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.

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.

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

Series NavigationKeys Writings, Part 16Keys Writings, Part 18

1 thought on “Keys Writings, Part 17”

1. I like this principle on Inertia, because I always thought inertia was just when something could not move and was crystallized.

JJ:”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.”

So in essence if the anger vibration has equal energy to the “unwillingness to move vibration” of the desire energy then the kid will give up for the time being.

Inert means chemically inactive as well, according to the Dictionary version.

RJ