JJ, if you ever get a chance to look it over (there is a LOT of material) I would be interested in your opinion as to whether (in what areas) this guy's (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/) concept of the "Wave Structure of Matter" aligns (or not), GENERALLY speaking, with your teachings...
Yes, what he says basically agrees with what I have written. Today most scientists agree that there may be no such thing as solid particles.
When I first wrote, around 1980, about the concept that there was nothing solid in the universe, that all things were created from wavelengths, I hadn't read much recent science on the matter and wasn't aware of anyone teaching such things. Now many scientists are leaning toward the string theory or matter as waves (very similar).
The great mystery which none of them have touched (as far as I know) is what creates the waves. I take it back to the energy of Purpose eternally projected from the intelligence of God, but even here there is much mystery that we do not at present comprehend.
The article about the failure of socialism among the pilgrims you linked to at freemarketnews.com was quite interesting. I read it and came to a slightly different conclusion. For those who haven't read it, briefly the article explains that several of the early European settlements in North America were socialist in structure, and that the result was starvation because they failed to grow enough crops due to widespread laziness. Once the socio-economic structure was changed to capitalism, average individual productivity soared and there was enough food for all. Let me start out by explaining that my family is basically socialist in structure. You will find us practicing the credo of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". My financial contribution to the home is many times greater than that of my children, yet I see to it that their needs are met. I would even suggest that most families operate this way.
Actually, I see the family operating through the capitalist incentive of ownership, responsibility and self interest. The wage earner will refer to his partner as "my spouse" and his children as "my children." He thus works much harder to assist and support "his' spouse and children than his neighbor's spouse and children, which are not his. He receives a benefit more valuable than money from the members of his family, but not his neighbor's family.
The farmer does the same thing with his animals as well as pets. Because they are "his" he will work to support them and make sure they are well fed, healthy and productive. He will do little work to assist his neighbor's animals, because they are not his and there is not enough benefit to create incentive. Of course, the benefit from the animals is different than his children, but the principle is the same.
I suggest that the failure among the early pilgrims' socialist experiments was because the men didn't draw their "family circle" large enough to include people outside their immediate family.
The problem is that the family circle in 999+ cases out of 1000 cannot be drawn to include those outside the family as if they were inside the family, because it is not in human nature to do this. A circle can be drawn to include them in other ways, but consider this. If your child and also your neighbor's child were ill with a deadly disease and you had only enough money for enough medicine to cure one child would you even consider giving the portion to your neighbor's child at the expense of your own child's life?
No one I know would, including myself. Even though I would feel for the neighbor's child and wish there were a way to help more than one child I would tend to my child first.
There are a lot of similarities between working to support a family and working to support a business. You work hard for your family because you have the possibility of rewards of security, happiness and fulfillment.
You work hard in a business because you have the possibility of rewards of money (which brings security), happiness and fulfillment.
Those involved do little direct work to help either the neighbor's family or business. Why? He has little incentive because they are not "his."
Obviously these same men were willing to work their butts off when their family's future was obviously at stake, and where they and their family stood to directly benefit from their labors.
Under the socialist system his family's future was also at stake and many suffered greatly from the poverty. The problem was that he was forced to work for the other guy's family as if they were his own, but they were not his own, so there was little incentive and hence the failure.
Now let's fast-forward to some time in the not-too-distant future, when a molecular unit has been formed. I would expect these twelve male-female pairings to draw their circle around the whole group, rather than just around themselves.
Why would you expect this? They will be close but each will have his own responsibilities to take care of his personal needs. If someone needs help and the others are able to give it I'm sure it will be done here as in any group of good will.
I would expect that if one of the group was disabled in some way he or she wouldn't go without, and likewise if one of the group was exceptionally prosperous he or she would be glad to thus benefit the entire group.
But this happens with many capitalist-minded folks. Surveys show that the more capitalistic minded people in this country are much more generous with their money and time than the more socialist minded. The socialist is generous with other people's money and the capitalist generous with his own. There are exceptions, but they are few.
So in my opinion the pilgrim story linked to demonstrates that there should be harmony between the inner and the outer. Those people weren't ready, on the inside, to draw their outer circles big enough to include those in the group beyond their immediate family. My understanding is that in the future molecular relationship, we'll be drawing both our inner and our outer circles a bit larger.
Your understanding is correct that those people were not ready.
Now you may think at this point that I am against socialism and equality, but I am not.
What I am against is attempting to see the greater good that will come to us through free will in the future and forcing it upon humanity before they are ready. Most of the greatest evils of the world are created by attempting to force humanity to do good as seen through the eyes of some authority.
The greater good envisioned by socialists must be achieved through the incentives of capitalism. True capitalism (which exists nowhere in fullness on the planet) will bring us abundance to the extent that the average person will have more than enough for his family. When this occurs many will widen their circle and seek to use their means to help their neighbor much more than before.
Through abundance and a sharing attitude each will eventually have according to their needs.
BUT as soon as this is attempted prematurely by force the result will be impoverishment.
This principle has been illustrated in history many times.
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved