Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Jefferson, Paine, - Miscegenation and Men

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    It was far more reasonable to talk about limiting the population on Earth to half a billion in the time of Thomas Paine than it is today. We are totally capable of feeding and taking care of more than ten billion people on this planet as I see it. But it will require a plan. Paine and others in Rosicrucian Councils of Three or the Royal Society did make a plan - and we MUST attempt such a far-reaching plan again in the present. The VigilantCitizen website has a slogan which reads "Symbols rules the world, not words nor laws". I suppose most people find this ludicrous but I don't. The information on the Georgia Guideposts and Rosicrucianity going back to Thomas Paine dovetails with many threads I have posted.

    I can forsee certain advances in technology which some people will decide should not be shared with all humans - and some others will want to share it with their animal friends.

    Imagine the use of gene transfer technology when we know how to enhance the soul or brain uses, or even just the specific gene that allowed Einstein's brain to be larger!
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-30-2015 at 08:26 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    My oldest brother keeps trying to put Simone Weil in a class alongside the greats. Having failed to prove his point about her historical insights which she admitted she was not (and he said she was just being 'silly' or kidding) he is now saying she is a political philosopher to equal Paine and Jefferson. Here is my reply.

    I would agree she never was an historian but I doubt very much she would fill any gaps in Paine and Jefferson - who are the actual authors and go to people for serious scholars in the matter of nations. I like Chossudovsky of the U of Ottawa for current insight - and the Club of Athens gets it right to say - first thing we should do is re-work the Treaty of Westphalia to get new Rights for nations. Far lesser rights.

    I would very much like to debate this with you - have you read Jefferson and Paine - all of their work? Clearly you were trying to claim Weil was an historian not long ago, are you only now reading her Roots? This is the full translation of her book

    And in religion I would put Jefferson alongside most as well - his Jefferson Bible is a truly great inspirational potential for what could be - despite his very definite awareness of how priesthoods and rogues are.

    How many times did Jefferson outfit the Library of Congress? He is not followed as much as he is legally abused unfortunately - which he like Paine (who wrote the truth on Masons being Druid followers in a book he refused to allow to be published in his lifetime) wrote about also. I refer you to Jefferson's letters and specifically the one to Lafayette in 1823.

    Paine is the political force behind the Enlightenment and St. Germain his boss - along with a few others.

    I excerpt a part of her book referenced above for the reader to judge her opinion of the need to put verbiage about the soul into a constitution for a nation. I like the idea but I do not think it was not addressed in the work of the men of 1789. I think we are dealing in different syntax and meaning for words over time and through translation but this seems pretty circuitous to me. There is also a teleological issue of the interpretation by others associated with the work of greats like Aristotle which infer or interpolate meaning not apparent to a fresh insight. Then there is the nature of public political statements which caused Paine not to wish to have a book published while he was alive or for Socrates to write nothing and end up having to drink hemlock.

    "Rights are always found to be related
    to certain conditions. Obligations alone remain
    independent of conditions. They belong to a realm situated
    above all conditions, because it is situated above this

    The men of 1789 did not recognize the existence of such
    a realm. All they recognized was the one on the human
    plane. That is why they started off with the idea of rights.
    But at the same time they wanted to postulate absolute
    principles. This contradiction caused them to tumble into
    a confusion of language and ideas which is largely
    responsible for the present political and social confusion.
    The realm of what is eternal, universal, unconditioned is
    other than the one conditioned by facts, and different
    ideas hold sway there, ones which are related to the most
    secret recesses of the human soul.

    Obligations are only binding on human beings. There
    are no obligations for collectivities, as such. But they exist
    for all human beings who constitute, serve, command or
    represent a collectivity, in that part of their existence
    which is related to the collectivity as in that part which is
    independent of it.

    All human beings are bound by identical obligations,
    although these are performed in different ways according
    to particular circumstances. No human being, whoever he
    may be, under whatever circumstances, can escape them
    without being guilty of crime; save where there are two
    genuine obligations which are in fact incompatible, and a
    man is forced to sacrifice one of them.

    The imperfections of a social order can be measured by
    the number of situations of this kind it harbours within

    But even in such a case, a crime is committed if the
    obligation so sacrificed is not merely sacrificed in fact, but
    its existence denied into the bargain. "

    There is merit in this quote of Weil at a psychological level and it is not all too distant from her thinking about the collectivities or associations we build.

    "Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached"
    Last edited by R_Baird; 07-08-2016 at 06:20 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    My oldest brother will proceed to make a presentation on power and constitutional law and the social contract (Weil addresses) without ever reading or understanding Jefferson or Paine it appears.

    Here is my reply to his proposed presentation.

    Sounds very sophomoric to me - not to say it is not useful or worthwhile.

    It is not true - about the comparisons and you have not read Jefferson or his letters as I noted before in our discourse about Unitarianism and Transcendentalism you attribute to Emerson who I pointed out had been mentored by the Illuminized Carlyle (via Goethe). Jefferson was of the Goethe or above level.

    Paine was closer to the top and Jefferson credited him as the author of the American Constitution which was modeled on one done with the Iroquois some 150 years earlier. You say Jefferson wielded power and yet you did not address the specific letter which he explains he did not - and the "rogues".

    Bucky correctly noted no American President ever had power - and I have almost every one of them in a quote saying the same thing. But sure the Brock Professors will likely find your assertions valid - they probably teach the same lie.

    As to what you say here about Weil - yes, she was some of that - in the mode of a Baird. You do not know what that is either' it would appear.

    A Baird would face his leaders and critique them as part of his job, however. The fact that we no longer have such access or transparency is what leads away from a true ethic or real power-sharing as was made certain in the Dirfine and all Brehon institutions which worked well for millennia. She only intuited these things.

    All events of real life were laid out in the Senchus Mor and Brehon Laws so that no event or what she would say is circumstance and social would need new jurisprudence by the Ovates. Once in a while it would occur and all the Dirfine in a supermajority would have to agree to the change. It might have required this at a pantribal Council of Six (aka King-Bairds) to be ratified.

    John responded with some good insight to what I wrote which I may not have sent you. I will forward it.

    My brother's response is worth quoting and my reply to it - is not. You can be certain my reply was in the vein of saying like all teachers in our system he cares little about the facts and where Weil learned it (Catharism).

    Here is his response to the above.

    This may all be very true. Perhaps some of it will become important to me some day. For her statement of duties toward mankind, I don't need to look farther than what she wrote, and consider the impact and usefulness of that, and that alone. But I appreciate the notes.

    Last edited by R_Baird; 07-09-2016 at 08:11 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts