Thoughts

"A hot winded pacifist" -Victoria Schell Wolf

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

on guile . . .


 
 
This quote from Oscar Wilde was sent to me by a friend named Terrance:
 
"The only artists I have ever known, who are personally delightful, are bad artists. Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most ...unpoetical of creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistible. He lives the poetry he cannot write. The others write the poetry that they dare not live."

 --Lord Henry Wotton from The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
reply:
 
This is not intended as wisdom Terry . . . but rather a device used by a skilled writer, filling space like a musician with counterpoint; from these sentiments we are given to confront the disposition of our own gullibility through the articulated principles of the author's invention, his character, blemishes and all.

No greater example of such teasing polemics exists than the famous chapter 5 from The Brothers Karamazov, (Dostoyevsky), "The Grand Inquisitor", regarded universally as the greatest chapter from any work in the history of literature. Briefly, Christ returns to a plaza in Spain during the mid sixteenth century, only to be arrested and cross examined by the Grand Inquisitor. Through a meticulous and thorough dissection of the self destructive tendencies of society as a whole, Jesus is condemned for having forsaken mankind by refusing Satan's offer; leaving the Church, through strict and brutal devices, to pick up the burden of mankind's security, but only at the expense of its Liberty.

This is a thought experiment. I don't believe anyone was ever intended to confuse the eloquence of the Grand Inquisitor for the philosophy of Dostoyevsky himself.
The clue? . . . When the premise flies in the face of a reader's practical experience, ethics, or cold logic, it is generally assumed that he/she is being called upon to wrestle with the page; the reader must assume authority in the saddle when engaged; the trail does not stray, but the horse will be given to wander. The reader must never loose the reins without forsaking the fundamental purpose in reading. It is a wrestling match, not a spectator sport.

The clues in Wildes invention? . . the facts:. Bob Dylan, Lord Byron, Rimbaud, Jim Morrison, John Lennon, Keith and Mick, S T Coleridge, Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Ovid, Shakespeare, Cervantes . . .
each example a testament to an artist who lived a life eqivilant to the furthest excesses of their oeuvre . . .

And finally, allow me to present myself as a prime example of a second rate talent, thoroughly enjoying the turmoil, strang und durm, of a second rate biography, chock filled with second rate adventure
 



Monday, September 8, 2014

The Errant Lid: tales from the Solicitor's kitchen

. . .  Posted by a friend from down in sunny F L A . . . .
——————————————————————————————————————
 
 
Me: 
Don’t like white slavery? Don’t buy one
Don’t like deforestation? Don’t cut down trees
Don’t like Pedophilia? Don’t touch little children

Don’t like racial profiling? Don’t be black around a cop
Don’t like censorship? Don’t write/speak/act your thoughts
 
. . . the logic behind this meme is compelling . . . but flawed, (and squeezing the “gun” line in at the end was enough to trip the switches of suspicion . . . )
Althea Tansy   I saw this before, Jeff.  I think it just means…to sum it up, that people should mind their own business and if you don’t like it don’t do it. I like it better when things said are short and to the point.
Me   On the issue of gun proliferation, I will exercise my right to maintain the logical, respectful case for sensible changes in gun policy which express the rights of those of us who demand to live in a safer , more civilized community . . free from the sight and threat of these offensive weapons. Short and to the point is the goal, no doubt. But it must stand the test. This meme is sinister in its simplistic disguise. Short And To The Point  is not a license to disregard scrutiny.
A T   True enough about guns. But it was not about guns. It was about people’s perspectives and judgments and forcing their views and beliefs on others. Unfortunately, the last line was stupid. I don’t like guns at all. It was an invention that’s purpose was to injure or kill. No matter how you spin that is it’s use.
Me    I watched the lid pop off the pepper shaker when she meant to add a pinch . . . the soup sat in its pot, simmering as her one hand set the empty shaker down, the other spooning frantically below the bubbles for the errant lid; lost among the sausage, potatoes, bacon and kale somewhere on the gurgling bottom of the broth;
then slipped away before she caught me spy the crime . .
And from my chair around the table where the soup was subsequently served, i merely grinned when our host, the wonderful Ms. Kitchen, announced with thinly veiled trepidation, most preemptively, that one must remember, above all things, that the “zuppa” was, before all affiliate and relevant considerations, “Not about the Pepper.”
(. . . “hint: “But it was not about the guns.”)
AT   So funny!

Monday, September 1, 2014

Bedlam: the suicide of reason in 21st century America



It were better to be of no church than to be bitter for any. - William Penn, some fruits of solitude, 1693

There’s a coffee shop in Federalsburg Maryland, where the eggs are served on styrofoam plates and they never heard of half and half. I was down here for a few days, maybe five years ago; my brother Jim threw me some work, fixing the roof for a friend of his from church. It was nice, seeing him again. His two children lived on the mainland, closer to Baltimore with their mother and his second wife was away for a spell. It was twenty years since the two of us talked; really shot the shit, without the pretense of our mutual dispositions as husbands and fathers; my wife having filed for divorce over a year earlier and my daughter now adjusting to living in a residence home for the disabled. Poking holes in the foam plate with my rubber fork, trying to pick up a wedge of pancakes and watching the syrup ooze through onto the countertop, I was reminded how effortlessly I was still able to find and tease the most vulnerable, well-concealed catacombs of his pride.


We were from a pretty large brood, six kids and three adults, living in a small Levittown-style home; it was a pressure cooker and teasing was simply a rite of passage. So it was pretty difficult for me to digest how thoroughly transformed my younger brother had become since he left New York over twenty years ago; the irreverent prodigal had laid down the bottle and was now serving the Church on his free time; repairing gutters, fixing faucets, attending Bible study groups and talking openly, to me no less, about his faith and the Lord. It was well known by that time, that I held no tolerance for the Church, or scripture in any form for that matter; a fact which silence on such matters served to preserve the peace for almost half a century. Jim’s introduction of the issue was no subtle confession. It was a challenge. There seemed to be no way to cut through the sausage without slicing through the plate. The counter was by this time a sticky mess. There’s no question I was an ass; but I was an incredibly clever ass and the humor runneth over. To his credit, he was patient, almost graceful for sure, which I naturally understood to be condescending. At some point he finally asked if I thought of myself as a spiritual man. It came as no surprise to me that I did.


But let me now ask the analogous question: What do I think of the beautiful face of the Chesapeake Bay? Is there a single correct response to either question? Can you accept through this comparison my perfect right to see the water in my own terms? Spirituality on my terms, for the purpose of this first composition regarding it, will remain a snapshot of the bay on one particular day, at one particular hour, an invention of the events that lead to a morning of experiences that place my humor in a specific context. For as the bay remains a fixed, charted mark on the landscape, a metaphor for the spiritual constant piloting my morality; it is my relationship to it that is daily reevaluated or in the vernacular of the faithful, reaffirmed. Growing up on the ocean’s edge could never alone stand as à cause de raison of one’s matured reverence of it. For this, the answer lays outside of the obvious, somewhere caught up with other deeper, correlated mechanisms inside the mind. So what is my concern with my own relationship to God?


The original answer to this is sort of humbling. To my impatient ear, you were simply giving it all over to the Christian Church. It is no secret that I despise the church for its role in co-orchestrating the fundamentalist conservative movement in contemporary America; for its reckless influence in our policy decision making process; for using insidious tactics to restrict the rights of individuals with less power and a fragile social standing. Your place in these ranks stunned me to react with my wits instead of acting with my mind. As my a.m. chat buddy for these many years, as my brother, ex-roommate and friend, I understand that a caricature of the shallow soldier for Christ is incongruous with your debating skills. So I want to better explain myself to you and figure out whether, in the end, you care for my spirituality, which like all the others, appears at its core, more comfortable in Kevlar than a collar.

Like a house, a life is measured in periods, from moving-in day to moving-out day. Born into darkness, we explore each room and outfit it with the trophies of our accomplishments. One wick is lit in the science room, another in the social skills antechamber while yet another light is lit on the night of our wedding. My spirituality is available for scrutiny by anyone who cares to look into my windows and experience the glow of goodness they find there. I am content to recognize that same light in the homes of my friends and neighbors without having to ask for a tour of the house. My yard is likewise outfitted with enough lamps to help a visitor find the way to my door through the dark.

An even glow throughout the home, most desired, is achieved by remembering the importance of keeping the candles fresh in every room. This would be analogous to Plato’s search for a harmony of human forces competing at all times for the reins of control within the soul of an individual. This would require the “I-am” who runs my affairs be diligent, within reason, to the needs of each chamber and supply fresh tallow when and wherever needed. With greater confidence in one’s own spirituality, analogous from my perspective with the light of knowledge and wisdom, the job of juggling the lamps becomes less of a chore and risk and, like the long distance runner who finds her stride, more of a joy; an almost effortless high. The proof of the journey is in the glow of the karma one detects from the individual. Whether it comes in the form of words or behaviors, the simplest of gifts requires the concept of the act only after the inspired invention; the form or realization of the reaction must first be conceptualized. In this I believe is one extremely important measure of a body’s spirituality.

I know a great many people who believe in God. I have found a wide degree of unevenness in the glow from their windows. I also know of an equal number of people who cannot say that there is definitely a Creator, a God behind the events and miracles of life, with a comparable degree of unevenness to the glow of their compassionate intelligence. It is in the end, a skillful compassion, a savant-humanity that we prize highest in the platitudes of Spirituality, isn’t it? The belief in a supreme being neither insures nor precludes this state of grace or awareness within one’s soul. So, again in the interest of explaining my behavior on the phone, I will return to the area(s) of Spirituality that leave me cold, spiteful and cold.

The following anecdote is not intended to insult your intelligence or reduce the scope of my take on the complexity of the issue of religion. It’s simply a way of advancing to the next stage of my analogy, permitting me to refresh my hypothetical model with a flesh and blood illustration. Please bear with me. Delores' Uncle Cedric found his answer to a life of agitation and unrest in Christ. Twenty years ago, he began filling a hole, hemmed by a feeling of suffering and unease he could not soothe. His story is just one of a number I have had the opportunity to watch unfold, much in the same way, though the details of his progression are more available. This is not a take-down of Cedric. He was a pretty cool guy with a charisma that shot like beams of positive enthusiasm from his eyes, his shoulders and the corners of his smirking lips. Cedric would do anything within his power to help Delores and me, should the occasion call for it. He met his wife, a beautiful woman of Argentinian and Basque decent, at a church function. The church was an evangelical denomination, founded in Manhattan, which outgrew at least two locations, finally reaching tens of thousands of worshippers via cable TV from its “temple” stadium in midtown,, capacity five thousand or more.

He once blushed during a Thanksgiving dinner with thirty or so family members, as he retold the story of how Yolanda and he waited in the rain for over an hour to get front row (pew?) seats to one particular Sunday’s “performance”. Drying off and finally in their prized trophy seats, Cedric and his wife were just settling in for the sermon when an usher wheeled a crippled man down the aisle and over to our two heroes. “Would you two mind exchanging your seats with this man? His wheelchair isn’t allowed to be blocking the aisle. It’s a fire-code thing you know. I have two seats saved for you up a bit . . . . around row twenty or something.”

“Jeff, we looked at each other, still lightly soaked and felt cheated. This couldn’t be happening to us. So we stood our ground and told the usher that we worked hard for the seats and they were not available.”

Yet, ironically, Cedric would devalue the thesis of this essay with a quote from the very same, very Good Book; oblivious to the infected contradiction of such a compromised example. I believe there’s even a line he recited from some scripture, absolving his need to feel connected to the responsibility or impulse a less “indoctrinated” human being would feel to support word with deed. Perhaps it was that scene from JC Superstar, where Christ finds himself overwhelmed by the scale of suffering in the world and pushes past the blind and the lepers clinging to his robes for the cure and maybe a little salvation.

Like I said, this story was not repeated to express my take on the sum gains of religion. That evening, over a bountiful spread of traditional Thanksgiving plenty, I saw the dark window where a light once shone in the room of this man’s objective reason. This candle it appears was moved to join the growing collection of lamps in the great hall of his religious fervor, leaving the darkness to replace it. It’s been many years since I’ve spoken to Uncle Cedric. Not over any falling out or the like, but more because his calls simply stopped and my calls became an intolerable collection of unreturned messages. Delores on the other hand was a guest of his, out in beautiful Witchita, about seven or ten years ago. God had set him up with a marvelous job as a tennis-pro and blessed him with two daughters. A vote for George Bush was a vote for Christianity and Democracy’s final push to abolish the threat of Muslim tyranny from all four corners of the globe; May the sword of Christ not fall into the hands of cowards unwilling to do the Lord’s work.

He hasn’t invited Delores back to visit in ten years. I would have found it difficult to imagine, growing up as a teen in the seventies, to believe that somewhere, somehow, a straightjacket was not being fitted for this guy. By the standards of the pre-Jerry Falwell era, a time when most people kept their religious extremism closer to the vest, Cedric would have been considered a harmless eccentric, a danger only to himself; someone to keep a healthy distance from but not necessarily threatening. But things have changed. Ministers from the evangelical heartland of America promised Washington that there were votes out there, a lot of votes and the Leaders of the Christian ministries were prepared to deliver them, for a little bit of the old quid pro quo. Yes, there was legislation desperately needed, waiting to save America from threats to core Christian and hence, family values. To a young guy raised in the progressive North East, this movement was like watching a cartoon overtake the country like water filling a sponge. At least the spiders have come out from hiding, where we can see them, I would think. But they just kept coming. Purchasing radio broadcast frequencies en masse’ at the lower end of the FM radio dial to ensure seamless coverage of Church Radio from Portland to Portland while strategically preempting noncommercial alternative music and news radio programs, “the godless, heathen alternative”, in a single blow. The message to the desperate, the family scared by unemployment and drink, the sermon of Salvation was a perfect fit for the New Prosperity of the God and Country eighties. Simply substitute the “Please, Jesus” with a “Thank you Jesus” and the remaining sermon survived intact.

Artful men with questionable agendas became powerful men with a technical prowess. What do I mean by “questionable agendas”? I mean the use of corporate tactics with Madison Avenue savoir faire’ to build the stadium sized halls of worship that populate the suburbs of Colorado, Utah, Texas and Montana among many other locations; whose Wal-Mart style efficiency continues to spread into areas like New York the way our eastern seaboard Malls spread into the Midwest back a few decades ago. Men, ordained by god knows who, are traveling as Spiritual Leaders in privately owned Corporate jets; contacting their representatives in Washington who eagerly drop calls to answer them. It is a well-documented consequence, which befalls the hapless resident of Salt Lake City who leaves the Church of Latter Day Saints.

The worshippers of the New Life Church, an evangelical Christian denomination in Colorado Springs, (congregation 14,000 and growing), have developed a separate and distinct community within the city. They have literally segregated themselves from the general population by a systematic land purchase operation with money generated specifically for the greater goal of augmenting and micromanaging New Life’s control over its flock. Employment, education and peer support are rewarded and withheld in accordance to one’s status in the congregation. It was reported in Harper’s magazine back in May, 2005, (in the article “Inside America’s most powerful Megachurch” by Jeff Sharlet, a church founded by the later disgraced pastor Ted Haggard), that direct phone communications between Pastor Haggard and G.W. Bush were not a rumor, not uncommon and not without effect.

Similar strategies are employed in ever evolving varieties in many, many other locations throughout the country. What I find questionable is the popularity of these tactics among people who are reading the same book as you and Pastor Pete; people who, though equally intelligent, apparently fail to bring a healthy skepticism to the work at hand and consequently fail to grasp the true word of the Gospels. If the Lord wanted mindless automatons he would have contented himself with the animal kingdom and been done with it. Our very freedom of choice is apparently so sacred a gift that His decision to leave Chance a two-sided coin was necessary to preserve the odds. Emily is Emily so that I might wrestle with both my freedom and her fate. God smiles over both.

And in this fashion, the lamps move from one room to another; imperceptibly, cautiously, inevitably. It reminds me of the drunk, whose love of a drink is so strong that he musters control enough to insure his privilege to imbibe will never be revoked. It is through this back door that many men are seduced from their principles; replacing them with unsound axioms which sound good, which please the moment, yet trip the fuses of reason, the patriarch of logic. Slowly the lights dim. But why waste so much time and effort on an aberration of the Christian code; the very principles you and I were raised to recognize and trust. The faith or reliance with which we regard each other is based in no small part on a secure knowledge and confidence of our similar tastes, ethics and distinctions. When I tell you I’ve just been disrespected, you simply listen to the how, not questioning why. I trust you and I believe you feel the same. But when you ride with the bible in your saddlebag, you invite my impulse to defend my ideals from those who ride with you.

Not all people who worship are the same. Not all religions are the same. Every statement in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran is not about nice things happening to nice people. Followers of all these texts are confronted with thousands upon thousands of pages of statements propounded many millennia ago by individuals who have over time transcended their flesh and blood humanity for an intimidating makeover. Decisions to obey, interpret, edit or abide these words have segregated Sunnis from Shiites, Catholics from Unitarians and Orthodox from Progressives, while the holy war between the three major religions have crowded the headlines for every day of the five decades I have been alive. Yet individually, no one actually believes the fundamental service of religion is to withhold a message for shared love, trust and brotherhood; to obscure the strategies of effective communication across the line of vulnerability surrounding the nuclear or extended family. These issues tread very dangerous and highly guarded waters. It is no small wonder that tomes of metaphorical intrigue, expertly laced with tantalizing ambiguity should be employed to navigate the passage. Too much is at stake to leave to contracts. Many seekers will read the same verse and inevitably arrive simultaneously, at different interpretations and hence, conclusions. Some more subtle than others, like what was the place of Mary Magdalene among the disciples; and most regrettably, some inciting one neighbor to despise another, like who is the real Messiah? A difference so profound it is apparently worth disrespecting the fundamental truth over; (or as Asimov would tell it, the “Prime Directive”.)

Just for laughs, what is the thinking here? :

I will . . . a] cheat thee, b] lie to thee, c] lie about thee, d] cuckold thee, or e] murder thee . . .to achieve my superiority in the name of (pick one: Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, God, Jehovah, Other), and return to the primary directive immediately after.

This fact does not need another two or three thousand years to figure out. Get over it. Just take it back to the fundamentals: If you do not believe in me, believe in the things I do; which leads nicely to the greatest commandment; the Prime Directive: Love thy neighbor as you would be loved. It’s this exacerbating preoccupation with the words! Jesus himself would marvel at the creative license taken with the Prime Directive in His name. One can only wonder if Benedict XVI would give up his bed for one night to an unwashed homeless man fresh in town from a forty-day jaunt in the wilderness.

My point is not to suggest that the words are either useless or the instigator of all the trouble and confusion. It is rather, the imposed infallibility of these Holy texts in the grip of certain influential and very powerful albeit imperfect men. This has proven repeatedly over many centuries to be a deliriously toxic cocktail:

infallible Tool > imperfect operator.

The image of a six year old with his father’s 38 caliber comes to mind.

More walls have been erected with bricks stamped “LOVE”, right here in the United States, in the name of God and Country than I can continue to tolerate silently from the sidelines:

• There is no place for same sex, adult relationships in our communities
• The plague of undocumented immigrants, bringing a non-English speaking culture into this country is an affront to America and therefore, the Christian values that congeal our community
• The teaching of evolution in our classrooms is an affront to God
• Research for cures to tragic disabilities like Parkinson’s disease, M.S. or autism using stem cells from harvested embryos is a sin in the eyes of God and will be stricken from the law books . .

just to name a prominent few. The issues come right down to wars over the display of Holiday season dioramas in public spaces.

So where are the humble men? The seekers who simply want a serious discussion with their spiritual selves; who wish to allow God into their lives, privately working within their families and among their neighbors for the Lord. (“For blessed are the undercover agents; the spooks.” - Jesus, somewhere in the Gospels.) The men and women who have asked for healing and were healed, who asked for guidance and began to walk a little differently, a little taller, with a little more confidence; the philosopher who asks what he might accomplish within the remaining days of his life to repay the Lord and leave some mark of positive change to inspire from the quiet side of the grave? Where are these men and how did they get caught up in all this trash talk?

It is the irony of our situation, yours and mine, that the image of religion in America, as expressed by observers both at home and abroad, is not regrettably, that of the Temperate Majority but instead, the ego-crazed, money fueled technocratic children of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. In earlier times he would have simply been considered “the town zealot”, a tolerably eccentric man whose enthusiasm for a congregational interpretation of the word convinced provincial communities that pleasing the deity would stave off bad karma. Poor access to education in these times left a vast majority of the people ignorant of the rules or laws of critical analysis, a skill whose continuous exercise is essential to its development and maintenance; hence, ill prepared to identify let alone challenge the corrupted rhetoric.

“But the crops failed anyway!” they cried.
“No matter,” sayeth the Zealot, “Someone from this village must have failed us! This is what remains obvious. Let us find who and punish them accordingly. That is what the Lord wishes! Only then will things be set right again.”

Unintended to draw attention to a specific individual or event from history, this tongue-in-cheek exchange was presented as an example of a flawed style of dialectic reasoning employed in both religious and secular polemics from the period immediately following the fall of Roman influence in Europe. A strange Christ from this movement arose, a spiritual doppelgӓnger, the UberChrist whose invention preempted the passive and insipidly vulnerable Primary Directive, subordinating it to a more masculine, a more impenetrable cover of laminated tidbits, quilted from the valance band of Gospel minutia, one whose aggregate importance and moral utility amount to little more than philosophical excrement when measured against the fundamental, Controlling Principle. These were the progenitors of the modern Evangelists, the moral voice of the West; self-proclaimed guardians and protectors of an ideal which they either misinterpreted or, contrarily, understood too clearly and systematically de-clawed in the interest of advancing an alternative, more personal agenda. Just picture your High School gym teacher coordinating the Invasion of Normandy.

Yet these same guys, the “Zealots” or the “Fundamentalist Evangelicals” are the ones with the bull horn!

• Have children for Christ. Lots and lots of them. We need more “Christian soldiers” because our intel from the field is that Hajji’s giving seventy virgins per fatwa and our enrollment has to respond
• Proselytize, proselytize, proselytize . . .
• The homos are coming! The Homos are coming!
• Eden was located somewhere in South Dakota
• God rewards good Christians with financial prosperity
• Scientific research and related publications are composed with a distinct bias toward the exclusion of Divine intervention

- and so on . . . The compatibility of religious observance and critical, legitimately analytical thinking has been rent by a tragic history of alternating dominance and distrust waged in the public arena by ham-handed extremists from both sides. A wariness of scientific arrogance by certain religious leaders might be traced to a conditioning of thought begun from the earliest period of spiritual infancy and assimilation into a community of similar, inherited attitudes and theological positions toward the two. Man’s special place in God’s heart before all the terrors and delights of the sensory confusion that is our inheritance; the Church’s prime source of authoritarian intoxification, (i.e.: All heavenly bodies can be observed to circle the sky above earth. We are reminded in this therefore, of man’s importance as the center of God’s creation.), was being undermined by keen eyed “philosophers” with new and powerful tools of computation and measurement. Books of irrefutable evidence bearing witness to the obsolescence of liturgical dogma were successfully censored; in no small part a result of their ironic complexity.

The Church was indeed threatened by attacks from the scientific community. Science’s impatience with religious dogma has had its own dark history, with countless examples of empirical research being used as evidence for the prosecution of prominent scientists at illegitimate trials; courtroom travesties served cold by a vengeful history. And somehow, throughout the long, bloody, illustrious story of man and his recorded relationship with some form of higher power, good men, numbering in the billions, have maintained a private relationship with their higher power. Unconditional respect for the prime directive has forced many of these men to leave the church, the synagogue, the mosque or the like, because of a refusal to include as dogma, specific articles of vestigial ritual incongruous with either the prime directive or established scientific developments. I am one of these men.

Another class of worshippers, a more pragmatic group, neuters the contradiction between scientific method and scriptural discipline by assuming a duality of faith, which has provided a workable, if not technically flawed détente between the inner engineer and the spiritual servant. I would go out on the limb here and suggest that this community represents a considerably large slice of the overall pie. For this individual, a statement of scriptural importance, for example the raising of Lazarus from the dead, inexplicable from a scientific perspective, is accorded to faith, enough said. The Bible’s shaky take on chronological passages however, say a seven-hundred year old man or a six thousand year old planet Earth, are dismissed as quaint and insignificant details easily corrected by science’s application of carbon dating and DNA techniques. Neither inconsistency challenges the Prime Directive. Albert Einstein would remain a Jew with strong religious convictions until his death. Newton on the other hand died believing that science had not yet explained the existence or need of a god.

The heavy hand of financially backed Religious propriety, in the case of Newton, born during Cromwell’s war on the English Church and Crown, and the severe religious backlash facing the Einstein family were both proportionate to the social dynamics of their separate times. Newton was an outcast from the prestigious Oxford brotherhood, an obstacle to his occupational ambitions, and Einstein, a refugee of the socialist fascism of Nazi Germany, an exile. Men with media outreach and superior political power, dangerous men of fractional talent, achieved an influence of exponential advantage over these two individuals whose wisdom both landed a man on the moon and created the modern nuclear age. Unfortunately, their story is agonizingly repetitious. Examples from Socrates, through Galileo to Darwin and beyond, pepper the story of an alpha-class’s struggle to tame the common rabble with a digestible explanation of natures grip on man’s understanding of his being and consequent, infuriating vulnerability. Madison Avenue simply elevated the evangelist’s options by micro-analyzing the fallout of the post world war prosperity in America’s newly created and vacuous middle class of the late forties and fifties, by providing the Corporate Barons and some attentive clergy with sophisticated, highly localized target coordinates.

The challenge of the deeper questions of both God in the new complex capitalist community and the post-quantum age of Science were still the domain of a marginal stratosphere of the population. This much can never change. The masses however, needed plainspoken answers to questions of immediate moral and practical dilemmas. This much also, can never change. These answers however, were not the direct products of these great and rare, minds preoccupied with contemporary, cutting edge research or discovery. A population exhausted from a hard days grind at the office, the factory or the construction site wanted, and in many cases demanded, bold sensible advice to immediate moral dilemmas involving pubescent teens and community relationships. Advice from the local church or armchair psychoanalysis from a trusted friend was more than adequate to the task, and processed seamlessly with network television programming, it rounded out the profile of a reasonably informed citizen from the late twentieth century America through today. The insidious perfection of the media’s skill at packaging information of no consequence in the guise of legitimacy was the focus of a 2008 publication by Curtis White called The Middle Mind. Parodies of the media’s role in replacing a person’s pre-television agenda of activities (i.e., hobbies, reading, interacting or simply ruminating) with a prepackaged stream of choreographed, digital methadone, are used by companies like Hulu to further spread their coverage by insulting the victim (ref. Alec Baldwin as other-worldly “rancher” harvesting the softened brains of human TV addicts as alien delicacy). Time on this prohibitively restrictive medium is terribly expensive, so the data by needs, must be refined to target its audience with every attention to detail. Nothing is left to chance because the financial wardens have their stalwart margins of cost effectiveness. The importance of this development to our conversation cannot be underestimated.

To mine the fields of subliminal influence psychologists, sociologists, visual artists and screenwriters have been drafted by the Corporate, Political and Religious generals to form an army of technicians who in turn use actors, voters and priests like rifles. Every time you shop, the electronic scanning machines cross-reference your “Discount Membership Value cards” and credit cards with the items you buy, gathering information about your individual lifestyle. Organizations like Google and Optimum On-Line intensify the profiling effort by tapping into fresh areas of personal and intellectual property adding it to the biographical “genome”. The invention of Super-Computers has increased the value of this incredibly daunting amount of information by reducing the ratio of excessive to inclusive data by employing ever superior, more powerful computation-management techniques, euphemistically called data-mining. This progression will continue on a natural course of improvement and efficiency, rounding-out the “humanity” of the model by further refining the sketchy caricature of its subject to a representation of ever increasing focus.

Buying a skill saw at Home Depot, for example is mundane enough, an act that generally raises no red flags in the mind of the average consumer. This single, innocent purchase however, is enough to distinguish an otherwise identical pair of profiles from one another. The simple purchase of the power-saw now expands the study to suggest Profile A, who bought the saw, has an increased probability of independent initiative toward activities involving the fashioning of materials, than would Profile B, whose record indicates the now-conspicuous purchase of no saw.

The paranoid stigma of this frame of skepticism evaporates when you begin to zoom out from the specific purchase of a skill-saw by an individual and extrapolate the implication of its expository potential by the number and variety of purchases by the individual over the week, the past ten weeks and the past five years. Patterns and trends materialize; psychological inferences abound, and perhaps most unsettling, future actions may be anticipated.

Now multiply the individual’s profile by the number of people who shop using credit cards or “preferred customer” discount cards, (issued by almost every Supermarket and drug store chain in the country) and you have the most potentially dangerous database ever assembled. Part of its brilliance lies in its use of the eager subject, who actively updates and maintains its relevance. One flattering tribute to its effectiveness is the birth of data piracy by criminals; identity theft, computer viruses upsetting the smooth cross-pollination of gigabytes, and unscrupulous “spam” swindlers. These low-life bottom feeders are traditionally the bell weather of brewing storms.

The next step toward mass indoctrination is to have the community view the individual who refuses to provide his personal information with suspicion. I bought a pack of cigarettes at Pathmark two nights ago. The clerk informed me that she was required to see my I.D. Being thirty-one years over the state’s age limit, I laughed and showed the lady my driver’s license. Without looking at it to inspect the date of birth, she scanned it into a machine, smiled and handed it back to me. I was stunned. I asked her why she needed to scan my license. She looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights.

“I have to scan your license to sell you the cigarettes.” She choked.
“You had no business doing that without telling me” I replied.
“But I couldn’t sell them if I didn’t swipe your license.” She said, beginning to wonder if I was hiding something or just rude.
“You swipe broccoli and tampons” I snapped, “You don’t swipe a guy’s driver’s license. You just scanned my license without even warning me!”
“But I had to.” She explained.
“No. You should have asked me first. Pathmark is not a government agency. I would have politely declined and gone next door and bought the fuckin’ cigarettes without providing your database with any more of my personal information. Doesn’t it seem a little weird to you that you need more than a look at my birthday to sell me a pack of cigarettes?” I asked.
“No” she said.

The guy behind me had his license out and ready, looking at me like I was wasting his time and was probably a shady freak with something to hide. He got his Newports and put his license back in his wallet. I left the store feeling like I was just hustled. I drove home pissed off.

The individual, though not yet an endangered species, appears to be the target of much interest. Try owning a home in suburban America and refusing to fertilize your lawn. The chemicals used by your neighbors to kill the indigenous plant life and promote a healthy carpet of thick green grass, an alien plant, have been traced to damaging effects on the aquifer and, in the case here on Long Island, the clam and mussel beds of our coasts. This information is not secret knowledge. To the contrary, perfectly reasonable homeowners, concerned about Greenhouse gasses and deforestation, still continue to fertilize their lawns in keeping with an unspoken mass-schizophrenia; promoting an imposed, eccentric aesthetic ideal before a science-based tale of caution. Exchanging the current toxic junk for organic alternatives does not address an individual’s preference to cultivate a yard of native wildflowers and plants.

The growing complacency I sense in my community is not necessarily a new thing. The crucifixion of a homeless man, whose only crime was speaking truth to power, was cheered on by the same community he gave his life to heal. The persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is a grotesque illustration of neighbor turning on neighbor; answering the call of nationalism by betraying old, established bonds of trust and friendship for the security of community acceptance; the current suspicion of contemporary Americans toward brown-skinned worshippers of the Koran; the tide of angry, otherwise rational, functioning Americans against those working to shine a light on acts of “war time” torture and prosecuting those responsible; the looks of disdain and groans of disgust from an audience watching Susan Boyle take the stage in a British singing competition; a reflexive, negative verdict of a woman who hadn’t lifted her voice to yet sing her first note, based solely on the association of performance and appearance instilled and reinforced on our generation from our earliest days.

From direct television viewing of cosmetic ads to beautiful actors in unlikely situations, our experiences are formed and reformed by the changing styles and instructions we receive by interacting with friends who are watching from the same television choices as us. Susan Boyle’s performance is now another entry in the book of remarkable events.

A human is a societal animal, preferring the company and conversation of others to solitude. As a matter of fact, solitude is a weapon, employed by prison guards to punish inmates when all other methods fail. Many people seek companionship from their pets when human company is unavailable. A person rarely chooses to be lonely. It is not my purpose to draw through these examples, a case against the concept of community, but rather, to ask you to step outside the “circle of trust” and evaluate the condition of the community, in much the same way as a nutritionist would evaluate the health of an individual by identifying the content of her diet. Television my friends, is the mayonnaise of America’s intellect.

Watch any mindless exchange on a third rate sit-com, complete with canned laughs and a soft, upper-middle class living room set, and you can be sure that a targeted message is woven into information related to the dramatic context as influential in its omission as if it had been actively addressed. Mistakenly innocuous to the sensibilities of the vast majority of the viewing population, which now includes virtually every single person in the nation, this subliminal technique reinforces its audience’s analytical numbness through a conditioned reduction of quality choices. Cattle are herded and then steered to the slaughterhouse using analogous techniques. We are now into the fourth generation of compliance. What began as a technological novelty of the elite has become, by the twenty-first century, an appliance of ominous ubiquity. A few years ago I was standing on the street outside the Carpenter’s Union hall on Hudson Street, down in Tribeca, when I saw the bright blue glow of a battery powered television set shining out of a cardboard refrigerator box sheltering a homeless guy. The number of TV’s per household in America is 2.1, up from 1992’s paltry 1.6. These, mind you, are color TVs, not the old black and white variety.

In the earliest days of independent, non-commercial radio, Lew Hill, the founder of Pacifica Radio, offered free FM receivers as premiums to listeners who donated money to help keep his fledgling station on the air. The concept was to promote listenership and hopefully improve the effectiveness of fund raising. If the lights stay on, Lew will get his message of pacifism out. If the station gets its message out, more people, statistically speaking, will support it. If more people support it, Lew Hill will continue to improve the odds that Pacifica will remain on the air. Lew Hill’s message got out, people now have enough FM radios and sixty years later, the people are still willing to pay for it.

This is a quaint synopsis of a similar strategy used by corporate, political and religious leaders over the past half-century or more. Lew’s budget back in 1949 was six thousand dollars. FM radio was inaccessible to most Americans; (Lew incidentally, was denied an AM license. These were, after all, the salad days of McCarthyism.) and America knew nothing yet of Arab strikes on U.S. soil.

What do you call a magician who performs an illusion while explaining to the audience every step of the trick? I suppose if the act is seductive enough, you simply call him to perform his act at your home. The skill of a palmed quarter or a dove produced from the air has been trumped by a force of persuasion so psychologically scripted, so insidiously administered as to separate the audience from its connection to a more natural buffet of emotions, like shock, surprise or even disappointment and anger. Whoever first observed that “TV is the opiate of the masses” understood this. “I don’t care about the content. Just give me more.” Television producers are candid about their skills and often brag during interviews about how brilliant the system actually is. We watch and hear, but no one is listening. We fold our clothes, flip through channels and talk about a sale on ground chuck at Pathmark, all while keeping our eyes glued to the screen.

After fifty some odd years of refining this stream of data, shooting out of a virtual window into America’s living room, the Twenty-first century aristocracy, with unprecedented access into the heart and mind of Everyman, has patiently, methodically achieved a maximum control of his own destiny by writing the scripts we, the tired, intoxicated proletariat perform, like dancing bears. The genius of this program is two-fold: first I suppose would be its innocuous presence. Could Caesar himself have dreamed of a system of control so perfectly effective, that any attempt to disarm it would have been met with opposition from its victims? Second is the multiple utility of the system. Swords and tanks do not promote retail spending. The Television however, explained to me last year that my tax dollars being used to support an illegal war in Iraq was the best bang for my “family-values” buck while seamlessly urging me to improve my self- image by getting over to Sears immediately to kick the tires of a riding lawn mower before the Easter Sunday Blowout Sale Extravaganza is over! I’m sure the lines wrapped around the building.

The coverage of professional sports in America is near impossible to distinguish from serious issues concerning political and economic stability at home or internationally. A degree of importance to sporting activities has been carefully cultivated by frat-boy heirs to the Nation’s nobility class, grooming athletes from the dregs of the lower and middle classes like thoroughbred stallions, whose progress is monitored with the scrupulous attention of an astronomer; statistics accurately memorized by individuals who would fail an eighth-grade English or Math exam and, like the aforementioned Pragmatic Worshiper, has incorporated an acceptance of belief in two contradictory principles in the name of compromise and serenity. Yes, the country and the planet need our help, but only after the Red Sox win the World Series. Yes Mr. Pettite, God has cancelled all His other appointments to observe you kiss the crucifix on the chain around your neck. Your split-finger is now covered by the Christian Magic Insurance agency; any and all claims are automatically nullified by our “infallibility clause”, details on the back of the Cross.

True to the tenets of caricature or a lampoon, I have exaggerated the primary distinguishing features of the issue to place in your mind a model from which to work from. By substituting sports for politics, religion or science, I am attempting to dissect the anatomy of a significant capillary of the arterial indoctrination technique and display its distraction potential and ease of assimilation. By fragmenting the individual American citizen into hundreds of separate cells of independent, often conflicting convictions, the subject’s brain is ready to perform its natural gravitation toward an order of decreasing complexity, a procedure metaphorically observed throughout the studied physical universe, wherein a multitude of activities is reduced, like a quadratic equation, into fewer and fewer cells, and hence fewer and fewer contradictions. With the help of television, our contemporary viewer has been raised with far less proficiency and experience or even confidence in his own meditative skills, trading the effort of creative, talent-building activities for Television viewing. Having spent far more time taking data from the tube into his mind than sorting it, the idea that our hero might rely on preordained services to steer the process is more than compelling. It is much easier to leave the hard work of self analysis in the same coma, in the same dark cell of one’s own numbness, where it lay, ignored for decades; to vend out our analytical responsibilities than to confront a hard-won principle that could very well introduce little more than an upsetting inconvenience.

And here we have come at last to the final turn of this rant. I don’t even pretend to know if the names of the Leaders behind the manipulation of America’s “middle mind” are the same names we have been taught by the media to associate with their respective empires. To borrow one last time from Mr. White, a revolution of covert techniques has silently been born to the post-Nixon world and used to considerable effect by the second Bush administration. We no longer “stonewall” the uncomfortable details of our trespasses, but rather, we inundate our media and citizens with more information than they can bear. By exceeding the threshold of reliable data processing, troubling information can now been laundered, the public anesthetized and the perpetrators free to rapidly engage in the next operation. Thirty years of polishing the brains of its citizens to a waterproof sheen has allowed G.W. access to indulgences that would have made Nixon sob with envy.

With this in mind, the probability of a nameless face behind the controls loses its attraction, utility and sounds simply paranoid. The mechanics of America’s growing dichotomy however is not.
- Turning to established political parties is easier than inventing a set of principles which define you as a conscientious, voting individual.
- Turning to a religious organization that imposes any series of axioms beyond the Primary Directive, the Single Controlling Principle, consistent with religions across the globe and cultural spectrum, namely: Love one another, share with one another is an intolerable compromise and one which Christ himself would deny.
- Buying a Bratz doll for your four-year old will accomplish little more than perpetuating the ideal of caste distinctions, preventing access to dreams for individuals on the metrics of superficial chromosomal arrangements. This is a vestigial, inappropriate and medieval character building exercise and has no place being passed along to our next generation. It is nothing but a stain on our collective report card.

But in each of the three cases above, there is a motive to include the contradictions, an established method of effective delivery and worst of all, a complicit public. Our inevitable maturation as a species has been forever altered by the discovery of an effective mass hypnotic propaganda technique, dwarfing the influence of the church over the previous two thousand years. King Henry IV was forced to wait outside the the church in the snows of Canosa for three days by His Holiness, the Holy Roman Emporer, who wished to humiliate him. Barak Obama has been given the responsibility of repairing a global financial mess he did not create while bearing the pressure of opposition media to explain the tremendous waste involved at the expense of “Main Street’s” kitchen table, ala symbolic “Tea Parties” and public outcries fueled by FOX News-style information. His ability to perform as an autonomous leader has been apprehended by an instrument of profound and unprecedented immediacy, capable of supporting or undermining any effort at the speed of electronic signal transmissions. Facts, cherry picked, edited and re-proportioned are the creative plaster of both the Liberal and Conservative media. All our hero need do today is come home, pour a beer and sit down in front of his TV. The most taxing decision left to make is which preordained service he prefers and let them recharge his belief system. It’s all very efficient, very tidy and extremely far gone.

So in conclusion, I ask you where the Prime Directive fits into the mix. Have the churches apprehended the bible from its original, useful intention as an instruction primer of prepubescent civilization (whose propaganda outreach was an uncontestable success, but whose contemporary legitimacy is found less within its words but in its implications) and reenergized Scripture through modern techniques to conscript the availing population, anxiously searching to resolve the numbing conflict of a thousand separate compromises without losing one’s tee-off time at the club?

Walls need to be built; homo’s to scare back into the caves they came from; foreign influences that threaten our American/Christian way of life; atheists telling our children about evolution. The size and structure of these walls are clearly available to any devout seeker with enough intensity, with enough tenacity to scour the scriptures for the details.

This is not a Christian sickness or a Muslim sickness. This is the illness of every worshipper who trades their love of God’s greatest gift, our individual intelligence and creative potential, for the acceptance of any organization that subjects the Greatest Commandment to a subordinate position to any other testament. Given the modern state of the media’s influence, too many occasions have been documented where religious leaders with personal political agendas, with discriminatory perspectives and financial investments at stake, have identified their seekers, tailored their techniques of mass hypnosis accordingly and injected a “Bible” platform into the secular, political debate using the flock as a very effective voting block of little more than dumb muscle.

A man’s right to throw a punch ends at the point where another man’s nose begins. I hope this helps you understand my spirituality. My fear of the Bible is actually my fear of the use of the Bible for purposes other than telling beautiful stories that emphasize the importance of our need to truly share the planet and learn to love each other.

© Jeff Thomas 2009

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Lunch with Bertrand and Djwhal




I offer up this day all the wounded areas of my heart, as I surrender utterly to the Divine Mother.        - Djwhal Khul


Althea Tansy: Wow, Djwhal Khul!

Jeff Thomas:   interesting timing . . . just read this excerpt from Bertrand. Though spare, outside its larger context, i would enjoy working with you to synthesize a common principle from these two polarized approaches to inner composure:

"To allow oneself to entertain pleasant beliefs as a means of avoiding fear is not to live in the best way. In so far as religion makes its appeal to fear, it is lowering to human dignity."
-  Bertrand Russell "Education and the Social Order" (1932) p. 107

Althea   OK, "how about feel it, release it and accept that things change"; better to enjoy pleasant anything’s and have no need for fear; this naturally brings healing and peace with human dignity; then share this concept with others in times of sorrow; to simply be there, sitting silently beside them, understanding.

I just want you to know I am not religious. Religion was created by humanity. I am into the Occult Philosophies and Sciences. I am not "Wiccan." I do practice Witchcraft but it is not this newfangled Wicca. It is very different and it is a very secret society of mostly very educated people, a lot of Doctor's and Engineers, and believe it or not big Corporate CEOs. It is not for the ignorant or the weak. You don't need a religion to be Spiritual and the sad part is, most religions are devoid Spirituality. I consider you Spiritual because of you innate kindness. Religion keeps the masses from being even more violent and hateful then it seems they already are and sometimes, especially true of the Phallic religions, they create more violence, segregation and war.

Jeff  Although Bertrand, as is true of all of us, was writing as man/philosopher very much of his time, I do not believe he wrote with such plasticity as prevents me from interpreting the broader, (read: "contemporary") context of his choice and use of "Religion" to include what we now more commonly understand as the phenomenon of all "codified spirituality."
This would have to include (I regret) the statement by Mr. Djwhal, above, by virtue of his reference to "Earth Mother", which subjects his intention toward a codified system or order in which there exists a strata whereby one may subject oneself to the approval of "another," . . in this case: Earth Mother.

AT
 Well thought out. Knowing about Djwhal Khul, who is from the 1800's, my surprise on discovering this prayer was his use of the term Earth Mother which is completely the opposite of the teachings he knew. While studying Theosophy with the older generations, I learned that this is a term and thought they probably either did not acknowledge let alone observe because of the fast growth of paganism at the time. I went further than my teachers in my studies as did my student Tuffy. When she found this at this particular time and age we thought it very interesting. Being that I have other FB friends who are also students I shared it. I will say though, I was looking forward to your thoughts, especially when you said the timing was interesting, which indeed it was. I truly enjoy our conversations; your perspectives are fascinating and fresh and I am having fun. Also I love the photos of you and Jen. What an interesting woman she must be; I can tell she understands you without words, she gets you.

JT  Oh Althea! . . . the day must come when we will meet (again), face to face. I recall you from a time so many lives ago, when Commack had a hippy vibe; when Dave was still alive, when Guy was legend and Pat Upton employed whole fresh carrots to divine hidden pools of cold spring water far beneath the burning summer asphalt. . . . Until this day, I'll settle on your FB page . . .

Now, about Djwhal and the Bertrand:
. . having preemptively established a less ambiguous context for my premise, wherein Bertrand's assumption directly condemns the legitimacy of Djwhal's authority on the subject of prescribed enlightenment, it is my question whether I should take the position of one Sage over the validity of the other OR is it conceivable that the two principles may coexist outside the narrow interpretation of their mutual exclusion?
It is not our concern here Althea, that these two should have, in life, personally agreed under compromise or through some inconceivably rigid and logical consensus;
no I would rather enjoy inventing some extra-curricular dialogue between these two based solely on the evidence and merit of these two phrases alone.

AT   It is conceivable that the two principles may coexist outside the narrow interpretation of their mutual exclusion.
Ok. Invent. It sounds great and I am listening. I agree with Bertrand and understand Djwhal. I have experienced both. Religion which becomes a crutch to escape the reality of this world is of no use. But there are ways and techniques of release and to each his own.
The idea of Mother Divine is "matter"; matter and energy united is form, or “Father”. He does not speak as a fundamentalist but rather, in a symbolic language. These are principles. And what do these two symbols, Matter and Energy, represent and call out from within yourself? Each of us understand differently and experience differently. I walk my own path and follow my own drummer but I am open to the experience and understanding of others. There is no single anything or anyone to be followed; it has to be you. I have learned some valuable things from the teaching and yet there is much I don't agree with. I have also experienced the opposite teachings and agree with only some of that.
Djwhal has no religion and is not a part of any society. He shares for those who have ears to hear and reserves judgment for the rest. It’s OK not to hear; simply not their time to hear. They must first experience other things.

Another thought, If they were to have a conversation would Bertrand, more or less roll his eyes and feel superior to someone like Djwhal for his spiritual simplicity? Or would Russell know enough to understand that Djwhal’s knowledge of the spiritual part of life made him a whole person, free from attachments and at a peaceful acceptance of the physical plane? I think D. would feel great compassion and respect for B. and leave him as he would wish to go on with his perfect, peaceful life. He had no need for love or attachments. It is not why he was here.

JT   You've just brought up a point that we need to get a handle on. Bertrand Russell spent his professional years hounded by the establishment for his pacifist agenda, spending time in prison during World War I for his anti-war activism, for instance; using his unique celebrity attacking Hitler, Stalin and US involvement in the Vietnam war. In 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
At the age of 29, in February 1901, Russell underwent what he called a "sort of mystic illumination", after witnessing Whitehead's wife's acute suffering in an angina attack. "I found myself filled with semi-mystical feelings about beauty... and with a desire almost as profound as that of the Buddha to find some philosophy which should make human life endurable", Russell would later recall. "At the end of those five minutes, I had become a completely different person."

I apologize for the history lesson, but it is meant to help calm the stirring of uneasiness which too often accompanies the introduction of an Edwardian-era Occidental academic into a traditionally Oriental context. I might just as well reply to your suggestion by asking much the same of Mr. D; for isn't it the stereotype of the outspoken Spiritualist to harbor the embellished strength of conviction (interpreted often as condescension) required of a curriculum for which very little of its core authority can be supported through empirical devices?

I suggest that neither assumption is fair or valid, which is exactly why I am fascinated by the pairing of these two phrases; for as the two of us represent some spirit of fiercely independent and legitimately self-realized souls, searching for Art in the hidden programs of human behavior and the natural world, I believe we can settle, if only amongst ourselves for the time, this debate over whether these two gentlemen were not cut from the same cloth.

I know of nothing logical without its art, nor any art without its logic. The metaphors you use to reference Matter and Energy are locked into this puzzle. I think of it as a puzzle because no manner of explanation to this date, using these or similar metaphors alone has yet convinced me that the "meta-structure", the codified system, has effectively replaced or substituted for the plastic realities they represent. I intend to begin thinking about this question from this premise.

AT   First never apologize for any teaching, this was important information. You hit the nail on the head because we need to know about each man. Although I realize we can’t actually speak for them it is fun to try and step into their shoes.
Do you mean Mr. D. would roll his eyes at what Mr. B stated? As far as I have been taught and have read, he
wouldn't roll his eyes. He would instead know why Mr. B made his statement. The early Spiritualists were frustrated and very strong in their convictions. Many had personally experienced something that no one believed; something for which they felt obliged to provide evidence. It was never part of the modern curriculum for our students to embellish or insist anything or to give demonstrations for the curious. To just prove something was a task of the past. I was taught that no one who has not had any personal physical/spiritual experience could simply be expected to understand someone else’s account.

I would hope that Mr.’s B and D would understand each other. For that matter, I think they would. Pain and suffering without a light at the end of tunnel, no way to fix it, is torture. Words alone cannot help to ease or eradicate such conditions. Nothing is simple to accomplish when in pain and suffering of any sort. And any technique which can be helpful has to be practiced and experienced at length before it becomes any sort of a tool.

It would be cruel to think something can "magically" make you feel better. It took me every single day for near 30 years focused on my studies and practices. This, combined with certain, very specific, fantastic experiences helped develop my many aspects of self.

Mr. B had his experiences and nothing could change that or what it did to him. What is true for one is not necessarily true for another. They were cut from the same cloth but Mr. D. isn't exactly dense form. He can be but does not always choose to be.


I don't mean dead, just not as dense as we are physically. And now you probably think I am either nuts or an ass. I will try to stay on this plane of thinking if possible. Be patient with me for being slow in understanding what you say, without voice I don't always get it.  Even with a voice I don't always hear things the way they are being said. I am better at PSI stuff.

JT   . . . infinite patience extended, infinite patience also requested. . . . hell, who ever said this was supposed to be easy? . .
. . . You ask: "Do you mean Mr. D. would roll his eyes at what Mr. B stated?"
. . to which I reply: This was an example of an abstract reciprocity and nothing more. I emphasized the silliness of this suggestion in the opening line of the third paragraph:
"I suggest that neither assumption is fair or valid . . "

AT  Got it! Thanks
JT   Oh Althea ! ! . . . . it's been a hectic week ! . . . please forgive my tardiness. . . but I've been preoccupied assisting Myna Setbach and her Puerto Rican husband Geraldo serve matzo-ball soup at the FDR Presidential Library in upstate Hyde Park, NY . . . Tyrannies need loving too. . .

BUT . . . I'd still very much like to add this new twig onto our wigwam:

You see, I reason that any individual interested in the nature of “meaning”, having initially acknowledged the astonishing facility and empowerment of self-accreditation, must inevitably confront next the riddle of those related forces which in retrospect conspired to suppress it. The benefits of Wisdom, by their very nature, demand for this good turn, some form of self-reference, call it the “surtax”; some effort to establish standards by which a thought may be determined uncorrupt, compatible and useful.

Russell and Djwhal are alike so far in this respect; they simply appear on the surface to have established different standards by which to achieve similar ends. This "Epiphany", this Emancipation, is as much a riddle to its "victims", looking back onto the swinging cell door; as enigmatic in its muscle as its illusion. It is the nature of our uniqueness as individuals which determine the ratio of the former to the latter.

Djwhal forages, Russell farms. . . both have something to teach. This is the art we refer to.

Bertrand felt compelled to trace the bread-crumbs, speck by speck, back into a place which marked the vaguest stirrings of his embryonic perceptions; from here employed a calculus, observing and assessing every landmark on his journey back through retrospection to his ink stained blotter of the present. Djwhal, much informed of Aristotle’s dogma concerning such a methodical approach, simply observed the pitfalls in the echo-chamber logic of such “reasoned introspection”:

where every step forward, being impartially subject to the equivalent burden of suspicion as the initial premise, became a capillary of the greater logic of the whole. A flow chart of this method could be best observed in these graphic metaphors of a fractal equation:


         

 a rudimentary Fractal progression    . . . . . . . . . .   and a fractal expression of a natural experience

Zeno teased us with this paradox as far back as the 4th century b.c.; (ref: see notes 1.  below)

The potential madness of Bertrand’s syllogistic explanation to the enigma of man’s purpose and morality in the grandest context simply validated Djwhal’s decision to dismiss all hierarchy of position with respect to Theorem “a” toward Theorem “b” . . . the Euclidian format now having subsequently collapsed under its own weight.

Mr. D, free from the fences of Mr. R.'s "farm", could dine directly from the trees and fields wherever he decided, and so roamed the wider field with no sense of obligation to map his steps.
It is this distinction that most excites the mind attempting to reconcile these two quotes, and about which you and I write. Am I close enough to correct so far that we can continue?
AT   Hi Jeff I am attempting to follow you. So…let me see if understand. suffer
. . . . . . . .   BUT . . . I'd still very much like to add this new twig onto our wigwam . . .  me too! Perhaps I’m just not as educated as you are.  You were posting B.R’s quote at the same time I was posting DK. That synchronicity in itself was an attention grabber. What I understood from DK was that when you are going through some sort of “suffering” you can turn to the peace of Nature, always symbolically Mother, Mother Nature. This of course includes humans. Nature, where it is peaceful and yet wild; where there is a continuous cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. If you could let go for even a moment, if you would just melt into the whole of it, you will find a moment’s relief; it could trigger more acceptance of life, changing the way your suffering feels.

Now BR, I thought, was saying that “religion” is a crutch for human’s to deny their pain through the pointless illusion of something more, and that to believe in anything beyond the physical world, beyond the limits of the materialist, one denigrates the human being. Therefore it seemed that DK’s views would be the cause of B.R.’s potential lack of respect for DK, the latter being so illogical and impractical in his comprehension of another’s suffering, producing “Eye Rolling”.
So your comparison for this reason wasn’t exactly clear on what Djwhal might have meant to Bertrand or vise versa. I also did not know about Mr. B.R himself, thus your history lesson being of importance. Also you were showing me the nature of your ideas and feelings.

Then, you talked about “anyone who wants to understand the nature of meaning….”
What I think you are saying is; that when you go by your own personal experience in trying to understand the true nature and meaning of someone’s statement, there are always more questions that arise from it. This is the surtax you pay to get to more understanding and information. There will always be others who need you to prove what you are saying through a series of questions. If it is what you meant, this is true.

They do both have something to teach. Looking at the two statements, it would seem that Russell describes how hard life can be; how silly it is not to recognize this struggle by hiding your head in illusion. Djwhal, on the other hand, believes one needs to get a moment to get one’s self together, to find a way to reconcile the suffering through acceptance; by trying to find a way to your best nature by observing nature itself; discovering its beautiful, mystical and raw forms. To begin your healing, you must learn to let go and make the best of it, otherwise you just suffer.

Bertrand followed it in a strict, linear course, back toward the beginning. I think Djwhal saw the pit fall of this method, perhaps, because tracing back and forth with narrow perception through logic doesn’t help anything. On the other hand, being flakey, unrealistic and unfeeling to the pain of others, regardless of whether you have been in their shoes, is equivalently insane. Pretty sayings to a suffering parent (I have had my suffering too) or lover, etc. are stupid and empty words. Telling someone that hugging a tree will magically fix everything is ignorant. So you are right in saying that the correct context of each man’s statement is of primary importance if attempting to really learn the nature of their meaning.

Foraging and farming compared: Farming, systematical, routine, and hardworking; the earth in your hands, literally; growing the food. Foraging is roaming free, in search of food and supplies, place to place. It can even be seizing food and supplies as a soldier might. One is structured and hard working for oneself and the other free and easy; just getting to dine upon the farm. Yes, it does excite the mind to dwell upon the two quotes. I think I follow you and agree.
Of course if there is such a choice free and easy sounds better. But in reality there is a price tag for everything, (karma?) So to me, first you worked, sowing on B.R.’s farm and then you reap the benefits of that work next time. It is this hard work and suffering that is the farm that eventually gets you to dine freely and happily.

This was the only thing I knew about Zeno until your reference.
Isis Unveiled Book 1 Pg. 12 H.P. Blavatsky

Zeno the founder of the Stoics, taught that there are two eternal qualities throughout nature; the one active, or male; the other passive, or female; that the former is pure, subtle ether, or Divine Spirit; the other entirely inert in it until united with the active principle. The Divine Spirit acts upon matter, producing fire, water, earth and air; it is the sole efficient principle by which all nature is moved. The Stoics, like the Hindu sages, believed in the final absorption.

The Secret Doctrine Book 1 Pg. 76-77 H.P. Blavatsky
It was not Zeno alone who taught that the Universe evolves, when its primary substance is transformed from the state of fire into that of air, then into water, etc.

The Secret Doctrine Book 2 Pg. 159
As old Zeno is credited by Laertes with having said, “Nature is a habit moved from itself, according to seminal principles; perfecting and containing those several things which in determinate time are produced from it, and acting agreeably to that from which it was secreted.”*
*Cudworth’s “Intellectual system, “I. Pg. 328

Numbers and motion: “1” not really existing after a while. Boy is this true. The sacredness of numbers begins with the great First ----The ONE, and ends only with the naught or zero-symbol of the infinite and boundless circle which represents the universe. (HPB) It is the many that make up the ONE or Whole but in itself is illusion for there is no ONE but many and zero is the primordial soup, it is not ONE but NONE that is a reality, the circle, zero.

JT  Education is merely the refined articulation of some knowledge about a "Thing".
This knowledge flows as freely from a classroom as a book. I personally, never paired the access to a classroom with the maturity required to exploit it. Luckily for me, maturity never came in time. The lion's share of my learning is rooted in the fragile combination of self-enforced free time and a discriminating set of references collected over thirty-plus years. The "articulation" factor is the result of severe discipline and joyful prolificy. These variables are available to everyone freely.
Your knowledge is commanding, your comprehension holds its own. You are fun, you are extremely intelligent and impassioned. How can we go wrong?

AT  Thank you.

JT   . . . and now, we bring you another episode in the never ending series: Philosophy of the Absurd . . .
when we last tuned in, Althea had cited Blavatsky, (Secret Doctrine) in response to my reference to Zeno. Let's listen in on my response . . .

Zeno's metaphors on the question of set theory and the natural order, contain both the elements of immutable profundity (i.e. his "Dichotomy") and unfortunate predilections for unstable hypothesis, (" the Divine Spirit acting upon matter produced fire, water, earth and air; and that it is the sole efficient principle by which all nature is moved".)

Within the context of his time, a special forgiveness can be extended the old boy, considering his language, specifically the choice of "Divine Spirit", can be associated with contemporary theories with commutative intentions, namely our development of a Particle Theory, (billions of dollars invested in particle acceleration and detection); billions of hours invested by String Theory doctorates and Space exploration in search of "God's Fingerprint."

I distinguish the two branches of Zeno's legacy for the following reason:

Zeno's "Dichotomy" expresses a need to expand the contemporary Greek intuition of a single definition for "the Infinite Set", for which he established a unique test, subsequently met by Philosophers and Mathematicians over the next two millennia, to create a second order of Infinite Set theory to resolve his Paradox.
The two sets being, the Closed Order of Infinite Subsets, (of which your "Numbers and motion" statement is an example)
and:
the Open Order of Infinite Extension . . . a concept so abstract its contemporary graphic expression exists primarily in the speculation of an endless, expanding Universe.
As it has been observed, the laws of Nature behave in extraordinarily unique ways inside these separate worlds. This distinction is essential to any interpretation of Djwhal and Bertrand's perspectives from which our Primary Focus of Discussion is concerned.

By this approach, I will attempt to frame the inadequacy of your assumption of Russell's "Achilles’s heel", as hypothetically (prematurely?) observed by Mr. Khul;
(note: I'm not interested in whether these two ever met or discussed one another in specific works or dialogues. I simply use the two names as symbols of contrasting strategies)
whereby the analytic method, (an ordered strategy to problem solving, referred to in Geometry as a "proof"; in Philosophy as the "dialectic”; in Chemistry or Physics as the "Scientific Method") was observed to collapse “under its own weight.” A metaphoric “Maggie’s Farm” and Djwhal ain’t workin’ it no more.

There is just one problem with using a fractal metaphor to dismiss Russell’s pedantic approach to the question of “meaning.” If Djwhal constructs his defense of a divine order to such matters on the assumption that the analytic approach is doomed to cross an infinite number of postulates in a finite time, then he will have incorrectly misinterpreted the challenge of Zeno’s Paradox. In a closed set, the negative spaces (be it area, time or any quantitative subset of the “Super Task”, (ref: Thompsons Lamp: see: notes 2. Below) will reduce its negative influence reciprocally to the progress.


Just think of a football game. In a closed order set of 100 yards, the strategies of both offense and defense are radically different as one team moves across its infinite number of halfway points, closer to the end zone of the opposing team. The depth of defensive coverage is consequently minimized to allow a greater focus of energy in an increasingly smaller zone of activity.
If however, there was no limit to the size of the field, as would be the case in an Open Order game of football, this dynamic fluctuation would never be stressed into existence. The ball would simply be moved back and forth from some hypothetical “center” line in perpetuity toward an unachievable destination somewhere located on the farthest opposite ends of a never ending distance. This is the most significant difference between Closed Order Infinity and Open Extension Infinity.  (ref: see notes 3. below)

It is a common error of the non-analytic philosophers, (Mystics?) to stretch the prose of minds like Russell across the framework of some infinite Deity, yet skillfully ambiguous with which infinity they employ.

AT    What do you mean by Deity?

JT   "Deity": " The idea of Mother Divine is "matter" and matter and energy, "father" united is form. He does not speak as a fundamentalist but as a symbolic language." - A. Tansey, From: Philosophy of the Absurd; Discussions, Summer '13

. . but as a Symbolic Language . . . hmmmm
I have to admit, your question demanded I re-read our letters to confirm the suspicion that I have not yet made myself clear on this term. You touched on my intentions most closely in this quote, so I borrowed it.

"Deity" is the Godhead, the Chi, the principle of some Ideal Balance toward which our understanding gravitates, endeavoring to replicate its harmonics with the rudimentary and imperfect fibers of our individual experience. The term "Deity" itself is emblematic of this concept and nothing more.

Bertrand's Deity is an ideal, to be sure, but the ultimate legitimacy of any such incarnation, his "brand" of successful imitation, demands that the individual "face his fears."
There is no short cut to understanding, and no achievement of balance or peace without it, which subsequently segues my half of the conversation into the nature of the very harmony these two philosophies are dancing around.

AT   If we are only talking about the two quotes, than Russell is being condescending and rude, though there is a truth in what he says. It is important to face your fears and sorrows; it is a way to learn and develop in order to bring harmony. I guess like the opposites, day and night, happiness and sorrow, dark and light, good and evil, you can’t have one without the other; they bring about harmony and balance.
Djwhal is trying to describe a time to let go and move forward. You have already used the courage to face your fears, trials and tribulations; it made you strong and taught you polarity and balance, harmony through conflict. Hopefully, once learned you will have a useful tool to handle your next trials and tribulations with less fear.

Yet there are also times when there is no helping, curing or making it all better through any mundane reasoning or technique. Sometimes you have to just let go and that takes a hell of a lot of strength and courage. To let go and try not to control things is very difficult. It takes a lot of will to silence the mind. People feel fear when surrendering; we need control or the belief in control to feel safe.
There must be an alternative, or at the very least, a technique to release this pressure in order to face the “fear” without having to tread the path from the beginning over and over again. In life we have many times that we will have to face fear and suffering along our way.
Next, the illusions of those who are in denial, these delusions, become another problem. When we release things in whatever way a person can, it must first be faced; you need to look deeply into the challenge, the “fear”, for how can you release what you are unaware of?

I think DK was only simply saying if you can’t change it or fix it, let it go. Quit fighting the battle of non-acceptance, it is already lost. Mother, Chi, nature, is a good place to go and find peace, to think, to observe the many facets of perspective and to accept the beauty that remains and not just look at the suffering. Once you do this you can face your fears and not feel singular and victimized by life. You are clear and refreshed, ready to try again and hopefully see the “conflict” from another point of view and thereby find a solution. You have a choice either to be destroyed and live in pain or to find a way to peace of mind and heart.

Russell comes from a specific human, or logical, perspective. Djwhal’s human perspective is dis-integrating and not centered in human logic. Russell is still struggling, facing fears, and is involved with pain and suffering. Djwhal found freedom from struggling and suffering, he has no fears. So to me, to reconcile the two, I would say you have to go through the pain and conflict before you figure it out and get to leave the farm.

Russell tells us to “man up” and Djwhal, after you “man up”, to “look over there,” you might find some relief. Let go of the complicated for now and find the peace which lies in simplicity, then go back to your troubles if you wish, for they will always be there if you need them. That is why we are here, to solve ourselves.
We can bring up Zeno or HPB but we also have our own knowledge and wisdom from our own experiences and observations. So we can like and understand both of their quotes. They are not in conflict; one is the means to the next step and it doesn’t stop at either one’s statements.

The meaning of “meaning” is in all that you are and will become with time and new experiences both good and bad, sadness and joy, for we need both, though we would rather it all be good. But then I think we would be bored and not recognize happiness.

JT   Philosophy was never quite the same after Marx, and Russell understood this as well, if not better, than any single philosopher practicing at the time. Socrates set the bar especially high in the Republic, by proposing that the inequities of society were unnatural.

The introduction of quantified, systematic observations (ala: philosophy, dialectic, pure logic) permitted the stronger reason to incapacitate the weaker, and so begins the attempt, through logic, to bring the debate onto the academic floor and off the battle field. Many issues have since proven to undermine a short haul toward this effort, primarily the quasi-ambiguous consensus as to the definition of the greater "virtue."
The hero of the Republic eventually achieves "perfect wisdom", but concludes that its value is proportionate only to the good he can achieve with this knowledge. Having struggled from the black belly of the cave to the exit where the ecstasy of freedom waits, it becomes the duty of such privilege to honor its value by sharing it equally among one's community, each to their individual aptitude.

The philosopher turns back from the fresh air and light of knowledge and returns to the dark, foreboding belly of the cave to share this new science with his nation.
Somewhere over history, the academics lost their sense of social integration and quibbled philosophical minutia amongst themselves in scholarly papers written in Latin, too frequently embroidered with Jesus.
Karl Marx, gifted student of Hegel, rallied, with formidable articulation, for the Philosopher to return from the textbooks to the street and "Become the change you wish to see in the world."

Russell's "condescension" must be viewed within the context of his times and the unbearable stranglehold that Christianity held, through unprecedented Capitalist success, over the greater conversations of the day.
His frustration must have been enormous. Try arguing the complex sacrifices called upon by issues like Social responsibility when the well-funded reply was to demand the number of angels which can fit on the head of a pin.
These calculated distractions may have caused him to appear agitated, but it is important to remember that we are describing an individual who walked the talk, went to prison, lost jobs and suffered enormous public distain for his pacifism; ideas well ahead of their time; some of which we are just now beginning to employ.
(sorry . . . . have to run again. Love to all.)

AT   "Become the change you wish to see in the world." And this says it all!!!!!
"Russell's ‘condescension’ must be viewed within the context of his times and the unbearable stranglehold that Christianity held, through unprecedented Capitalist success, over the greater conversations of the day." Yes, I understand this.
I do understand the problems of his time and it seems to still exist today in politics and big business. So what you are saying is he’s talking about Christianity: the great corrupt farce and lies of men based on the extensive stolen, falsifying and corruption through doctrines of the Judea/Christian society and religions. I agree!
Their lust for power and money disgusts me. Their arrogance and certainty of position by their god, which is no more than an impersonating spirit and at best an Elohim, though I doubt it.
Theosophist's suffered from the same abuses in the late 1800's by the "New Religions" who claim to be Ancient.......I prefer La Vecchia Religione and the Ancient Wisdom Teachings, for they are nowhere near the same at all in any way shape or form, Theosophy being my favorite study.

I took a philosophy class with Dr. Washell who had tenured at Kent State, he is friends with Wolfe who wrote In Defense of Anarchy, a great book. I got an A in the class and he was curious about me. Of course I could not break my Oaths but he unknowingly helped me to find my own way to Theo Sophia through Philo Sophia and to continue on my path. He taught me about my own thinking and my papers with my own twist from his teachings got me all A's. A wonderful experience just as you are.

JT   It would be simplistic of me to interpret Russell's statement as a surgical strike at the mouth of Christ's tomb and be done with it. I believe his language, though leveled at the church, can be sensibly extrapolated to include all the forebears and successors of his prime antagonist, including every theology which allows for similar "faith based axioms," (an oxymoron.) You mention the condition of "suffering" with respect to the 19th century Theosophists, a term difficult to tease from notions of victimization and martyrdom.
I would like to make a brief comment on your word choice.

This was an age of explosive interest by Western intellects into everything exotic, anything “eastern,” both plastic and philosophic. It was no less true of the age however, that the vast majority of the public was no less inclined to keep their intellects off the streets, contained and away from politics in the incensed haze of their drawing rooms, studies and parlors. Here, behind beaded curtains, these eccentrics “westernized” the rituals of these precocious “savages” with their Dewey-decimal predilections; everything holistic, mystic and fashion-istic. They held séances, studied acupuncture and gorged themselves on Japanese prints and Chinese silk paintings. The Theosophists suffered very little from those who perhaps understood them best, ignored behind these strung-bead drapes.

The public schools at this time however still produced ranks of graduates who would inevitably run the “Enlightened World’s” banks, factories, mines, governments and churches. There was a tradition of order and philosophic nepotism supported by centuries of detailed codes of social and academic protocol. These radical sciences, with their oblique validations and contrasting methods simply upset this order. To many of the powerful and esoteric-illiterate, these Gypsies in their ridiculous silk bathrobes cut across the line of decorum. It was not their Objective for which these customs were initially disparaged, but rather their ill-coordinated integration.

I will borrow from the Gospel this phrase, "suffer the children," and contrast the idea whether or not everyone truly suffers who is challenged to put a label of ingredients on the snake oil they peddle. This much is equally obliged of western physicists and Theosophists, the ancients and contemporaries. Hence my reference to Russell’s reliance on an analysis-based solution to the problems of society. To suffer is the “last full measure of devotion”; to cross the room, Zeno’s snail would have to cross/(suffer) an infinite number of “half-measures” in a finite amount of time.

No manner of psychology or Theosophy, under these conditions, could effectively compensate for the suffering of accountability demanded by the ruling Intelligentsia. The Theosophist denigrated this "sanctified" order by reconfiguring the concrete reality of the starting point and repapering it with all the flourish of the finish line. Theosophy was therefore condemned as counterfeit science and trivialized.
I believe John Lennon was looking to see whether the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had himself found the true “worm hole” from ignorance to enlightenment; the key to conquering fear without personally accounting for the suffering. To his own disappointment I believe he found instead, as you very recently reminded me, Sexy Sadie waiting in his place.

This is not an indictment of you or Theosophy. I simply reserve my suspicions most for those philosophies which assure me how disruptive my instincts are.

AT   “The Theosophists suffered very little from those who perhaps understood them best, ignored behind these strung-bead drapes.”

They really didn’t suffer like someone dying from cancer or the pain from the suffering of a child of course, but there is suffering when frauds, charlatans, impersonators and identity thieves get hold of people’s lives to rip them off and that a lifetime of work gets dashed because of it. But then you go on.

By “suffered” I simply mean that when ideas opposed to Christianity become public it brings out the protesters and related troubles, as at abortion clinics; sometimes dangerous but mostly troublesome. This is very annoying and, being a bit dramatic and sarcastic, I used the word “suffered”. To be antagonized is a form of suffering, just a differing matter of degree; for example, you can suffer through a boring class or conversation.

“I believe John Lennon was looking to see whether the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had himself found the true ‘worm hole’ from ignorance to enlightenment; the key to conquering fear without personally accounting for the suffering. To his own disappointment I believe he found instead, as you very recently reminded me, Sexy Sadie waiting in his place.”

Yes John was disappointed, but George Harrison and he didn’t give up what they had learned; particularly George, who chanted continuously and meditated daily until the day he died. They just went on to study with others.
John and Yoko collected all types of Eleggua’s and other objects. They had a Pentacle they kept on a table. They didn’t travel unless they went to their numerologist. John was into it more than Yoko; he was on the superstitious side sometimes.

Even the words of his song’s Mind Games, Out of the Blue and Scared reveal his beliefs, even God is a Concept, (which is a line that a psychologist said to him and then talked about it for a long while) showed he finally got it!

I was surprised they didn’t realize the Maharishi was a man to begin with. You can learn about great techniques for developing and seeking your personal enlightenment from someone even if they are flawed, but to have blind faith in a man and follow him like a disciple is silly.

“Here, behind beaded curtains, these eccentrics “westernized” the rituals of these precocious “savages” with their Dewey-decimal predilections; everything holistic, mystic and fashion-istic.”

This is true for some but not for all. When someone spends their entire life studying with the most learned in the East, giving up marriage, children and an ordinary life, it is hardly a fashion-istic thing. For a lot of people it may have been fashionable but for some it was very serious. They not only westernized it, the Occult even disagreed with a lot of it and had their own views and beliefs.

Back in those days it was a dawning of new spiritual period in time. They were just beginning and had to go through all the growing pains of any new thoughts and insights. People in those days were different in their expressions and personality’s. Both Science and the Occult are always learning and changing and finding errors which lead to more discoveries.

You could only truly know about the Occult Societies if you study with them, and then, only if you seriously study the many volumes of meaningful, not simply popular works. If one has not, I don’t see how they could have an opinion about it.

“To many of the powerful and esoteric-illiterate, these Gypsies in their ridiculous silk bathrobes cut across the line of decorum. It was not their Objective for which these customs were initially disparaged, but rather their ill-coordinated integration.”

I don’t know who these Gypsies in robes who are ridiculous are. I would think even in that day and age it would be hard to stop giggling at such an act. Intelligent people should know the difference between the sincerely knowledgeable and a Charlatan circus act. The first clue being money wanted.
I have been in the occult for a long time. The Theosophical Society changed when Bailey came in, and has been changing ever since. Because of this I am not a part of their society. But anything before Bailey that I can get my hands on I read. Different group’s that formed from it I have worked in. Theosophy itself has no rituals at all, thus the birth of the Golden Dawn was formed.

All of the work that is kept in their libraries is free to study with no interference or threat to opinion, they don’t expect anything. There is no church, there is no practice, there in no one to judge. It is Theosophy:
“Here is some info. Take or leave it.”
No commitments of any sort necessary. They don’t even agree among themselves. The point of the Occult is not to become a disciple of any one person, place or thing. Just share what you know when you are asked. If a hundred people ask you, then do a lecture.

“I will borrow from the Gospel this phrase, "suffer the children," and contrast the idea whether or not everyone truly suffers who is challenged to put a label of ingredients on the snake oil they peddle.”

Well if they are GMO’s and dangerous, then no, they would not want to label the ingredients. But the Occult has never peddled snake oil and always makes its ingredients clear. Those who take the teachings and turn them into miracles get an F and are kindly told not to represent the Occult. Or they are the ones who dabble and never get trained, initiated, never really read anything or study and meditate upon any teachings and practices. These are the people who just go to lectures to say they were there because of some imagined, “specialness” they may think they’ve achieved simply by being there. There is plenty of that.

I have studied in the Occult for 30 years now. I have been in many groups including the Rainbow Bridge, Rieki, old time healing circles, podium work etc.  . . all great and amazing experiences. Not one of my teachers was in the public eye, famous or rich. They were not interested in any fads of the New Age or materialism; they were just the sincere and knowledgeable.  . . . no charlatans selling snake oil.

Now it is different with the Gardnerian Tradition. This is a religion. It is the Catholic Church of Witchcraft and it requires commitment and specific studies and practices that we will not share easily. There are no books or lectures that can prepare you properly for this. On line stuff is misleading. So unless you are in the society you couldn’t really know anything about it. So this would be hard for someone to have a valid opinion on.

Are there people who leave and break their oaths? There are people who left, I don’t know anyone personally who would break an Oath and tell anything to just anyone. Not even Crowley, though he did like the publicity and did terrible things, but he was never accused by the Golden Dawn of oath-breaking. As my HPS told me once, they know better.

How about the Golden Dawn, Ceremonial Magic, and the Rosicrucian’s? It would be hard to judge any of it by a casual knowledge of it and especially through books and public works. But you cannot know that if you are an outsider, of course. The more false accusations the better the blinds become; the more propaganda and disbelief, the better reason for those who don’t really belong not to pursue it. It is very helpful. There are many blinds even in the “Kaballah”.

When I did lectures on Gardnerian Witchcraft it was very difficult. I was not permitted to tell anything people would want to know. It was vague, I did my best to explain what it is we believe, and do so without telling them a thing. It is not in books, it is oral. It takes 5 or more years, to really know anything. You simply teach and are committed to the people of the group; you do so without pay or compensation for the 5 or more years of your life that you dedicate to their learning.

Out of 50 people who signed their names and phone numbers to a paper one evening at a public lecture I gave in their hopes of studying in Craft, I found none that were eligible. In Theosophy any one can get a book and read or not read it. Repeating, there are no rituals in Theosophy.

Ceremonial Magic is more secretive than the Gardnerians, but in the end you find no matter how much you learn and how many groups you practiced in, like Rainbow Bridge or Healing circles, no matter how many books you read, you are on your own. There is no one to judge you; no one forces their beliefs on you, no one who will say they know the one and only way. There is no pay, no money, no fame, no profit, just you giving away your time for the sake of a person, some stranger most times . . . at the beginning.

It’s all food for thought. The point in the Occult is for you to come up with your very own philosophies and beliefs, regardless of anyone else, even your teachers. We don’t need clones and we don’t need students who regurgitate what they have learned, they don’t make it. You shouldn’t “believe in anything blindly”, you should know what you experienced and know what you need to and be happy with that.

You share only with those who ask you to share and this is why I am Althea Tansy and not D. That is why I have so few FB friends. The ones that are my FB friends have already been my students, clients or family or those who wanted me on FB who want to hear and share with me. This way when I share anything which is really nothing, just FB stuff that goes round and round, I am not pushing it on someone who doesn’t’ want it.

Now as for your disruptive instincts, this would be quite welcomed and one point in your favor in the Occult.

HPB was a cigar smoking, Hashish smoking, Vodka drinking, independent woman with many flaws; an extremely gifted individual. She is the only Occultist that Crowley respected and feared. He is not someone I would study from……genius that he was, but quite the ass and too much in the public eye.

I can’t get any deeper into the Occult than I am. I can’t go any further in the Gard. Tradition than I am. I can however practice, and practice, and experience and develop and be wowed! I can use my gifts and get confirmation continually as I have since the beginning. I stay hidden for the most part.

I have shared an awful lot of myself with you…….for some reason, maybe because of Dave and I like you. You’re funny and interesting. I am surprised you have spent so much time even talking to me, especially because of my practices. Hugs and warm wishes, A.

JT   I suppose it was inevitable that any such elaborate investment as ours, hinged on such rare trust and heavy seasoned with confession, might graze the fragile margins of our spirits. I have honestly enjoyed every syllable since our dialogue began; have wondered many times how you've managed such patience for my rhetoric.
Yet a certain sadness in your letter looms like a summer rain over the flowers; this field of grass, tall with pride, her petals shrunk into their buds against some looming storm. That I should ever bruise one single blossom with my wind is more than I intended; yet as I say, was always such a risk.

As they say in the crazy world of theater: " . . above all, DON'T bump the scenery!"
I have a suspicion I have done just that. But here we are, none the less, on the stage when everyone else is either in the pub or on the couch watching television.

For this cause I say we celebrate; two persons joined in one compartment on a lazy train through meadows of philosophy, forests of Theosophy; over rivers of religion and valleys of prejudice.
It is a marvelous thing we have achieved here, something worthy to protect. I will not let my poor handling of style upset the day. You have proved yourself sincere; and trust me when I confess to you that I too have been around; I too have little left to give of my heart or patience in idle defense.
It is my intention to recover from the risk that I have made myself misunderstood. This explanation will follow once I finish my other responsibilities. Be patient. I will write you when I get back.

(some days later):
   There is no way to disguise the effort by Bertrand (in this quote) to discredit the premise of Djwhal’s authority on matters of spiritual enrichment. I have skirted this issue by apologizing for his methodology and avoiding his abrasive choice of language. In so doing, I have tested your patience with my perfumed defense of Russell's motives hoping with each post to have contributed to a deeper understanding of his complex perspective. It was wholly unreasonable of me to assume that we would not simply drift further from our original objective and deeper into the darker evidence which divides our positions and away from all we can prove which aligns them.

" . . . but there is suffering when frauds, charlatans, impersonators and identity thieves get a hold of your life to rip people off and that a lifetime of work gets dashed because of it. But then you go on."

In this single phrase you reminded me to summarize my meandering defense against your claim that he was "condescending", the radioactive nail in the coffin of any philosopher. Without persuading you that he was simply "reactive" and not aggressive, the philosophical divide between our positions is insurmountable.
It became essential that I produce some evidence of the power of deductive dialogue to establish a history of legitimacy for those disciplines which hold claim to healing, through chemistry or through the mind; territory rank with charlatans and egomaniacs eager to enlist acolytes.

My reference to Lennon was not an indictment of mysticism. There are many things which occur in the natural world, events whose effects trip alarms, stretch rulers and defy mathematics; events which cannot be explained through philosophy. This is not the issue for me. But I do admire Bertrand's indictment of the Church, whose "axiom" of Infallibility eclipses every authority of the individual.
This model of control must be exposed in its every incarnation; this includes any "ministry" so devised to expose it. No, it is instead the due diligence of every individual to work these issues out to the personal satisfaction of the Great Seat of Justice within.
If this is what Djwhal has named his "Earth Mother", than I can rest peacefully knowing we have found our bench in the park by the water's edge.
I simply need to suffer, Althea, genuinely suffer for my pride, my own deep contempt of any organized spirituality before I will sit there.

When I do finally find my way, I won't sit unless there's room for my Em, who was somehow cheated of all this knowledge but through her loss gained a greater sense of peace than you or I will ever know. I already expect you'll be sitting there with Mike, having found your balance ages before I do.

AT   I am glad you have brought this to a conclusion and back to the two statements. I don't know what either man meant in reality but I do know that there are always two ways to look at it, exoterically and esoterically. But yes Earth Mother is part of what we are, there is a pulsating within us, a heartbeat that resonates to the pulsating of all nature and life and it is calming at least for a moment.

Of course there would be room for your Em.....always. She does have a sense of peace that we will never know....she doesn't appear like she feels cheated; she looks instead like she is in control of herself and her thoughts and likes to have fun. If you are happy and content, clean, fed, a roof over your head and loved, you have it all, the rest is just a way of keeping occupied until we die.

She is here to teach you and she knows it. I can tell from her photo. She will never have to feel the suffering that you have to feel.....worry, stress, because you and Jen Love Her and will take care of her. She can just be herself for the rest of her life and without confusion. True Peace, dear one.

JT   Xoxox . . . . fin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
notes:

1. :   That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.– as recounted by Aristotle, Physics  VI:9, 239b10
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.



This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.
2.  :  Thomson argued that if supertasks are possible, then the scenario of having flicked the lamp on and off infinitely many times should be possible too (at least logically, even if not necessarily physically). But, Thomson reasoned, the possibility of the completion of the supertask of flicking a lamp on and off infinitely many times creates a contradiction. The lamp is either on or off at the 2-minute mark. If the lamp is on, then there must have been some last time, right before the 2-minute mark, at which it was flicked on. But, such an action must have been followed by a flicking off action since, after all, every action of flicking the lamp on before the 2-minute mark is followed by one at which it is flicked off between that time and the 2-minute mark. So, the lamp cannot be on. Analogously, one can also reason that the lamp cannot be off at the 2-minute mark. So, the lamp cannot be either on or off. So, we have a contradiction. By reductio ad absurdum, the assumption that supertasks are possible must therefore be rejected: supertasks are logically impossible.
3.  :  Aristotle (384 BC−322 BC) remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small.[17][18] Aristotle also distinguished "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their extremities").[19]