Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01112)

Dear Kim,

Please recall that this discussion began between Jerry S. and I as
a comparison between HPB's system and CWL's.  After a few
exchanges, Jerry asked to discontinue the discussion.  I offered to
continue it with anyone interested in pursuing this line of
inquiry.  You then asked to continue.  Since Jerry's and my
discussion was complicated by our different backgrounds, usages of
terminology and very different understandings concerning the
relationship between CWL's and HPB's terms, we very early ran into
some very serious communication problems that led to a lot of
confusion on both sides.  I tried to avoid having our discussion
fall into the same impasse by suggesting that we begin by
clarifying our assumptions and to have you give HPB's corresponding
terms to your third system vernacular so that I can follow what you
are talking about.  I was sorry to find that even though these
attempts did bring us into some interesting but irrelevant side
discussions, I was never able to get you to give me those synonyms
so that I would be able to fairly address and evaluate your ideas
on the subject.  But lack of definitions on my part, has not
stopped you from evaluating and challenging mine.  So it now
appears that you are abandoning our original discussion altogether
so that you can pull me into a debate concerning my understanding
of HPB as opposed to yours--or rather, your understanding of my
understanding of HPB's system as opposed to yours.  Is this your
understanding too?

I have asked you on two occasions to wait until I finished my
school work and that we complete our preliminary discussion before
we engage in a discussion concerning the differences between HPB
and CWL.  I had also hoped that by this time, we would have worked
out a table of corresponding terms between HPB and CWL and a
translation table of terminology for your third system (which you
tell me is consistent with CWL's, TSR's and HPB's) so that I can
follow what you are talking about.  But rather than completing the
groundwork to that we can communicate from a common terminology,
and rather than waiting until I have time to give full attention to
this discussion, you have commenced to pull quotes from my posts
with Jerry S, put them into a new context, construe meanings into
these quotes that I never intended, and deconstructed them
according to your third system.  But since you have thus far
avoided giving me a table of corresponding terms which I can use to
answer your objections, this discussion is really very one sided.
Until I understand your nomenclature, our exchange is completely on
your terms, with you being the only person who knows what you are
saying.  However, since you said in your last post that you will
"probably make a diagram later," I will wait for that "probability"
which should help me to address your objections.  Otherwise, a
discussion is not possible, and is doomed to the same fate as the
original one between Jerry S and myself.  In other words, our
discussion will be nothing more than two people talking past each
other.

Now with the above barriers to communication notwithstanding, you
seem to be maneuvering this discussion into a debate over my
understanding of HPB's system verses yours, based upon selected
quotes from my earlier conversation with Jerry S concerning a
comparison of HPB and CWL, that was expressed in a terminology
designed to respond to Jerry S's usage of terms.  However, even
without knowing how your terms relate to HPB's I can answer this
much about what appears to be your primary objections:  Yes, I
believe that my arguments concerning the differences in HPB's and
CWL's systems that I summarized to Jerry S are correct.  I also
believe that they are reflected in the very diagrams you have used
(as you believe) to prove me wrong.  But since you never gave me a
table of correspondences for your terms, I have no way to fairly
form an opinion as to whether your concepts are correct or not--
they may even turn out to be the same as mine--I don't know.

But to return to our original orientation, this discussion began as
a comparison between HPB and CWL--not a debate between my
understanding of HPB's system versus yours.  Therefore I propose
that we stay with the original discussion.  As I stated before, I
suspect that differences in our understandings of HPB will appear
in due course anyway.  But to be frank, I'm not happy with the way
that this discussion has gone thus far.  After some 200 pages of
preliminary exchanges in order to declare our assumptions and get
a table of synonyms for your third system, we barely accomplished
the first objective (assumptions) only after endless digressions,
and the second (terminology) is yet to be done.  I will accept much
of the blame for this because I was overly passive over the past
month, allowing you to go in whatever direction you wished, while
I responded off handedly to your objections and passively kept
reposing my own questions concerning your terminology without
confronting your reluctance to answer them.  My passivity was
because I am very busy trying to meet end of the semester
deadlines, therefore I could not afford to take the time to prepare
the material needed to push things along.  I'm repeating this not
to make excuses, but so that you will clearly understand my
situation.

Under the circumstances I think it would be in everyone's best
interest if we agree to my three suggestions below:

1. That we abandon this new direction of debate and return to our
original discussion.  Until we come to an agreement regarding
terminology involving such concepts as "solar planes,"
communication is not possible on this subject anyway.  I have
mentioned this before.

2. Further, since I'm "against the wire" to make my school
obligations, I suggest that we take a break and recommence this
discussion (not a debate) at the beginning of June.

3. When we recommence, I will take a less passive role and present
my observations concerning the differences in HPB and CWL (in the
context of the present discussion).  If you do choose to make that
table of correspondences for your terminology by that time, then it
will be all the better for our communication.  If not, I will just
present the ideas of each author using their own terms, and we can
just agree to disagree as to what each author meant by them.

Best
Jerry

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------