know and teach.
JJ: The statement I made has nothing to do with ego or infallibility. There is no claim or hint of infallibility here and it is a stretch to see it as such. I only claim to be careful in the presentation of any factual information I put out there. Because I am careful it would be difficult (but not impossible) to find errors in data that I place in my writings. This has nothing to do with any claim of infallibility of any doctrine put forward. I have never made any claims about such but have left it up to the readers.
There are many writers in the world today who are careful about their quotes or presentation of data of whom it would be difficult to find any error in the factual information they put forward.
When I write about science, history or whatever I am careful about the facts I relate and it doesn’t take a large ego to challenge anyone to find error when one is confident an error would be difficult to find.
If I write down the numbers one through a hundred in sequence and someone tells me my numbering sequence is full of error it has nothing to do with ego or infallibility to challenge them to find an error in sequence when you are confident your sequence is correct.
It is possible I have some error in my writings according to the relating of current scientific teaching but I was fully confident that my accuser could find none and am still confident.
Now I present a lot of philosophy that cannot be presently proven or disproven by science but this is not a part of the discussion.
Notice that he has found no error so far. If my writings are full of scientific holes (as he says) the job should have been easy for him.
He insulted my intelligence so I placed the challenge to illustrate that the insult was unjustified.
Reader: JJ is into religious teachings, and he does very well there. He is clearly no scientist.
So JJ, don’t egg a scientist into debate about your science. You will come out looking pretty bad. As long as you wear the philosopher hat, you’re fine; we’ll cut you slack on your science.
JJ: I think one should give an example of any bad science I present before telling me I am no good at it. I can hold my own with any argument or discussion with any scientist. An illogical scientist is no different than an illogical guru. I am not likely to argue much with a logical scientist as his reasoning may be sound.
It doesn’t matter who is presenting a case, sound logic and reason are essential and if someone has a PhD and lacks this he will lose to the layman with common sense.
The guy from the other group continues: That’s the assertion I am making… that the premises you use to write the Molecular Relationship are erroneous.
JJ: Let us give the audience here the premise of the Molecular Relationship so they can accurately judge. In a nutshell it is this.
Atoms unite in various combinations to form molecules. Once formed the molecules have different properties than do the original atoms. Even so, the original atoms still exist and can be separated from the molecule and resume their original identity and properties.
Humans have a higher correspondence to atoms even though it is not exact there are strong similarities.
As individual humans we have certain properties, but when humans unite in various combinations the individual remains, but the group properties are different and enhanced. For example, a married couple has different properties, characteristics and abilities than does a single individual. An organized body of people such as in a business or think tank has different properties than does a single individual or a married couple.
Now the Molecular Relationship takes human relationships to a higher level by teaching that higher properties still can be manifest in humans when the relationship between two or more people is united through soul or spiritual energy. This happened with Jesus and the twelve apostles and caused higher properties to manifest.
The Molecular Relationship merely operates on the truth of the very ancient maxim of that which is below corresponds to that which is above.
I would be interested in seeing any opinion as to why this teaching runs contrary to any established science. In stating this it must be realized that science has little if anything to say about the future science of human relationships nor is any claim made in this direction.
He continues: I’ve already pointed to two fallacious premises… one being his premise that all things are in opposition (positive or negative therefore male or female…
JJ: Are you maintaining that atoms are not created through the interplay of negative electrons and positive protons? I have never heard anyone, even with an elementary scientific background, teach this.
Comment: along with his assertion that there is no such thing as neutrals;
JJ: This is one of my teachings which is new and not taught by modern science BUT it does not run contrary to any scientific knowledge. Instead, it is supported by it. Some of the discoveries on Titan, for instance, ran contrary to scientific thought, but did not contradict any fact that was previously established.
I teach a basic principle, supported by science, which is this.
All creation takes place through the process of energies combining to create greater balance. Atoms, for instance, form molecules by the sharing of electrons which creates more balance through the filling of their outer electron shells.
Now an ion is definitely recognized as being out of balance, but other atoms such as an inert gas are seen as stable.
I maintain that even though an atom or a neutron appears stable and neutral that there is still a slight imbalance of energy and thus still has a charge, even though that charge may be extremely small. There is no way to prove this in the present, especially as far as the neutron is concerned, so my teaching on this mater neither agrees or disagrees with current science. It does, however, agree with reason.
(NOTE: A study made two years after this conversation concludes:
“Neutrons not so neutral after all, study says” LINK
Comment: and two that love and light is an example of opposition (to Love) in the same fashion as the male/female or positive/negative pairs.
JJ: Love is a magnetic force that pulls toward a united center and as such corresponds to female energy which is receiving and draws toward a center. Light radiates outward from a center and corresponds to male energy which is radiatory and sending.
Example: The female egg receives the male sperm which is radiated or sent.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who do not” (author unknown)
Aug 21, 2005
Copyright by J J Dewey