Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00562)

On Fri, 17 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote:

>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.  

Truth should have ascendancy over falsehood.  You seem to be implying that
objective truth does not matter.


>Psychogenetically speaking, there is a big difference between a person who
>~has~ an idea and a person who egoically ~is~ an idea.  

Maybe the word "objectivity" is what you mean.  One who can be detached
from his or her ideas and be willing to change them if better ones come
along is objective.  JRC has confused ideas with which he disagrees with a
lack of objectivity.  He arrogantly, hypocritically, closed-mindedly
assumes that no one could sincerely and objectively arrive at conclusions
which radically disagree with his. 


>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.  

I cannot think of anything more obvious than that JRC totally lacks
objectivity, is completely attached to his ideas, and would never consider
changing them if someone else pointed out how he was wrong.  In the name of
objectivity, he is, by his own admission, trying to intimidate those who
disagree with him into shutting up, while at the same time saying how
terrible it is that the TS "suppresses" diversity of opinion.  I have never
seen such blatant hypocrisy.  When JRC takes a statement of mine with which
he _agrees_ and criticizes me for my lack of objectivity, then, and only
then, will the idea that he is not being hypocritical have any credibility.
How soon do you see that happening?


>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.  

Altruistic intent?  That's funny!  The way he consistently mischaracterizes
what I say destroys this theory.  Altruism and deceit do not often mix.
When I think of an altruist, I think of a kind person who, no matter how
wonderful is what he or she has to say, is always willing to quit his or
her "mission" if it is as obviously unwelcome and destructive as JRC's is.
When I think of an arrogant fundamentalist who is bound and determined to
beat people over the head with what they KNOW to be the truth and tell them
to "turn or burn," I think of JRC.


>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.

That's conceivable.


>Whatever the situation, it seems clear that JRC sometimes sees you as >needing an "existential" lesson.  

I'd love to teach him a few lessons, too.  Maybe he will come to think of
me as his greatest "spiritual ally" someday.  I doubt that's possible
through the Internet, though, as I see no sign of his considering of the
possibility of what I say being true.


>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.  

I will be happy to blame them for making a shambles of the idea of
objective truth.  You are implying that whether or not the thesis in Paul's
book is true does not matter.  I am saying it does.  I love truth.  The one
who says that objective truth does not matter does not.


>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?  

It sounds like you are saying that the "Real Person" behind the scenes is
totally separate from expressed ideas.  I know of no such "Real Person."
But regardless, if you are suggesting that it is due to JRC's superior
insight into the illusoriness of the individual that he is being an
admitted cyber-thug, then I'm afraid we have two VERY different ideas about
spiritual growth.


>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.  

I am completely missing what you are saying, if you are saying that it
applies to me.  All I have said is that truth is better than falsehood.
For anyone who believes that objective truth is irrelevant, as you are
implying, what meaning would "seeking truth" have?  If anything, I would
say that those, such as JRC and Alexis, who cannot disagree with someone
else without personally attacking them, are the ones who have identified
their ideas with their "Real Persons," not those who dispassionately and
straightforwardly say what they think, without getting personal.  When
Alexis was involved on this list, did he and JRC try to be each other's
"spiritual allies" (as they both are in such dire need of), or did they
just agree with each other, and therefore put their "mission" on hold?