Comments

2003-4-13 04:13:00

I've been away for the day and just catching up on the e-mails. Looks like the group has been busy. It would take a book to cover all of your dialog, so I will limit myself to a few comments.

Glenys wrote:
Thank you for expanding on your earlier points, JJ. I appreciate it as your first post seemed quite categorical.

You do not need to post long quotes by DK to convince me though.

JJ:
I realize that and want to remind readers that when I reply to an individual I often go beyond the material needed for that individual and include data which I deem helpful to the group as a whole as well as readers in the future that will be reading these writings in bound volumes.

Glenys:
The problem is that anyone could find a quote from DK to support their position; you should see what the pacifists have used! :-)

JJ:
It is true that one can use DK, the Bible or other writings to seemingly support any position. Those on the emotional plane can often be swayed by quotes that may distort an author's position, but such distortions cannot pass by the plane of the mind unnoticed.

I would guess that over half of DK's readers are pacifists even though he stood very strongly against such a thing when we are faced with a definite threat.

This misinterpretation comes because people polarized on the emotional plane see what they want to see.

My conclusion is that one cannot prove any position from DK's writings to one polarized on the plane of the mind or higher.

I haven't seen how pacifists use DK's writings to justify their position and would be interested in looking at them if you have a quote or two available. My guess is that they would use his teachings on harmlessness. Perhaps they do not realize that he stated that pacifism in the face of a tyrant like Hitler is harmful and can cost many lives and extend suffering.

Glenys:
For the record, I want to remind everyone who has any doubts, that I was one of the first (indeed, perhaps *the* first) to take a stand and post here in favour of the war. So I don't need to be convinced.

JJ:
Yes, I realize this. I'm sure part of my last post was preaching to the converted.

Glenys:
I believe this person (who is not my friend as someone stated) to be a second or third degree initiate. He has written (and published) a useful book based on esoteric wisdom and has initiated a major service which is growing and which reaches most countries in the world.

JJ:
Since we are analyzing this person it may be helpful to know the title of his book and what it was about as well as the service he initiated.

Glenys:
I am horrified at some of the comments made about him and his place on the Path on the strength of one email and I am very sorry I posted it. It is a good lesson for me though :-)

JJ:
Let me remind the group of the wording of the question: "Does the text give evidence of an emotional or mental polarization of the writer? Why or why not?"

Note that I did not ask if the writer was mental or emotional in polarization, but wanted the readers to comment on the evidence given in the text. I was not saying that a final judgment could be made from the e-mail, but that there was evidence therein.

I was expecting readers to quote parts of the text and comment on the direction it indicates.

Glenys:
PS As JJ has said that anyone who cannot make a decision to support the war in the face of existing information generally shows an emotional polarization, he has already given us the answer to his questions about this person's email so I guess it's a no-brainer for most.

JJ:
It's far from a no-brainer. There was a lot of "evidence" that did not receive comment or was overlooked. I was not asking a yes or no on his final polarization here.

Glenys:
Don't we all. Even DK mentioned one of his (glamors) - and that was when he was a Master!!! That fills me with great hope.

JJ:
I would be interested in seeing this quote. If you could find it, I would be interested in examining it.

John C gives a different answer on the mystery e-mail stating that the writer is polarized on the intuitive plane. Can you give us what you see as evidence in the post of intuitive knowledge?

I do not think I have welcomed Paul, Joel, Sharon, Severian and other new members. Welcome.

Paul writes an interesting letter, but I have only time to respond to one item. He says:
If Bush was really a great leader - he'd take on all those oil interests and take the US down the path of alternative energy technologies - like hydrogen fuel cells).

JJ:
We'll have to wait a while to see if he qualifies for greatness, but he recently proposed several billion dollars toward hydrogen fuel research. Everyone seems enthused about this as if it was a panacea for energy, but such is far from the case. What few realize is that it takes more than one unit of energy from coal (the usual source) to produce a unit of energy available in hydrogen. Hydrogen creates few environmental problems (but there are some), but because the moving to this source would cause more pollution through coal burning than the current pollution through fossil fuel - this makes it a very questionable source.

What makes little sense is that every environmentalist I have ever heard interviewed completely overlooks this fact. This seems to give fuel to the fire of the theory that many environmentalists are against the free market more than they are in support of the environment.

Converting to the hybrid engine would give us much less pollution than converting to hydrogen as suggested by the greens - unless there is a breakthrough in the method of production.

If you want to read my thoughts on a solution for the environmental problems go to: The Nuclear Solution