Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Doctor Bucky Ball Obituary

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    The Science of the eternal I AM, the reincarnating and renewing incarnating individual child and the unfolding of the destiny of how individuals laden with
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      The Science of the eternal I AM, the reincarnating and renewing incarnating individual child and the unfolding of the destiny of how individuals laden with TIME Experience, return, struck Nietzsche as the constant circle of return, but in an Ahrimanic and mechanical manner of some sort of wheel where you constantly return to the SAME spot. 

      But Reincarnation is not constantly returning to the same spot, that would be Hell.  Further, for newbies and those unfamiliar with Lessing's,  The Education of the Human Race, Lessing presented a clear intuitive understanding of Reincarnation to the German people and Fichte followed it up with the eternal I AM.. 

      But it not only takes courage but the skill of higher Intelligence and Intuition to see the forces of Reincarnation in Soul Life and treat people, and SEE people in individual profiles and karmic psychological roots. The gifts of children in the same family differ and vary greatly. Of course for the uncultured and uninterested student, Steiner's Mystery Dramas cover such research into about TWELVE individuals as they reincarnate through time... In our researches over this year we have drawn our attention to Trans Einstonian insights from Wolfgang Pauli and Jung, that reveal the tip of the ice berg of Trans Temporal humanity and Trans Spacial humanity.  Einstein is for kids and clown and morons to wrangle over, rather tackle the immortal time traveling I AM and follows the birth and biography of individuals with intense detail and interest.

      The same individuality lived in Hamlet as Hector of Troy and represents an incarnational pivotal view from a a Pre-Christian nobility, to the noble pivotal point where someone begins to encounter the Consciousness Soul, in a primitive manner, after the Christ Event and understands Conscience and Humanity as part of freedom and not Fate. The layers of immense individuality that leap right out of the standard blood, race, ethnic trivialities into the realm of MOTIVES, agendas, Ahrimanic and Luciferic forces that are far more universal and deepy rooted than our 'skins' come coiling out of the Hamlet text like a snake uncoiling before our very eyes. The Consciousness Soul has to witness the uncoiling of this snake. 

      But children, morons, fools, and retards don't wish to step into the Consciousness Soul and experience Freedom of the I in the first blush of Hamletitis.  Not very comfortable for our sentient soul experience to be at odds with everything and see through the bull shit and grasp the motives and lies in your face. The family deceptions, lumbering ignorance, and patriotic mumbo jumbo that puts the dumb child in the military following their fundie parents idiots footprints.  So basically we have very intelligent, highly educated human beings, who we are supposed to respect, who refuse and are too cowardly, scared and ignorant to just come and say reincarnation. They are not honest, but SAFE within the confines of mob mentality.

      Others tend to get caught in some sort of pre-Christ Hindu Caste system... which at the start was highly interesting in ancient bygone days,  in terms of Karma and the placement of those in the Caste System based on soul and karmic errors. That certainly was interesting to begin with.  But Gandhi kind of broke that up, even though depending on apparent deeds or misdeeds of the soul, India really developed a weapon of ugliness and untruth not unlike the intent of Nazi Germany based on races. Try to figure that out, when you figure out Racism. It is easy to quibble on issues of surface racism, but not so easy to step up to the plate and look Intelligence in the I. 

      Cowards, and general sluggish, frightened, squirmy and SAFE souls, who seek to be SAFE in the common stupidity of humanity, won't even touch the great reality of Zarathustra/Jesus.  That one of the TWO Jesus children, was the highly important Zarathustra, reincarnated as Jesus, simply turns people into outright little squirmy, gloating, mob cowards of safe opinions. Opinions and insights that don't jar or work deeper into the cognitive forces of the soul. Because those souls and education don't want real cognitive souls to come out and bring humanity forward. Once you do you are surrounded by the motives of hidden monsters in the general soul life of the mob. Hiding behind mobs and common opinions and really haveing nothing to do with common sense or insight, creates the ugly soul conditions that we most highly respect in all our educated clowns. Education and Educational clowns are as good as worthless wallpaper to stare at.

      R.S.

      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0142/19130101p01.html

      "...we recognised that there were two different stories of the youth, of Christ Jesus, in the Gospel of St. Matthew and that of St. Luke, because in reality there are two Jesus-boys in question. We have seen that externally — after the flesh, according to St. Paul, which means through physical descent — both Jesus-boys descended from the stock of David; that one came from the line of Nathan and the other from that of Solomon; that thus there were two Jesus-boys born at about the same time. In the one Jesus-child, that of St. Matthew's Gospel, we find Zarathustra reincarnated: and we have emphatically stated that in the other Jesus-child, the one described by St. Luke, there was no such human ego as is usually to be found, and certainly not as the one existing in the other Jesus-child, in whom lived such a highly evolved ego as that of Zarathustra. "

      "...we know that the Matthew-Jesus, in whom lived the Zarathustra ego, grew up until his twelfth year, and the Luke-child also grew up, possessing no particular human knowledge or science, but bearing the divine wisdom and the divine power of sacrifice within him. Thus the Luke-Jesus grew up not being particularly gifted for what can be learnt externally. We know further that the body of the Matthew-Jesus was forsaken by the Zarathustra ego, and that in the twelfth year of the Luke-Jesus his body was taken possession of by that same Zarathustra-ego. That is the moment referred to when it is related of the twelve-year-old Jesus of Luke's Gospel, that when his parents lost him he stood teaching before the wise men of the Temple. We know further that this Luke-Jesus bore the Zarathustra ego within him up to his thirtieth year; that the Zarathustra ego then left the body of the Luke-Jesus, and all its sheaths were taken possession of by Christ, a superhuman Being of the higher Hierarchies, Who only could live in a human body at all inasmuch as a body was offered Him which had first been permeated up to its twelfth year with the pre-human Wisdom-forces, and the pre-human divine Love-forces, and was then permeated through and through by all that the Zarathustra ego had acquired through many incarnations by means of initiation. In no other way, perhaps, could one so well obtain the right respect, the right reverence, in short, the right feeling altogether for the Christ-Being, as by trying to understand what sort of a body was needed for this Christ-Ego to be able to enter humanity at all. Many people consider that in this presentation, given out of the holy mysteries of the newer age about the Christ-Being, He is thus made to appear less intimate and human than the Christ-Jesus so many have honoured in the way in which He is generally represented-familiar, near to man, incarnate in an ordinary human body in which nothing like a Zarathustra ego lived.

      "It is brought as a reproach against our teaching that Christ-Jesus is here represented as composed of forces drawn from all regions of the cosmos. Such reproaches proceed only from the indolence of human perception and human feeling which is unwilling to raise itself to the true heights of perception and feeling. The greatest of all must be so grasped by us that our souls have to make the supremest possible efforts to attain the inner intensity of perception and feeling necessary to bring the Greatest, the Highest, at all near to our soul. "

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston37.html

      1. The important questions about the role of genetics in the explanation of racial differences in ability are not empirical, but theoretical and philosophical, and,
      2. When the theoretical questions are properly understood, proponents of race science, while entitled to their freedom of inquiry and expression, deserve the vigorous disapprobation they often receive.

      ~ Eric Turkheimer, from "The Theory of Innate Differences"

      After I read Arnold Kling's exceptional piece entitled, "Race, IQ and Education" I got to thinking, "Why do people identify so strongly with race?" Furthermore, why do libertarians – ostensibly embracing individualism almost as a dogma – spend any time on this matter? Then I got an interesting idea. What if everyone's race cycled randomly on some periodicity? Imagine it!

      Today you wake up Chinese; you spend a few days enjoying all the privileges thereof. At some unexpected moment, you become black. You enjoy a family gathering or two, undoubtedly just like "Madea's Family Reunion" and maybe get your hair braided just for yucks. Next thing you know, you're Italian, and so it goes. Along the way, nothing else about you changes, outside the typical cosmetic – dare I say almost aesthetic – qualities associated with race.

      What would happen to our society if such a phenomenon occurred? (Any similarity to my concept here and TV shows like "Quantum Leap" or "Journeyman" is entirely coincidental! It would seem though, that the concept has a certain attraction, doesn't it?) I just bet that within a very short time, people would completely shelve any thought of superiority or inferiority based upon race, due to simple pragmatism. If you might be of another race tomorrow, better to think it doesn't matter than to spend any time trying to figure out how much it might matter today.

      Everyone would become a methodological individualist not just in word, but in deed. Quoting Mises directly with regard to methodological individualism, we find:

      It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events. Methodological individualism, far from contesting the significance of such collective wholes, considers it as one of its main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming and their disappearing, their changing structures, and their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted to solve this problem satisfactorily.

      First we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the secondary source.

