Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00546)

Tom Robertson writes-->
If I said "men are stronger then women," if JRC said "you're an idiot," and
if I responded by looking elsewhere for objective discussion, I fail to see
how I have incorporated self.  

Richard Ihle writes-->
Sometimes it might not matter to JRC whether you said "men are stronger than
women" or "women are stronger than men."  Truth or error of your statements
is often probably not the main issue with him at all.  The crucial issue may
sometimes arise when he sees that you are trying to use
ideas/logic/arguments/etc. to gain egoic ascendancy over him and others.  

Psychogenetically speaking, there is a big difference between a person who
~has~ an idea and a person who egoically ~is~ an idea.  It has been my
observation that JRC usually gives a lot of latitude to the former type but
sometimes nails the latter type, especially if the person shows no sign that
he or she is aware of his or her egoic crystalizations.  When JRC merely sees
an idea on the field of battle, he responds in one way; when he sees an
ineluctable ~I AM my idea~ out there, he often responds in a different way.  

Does JRC ~always~ do this with altruistic intent (i.e., to help the other
person become more Self-aware--or at least, by means of "mirroring," become
aware of the "negative energies" etc. they are utilizing)?  Perhaps.  Another
possibility, of course, is that sometimes he, like you, might simply not be
in the mood to let others even be remotely deluded that they are his egoic
superordinates on any level.

Whatever the situation, it seems clear that JRC sometimes sees you as needing
an "existential" lesson.  In the past, he has sometimes seemed to think Eldon
needed one as well; however, Eldon's "case," in my opinion, is quite a bit
different from yours.  Eldon, at least to my knowledge, has never even come
close to openly suggesting that he believes that his Fundamental Identity
~really is~, to any extent at all, the ideas he has on various subjects.  On
the other hand, you almost say so.  I could be wrong about this, but take
another look at the exchange you had with JHE:

Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes-->
>>the people who don't agree with the thesis in your book [Paul's] are no
better or worse than the people who do agree with your thesis. 
Tom Roberson writes-->
>Those who are right about it, to that extent, are better than those who are
wrong about it.

RI (cont.)-->
Do you really think that one can actually be ~better~ than someone else
merely by having a better idea?  Now, this might be true if looked at in a
certain way; however, one cannot blame JRC and the other P.P. (Psychogenetic
Police) for being suspicious about the statement.  Indeed, doesn't it sort of
sound like you are speaking from the perspective of someone who has not yet
discovered, by means of meditation or otherwise, that his or her own
physical-, emotional-, and mental-"people" are illusory when contrasted to
the Real Person behind the scenes?  Just as a person with an perfect new
Lincoln is not ~fundamentally~ any better than a person with an imperfect old
Lincoln (mine), neither in the Psychogentic view is a person with a valid
idea any "better" than one with an invalid one.  Just as a person cannot be a
car, neither can a person be an idea--except as an egoic delusion.  

>From the Psychogenetic view, then, it would be much more preferable ~to have~
a bad idea but be able to maintain the Once-Removed Vantage upon it than it
would be ~to 100% BECOME~ a good idea. 

What do you think?  Feel free to attack these ideas I once ~had~ . . .
because ~I'm~ leaving. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle