Failure to Communicate
Note from 2026: I attempted to illustrate how difficult it can be for two sincere people to reach agreement when there is a lack of understanding between the two. This was an important subject because these type of disagreements can come up in the molecule and create a disturbance in the force.
The controversial subject we were dealing with was Obama’s order to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen who was linked to terrorism. Was Obama justified or not?
To keep it simple I suggested that we start with the question as to whether the action was within the President’s rights and if it was legal.
Before we even explored that question the group descended into arguing about what a “right” was and what the word “legal” means.
The argument continued for weeks going through many thousands of words and dozens of posts that I will not include here.
Agreement was never reached as each had their pet definition of the words right and legal and accurate communication was never achieved.
The only benefit of the dialog was that it illustrated the truth of what I was teaching on the difficulty of reaching oneness when people’s biases are at play, and the difficult road we have to travel in reaching the harmony necessary to create a working molecule .
The following is my post which attempts to wrap up the argument and move onward.
My post from 2011:
I’ve been contemplating the unresolved differences we have had lately and have some thoughts to share.
The question that might arise in these discussions, not only with the current members, but others in the past is this.
How is it that any two sincere seekers cannot resolve their differences when both have had a degree of soul contact in the past?
The answer is this. The language of the soul is the language of principles. To resolve differences, you have to distil away the non-essentials until you are left with the pure language of principles. It is then that differences can be resolved.
To understand this let us examine the principles involved in the argument that I [and others] have had..
[1] The Principle of Freedom. This relates to decisions, actions, plans, procedures, laws, etc. that bring the greatest amount of freedom to the largest possible number of people.
I believe that all involved in the discussion heartily accept this principle.
[2] Laws are a branch under the Principle of Order, which are under the Principle of Creation. Just laws should therefore enhance order and creativity, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some laws made and accepted by man conform to true principles and some do not.
[3] The Principle of Justice. I believe that all here accept this and want it to prevail.
[4] The Principle of Judgment. Good judgment is necessary in the creating and application of law as they apply to humanity
I think we all agree on these basic principles and if we had a discussion just dealing with them, not resorting to specifics, we would most likely be in harmony and open to group soul contact. So what causes the actual differences then?
The problem arises when we take our focus off true principles and put them on details that are not principles.
The biggest detail that has been a problem is the definition of “legal.”
The reason that arguing over definitions is a lost cause is that they have nothing to do with any of the principles of the argument. Instead, words can be used in any language with any definition to communicate true principles. Communication of principles is not dependent on how words are exactly defined. If it were, one could never explain a principle translated from a foreign language as all the words are different after the translation.
Every time I have had an augment with someone who reverts to the dictionary or some other source to prove the meaning of words, I know the argument is going nowhere.
On the other hand, every time that I have been in harmony with someone there is never a need to go to the dictionary to define a word to prove something.
Why?
Because two people touching the soul together can understand each other and sense the meaning of the communication even if some of the words may not seem to be used exactly right.
When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.
When we are close to someone and tune into them then we will know what they mean even if they use words differently than we personally define them.
Now our friend thinks a law is not legal if it does not conform to the morality of natural law. That’s fine and I accept that he thinks this way.
The problem is the question in discussion was not related to this definition, but to how the legal system of today defines legal. When a judge, police officer or attorney uses the word “legal” he means something different than our friend does. Since he does not seem to recognize legal by the common use today [and this is what the discussion was supposed to be about] we had a huge communication gap.
The gaps create the illusion that we disagree on principles when we do not.
Maybe I should have asked him something like this. “Was Obama’s action legal as seen through this corrupt system where everything is going to hell in a handbasket?”
Maybe that would have worked.
Perhaps I can illustrate the problem with a different word. Instead of legal or rights let us use the word “cool.”
Jim: That’s a cool song.
Bob: You’re wrong. Cool means a low temperature and a song has no temperature. It cannot be cool.
Jim: But there’s more than one definition of cool. I’m not talking about temperature. I’m saying that was a good song.
Bob: But cool, hot and cold can only be measured in degrees. A thing has to have natural form and mass to be cool. A song has neither.
Jim: You’re not listening. I’m not talking about cool as related to temperature but to the quality of a thing.
Bob: But cool is always related to temperature.
Jim: Where do you get that idea?
Bob: That was the original meaning. Any change of the meaning is just a corruption.
Jim sighs…
Even so, what is called natural moral law is as different from the legalities necessary to legally execute Awlaki as are the two definitions of cool.
When I asked if it was legal I wasn’t asking if it conformed to a version of what is moral nor was I referencing anyone else’s version of morality but merely a legality that would be accepted in a current court of law.
Anyway, the key to union is to first listen to what the other person is actually saying, stay close to the soul and tune into each other so true communication can be established.
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. LINK
Nov 6, 2011
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
“Principle of Justice, Principle of Order, Principle of Freedom, Principle of…blah blah blah.”
Thinking adults shouldn’t have to be told this, JJ, but I’ll say it anyways even though you should be functional enough to know better. Having strong opinions on a subject, slapping the words “principle of” in front, then capitalizing the words doesn’t automatically mean you’ve discovered some grand truth of the matter. It doesn’t even mean you’ve contributed to the discussion. It’s just marketing. It doesn’t contribute to the subject any more than the pictures of fake burgers on a drive-through menu contribute to making a good burger.
“When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.”
Jesus is dead, JJ. It is no more possible for a guy who’s been dead for three days to come back to life than it is, for example, for a man to become a woman. This is a defiance of common sense.
I think you would fit in better in a die hard atheist site.
Too fragile for the truth? Need your safe-space?
You are just a distraction, like a mosquito. Nothing to do with the truth.
Distraction from what? You don’t do anything.