      All actions are performed by individuals. As such, one must focus on individuals, not their races, the qualities thereof, or for that matter, their hairstyles or hair quality. In the aftermath of my "Tell Me Again, Why Are You a Libertarian?" essay, I became aware of quite a bit of negative feedback. Not too surprisingly, none of this feedback was sent directly to me. Those who disagreed, particularly on my view of the unimportance of race, sent their screed to others, occasionally attacking the motives of anyone who would publish my words. (I found that truly amazing, but delusions of collective superiority manifest in many ways I guess.) In any event, I still happened to see some of it. Despite the rather passionate attacks launched by these believers in innate intellectual differences between races, I have yet to see anyone answer the question that I think rather obvious. The question basically amounts to, "So what?"

      Even if one could conclusively determine that IQ (or any other supposedly important personal attribute) relates directly to race, what does a radical libertarian do with this information? Is the absoluteness of property rights changed? Negative. Should one include a race-based disclaimer with the NAP? I sure hope not! Would things like voting rights, minority set-asides, or anti-discrimination legislation become premises supported by market anarchists of every stripe? Darned unlikely. Basically, since the market anarchist doesn't want the State to do anything, whether or not people with one or the other shade of skin are better runners or thinkers amounts to, at best, fun facts to know and tell. One's success should be based directly upon one's performance, regardless of one's race. The market handles all such matters, does it not?

      Only One Approach for Dealing with Race Makes Sense

      In the essay I mention above, Kling notes:

      (There are basically) three contentious issues caught up in the IQ-race controversy:

      1. Is there such a thing as innate cognitive ability?
      2. Is there such a thing as race?
      3. Is there a difference among races in average cognitive ability?

      Kling hits the nail on the head when he notes that there are only four (4) approaches for dealing with these issues, which are: segregationism; denialism; compensationism; and individualism. (By the way, Kling is discussing an incident his daughter saw at school, which is why he mentions education in this context.)

      He goes on:

      Segregationism is the view that differences in average IQ across races justify segregation by race. It disturbs me that anyone would hold such a view, but it is out there and it needs to be confronted. However, I do not think that my daughter's school principal was motivated by segregationism, because the vast majority of African-American children were not put into the remedial math class.

      Denialism means answering "no" to one or more of the three questions above. I am not a denialist, although I think that the case for a biological concept of race leaves room for doubt.

      What I call compensationism means that members of disadvantaged racial groups should be given extra help or preferences. Affirmative action is an example of what I mean by compensationism. If a school principal decides to give all African-American children additional resources to learn math, that might be another example of compensationism. Compensationism can mean taking wealth from a low-IQ white person and giving it to a high-IQ African-American in order to compensate for the disadvantages of the average African-American. That strikes me as an awkward position to defend.

      Individualism means treating everyone as an individual.

      All emphasis is mine. Clearly the only truly libertarian approach is what Kling terms "individualism," and just as clearly race-based inherent ability plays little part in that paradigm. Of course, it's no surprise that I find individualism to be the best alternative. After all, I'm a market anarchist. As I said in my "Tell Me Again" piece:

      My perfect scenario would be to live in a world where no one gives a flying hockey puck about the race of another. I don't feel this way because I'm more evolved or less interested, or because I haven't had bad experiences with other races in the past. (Heck, I've had a few bad experiences with my own race too.) I don't place a lot of emphasis on race because that is simply not a viable option. Such an approach would be largely counterproductive for any American black person. For an American black man who subscribes to the logic of libertarianism it would be ridiculous!

      My logic was a bit consequentialist, but nonetheless, without virulent self-identification with race, is there any reason to think people would care about issues like "forced integration"? Think of the number of supposedly important issues that would go away if, as Kling mentions, our species came under the spell of "group-identity amnesia"? Immigration? Non-issue. Affirmative action? Buh-bye. Government-sponsored reparations? Fuhgetaboutit. (Of course, the justifications for civil action based upon theft of property would still be strong, but that is an issue of property rights, not race.) The heinous actions taken after praying at the Alter of Racial Superiority – chattel slavery among them – would also be little more than bad, albeit very bad, memories.

       

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …

      —Declaration of Independence

      Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

      Bradford comments;

      So here we go again, another round of IQ and racism, even if Tom has already dealt with the various Mercurial, Venusian, Mars, Jupiter ethnicities and renamed them here they crop up again in Crick and Watson.  Tom renamed them because, like me, he was tired of hearing this gibberish when if we were true to Spiritual Science and had actual interest, we would have possibly discovered as Tom and most others schooled in Spiritual Science have discovered, the direct stream of at least 7 rainbow spectrum etheric and ethnic systems that were created and launched out of the mighty double helix ancient Atlantean centers

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.