Merged threads on Illuminati - Hidden Hand

Hi to all,

I have read the whole thing. I completely agree what RyanX said, the guy has some issues with achieving a negative harvest in order to be positive as "Family". He says it is necessary for them to reach 6th density and he admits it is not only ironic, but also a paradox! Eboard10, if you can explain this to us, that would be great, I think this contradicts with what C's said, as they said plans of 4D STS will fail.

The writer obviously read some sources, even though he declines, I think he may read C's and the Wave also. It amuses me that such a large organisation in control of everything(he claims Rothschild is at the outside parts of the family) doesn't know who C's are.

The writing style is always feeding the egos of other people, a person claims he/she is a walk-in and he jumps in saying: "Of course! I remember you!" The text left me with a headache, but I think if a person is not experienced enough with such sources, they can be taken in. There is some truth between the lies as usual.
 
Ana said:
Eboard10 said:
I had gathered insofar including the Cassiopaean transcripts and I found that they coincide in many ways! As I said before I believe it to be a resume of the C's teachings.

So we (Lucifer) were sent to help. Once the order was given from the Council of Elders, we "Fell", or Descended back to a place where we could, with hard work and focus, once again materialize a 3rd Density manifestation of ourself.



Cassiopaeans said:
941023
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.


950107
Q: (L) So part of the "fall" into the physical existence and
part of the Edenic story of the whole business, "you shall eat
by the sweat of your brow," has to do with being physical
and needing to eat?
A: Lucifer, "The fallen Angel." This is you.
Q: (L) So, "falling" means going into physical existence
wherein you must feed on other life, other beings, is that it
?
A: Yes.

950311
A: But this is a repeating syndrome.
Q: (L) Is it a repeating syndrome just for the human race or
is it a repeating syndrome throughout all of creation?
A: It is the latter.
Q: (L) Is this a repeating syndrome throughout all of creation
simply because it is the cyclic nature of things? Or is it as the
Indians call it, Maya?
A: Either or.

Yes, that's why I quoted that part in my first post. I wanted people to carefully read through Hidden Hands "transcipts" and compare it to the Cassiopaean teachings so that they could then come up with intelligent discussions through critical thinking about this "difference" between the two sources. However, that's not the answer I got. I was just thrown in the Sandbox... :(...I am a bit disappointed by some of the members here, I was expecting something more from them.

Ok, so the source makes no bones about being of "negative polarity". If that is the case why should one even trust it? If their game is to propagate negativity, how could this be anything other than disinformation?

To me, I get the impression that he just wants us to think good thoughts, be nice, do good deeds and all will be sunshine and roses. What about gathering knowledge, networking, paying attention to the objective reality left and right? Does that relate at all to the STO path? All I'm hearing in this response is another variation of YCYOR. Again it gets back to the obvious negative nature of the source, why would this source have any business on helping people reach an STO state? It sounds like it's interests are in keeping the whole planet in a state of negativity.

Do you understand why his job is that of creating Negative Polarity? And why he's writing all of this? (Window of Opportunity?)
It doesn't seem so from you answer...maybe you should re-read his answers carefully.

Also, concerning the good thoughts, be nice thing...Laura asked the same question to the C's about the Ra Material. Have a look and see how they answered...(can't find it now, I believe it's towards the end of the transcripts).

I recognised the sensation this image produces.....it is a hypnotic opener. It leaves you open to suggestion and not seeing certain things. It disables (or at least reduces) your ability to critically think. To be objective.

Darren Brown recently used the same thing on TV here in the UK to glue people to their seats.
It worked.....my girlfriend and her son where unable to move from their seats. After some observation I realised that she was in a lite hypnotic trance, just from the appropriate suggestions and 30 seconds of watching a very similar image. It only works if you 'go with it'....and as it says 'This image may assist your comprehension:' people are going to stare at it and 'go with it' until they 'get it'....and now have there critical thinking (if they had much to start with) bypassed.

This leads me to the conclusion that the 'hidden hand' is a con artist and manipulator. He is implanting the information he wants into people who are probably not aware of how these things work.

The few bits I have read that you have posted at best suggests egotism and at worst pathology......coupled with the hypnotic manipulation (and probably neuro linguistic programming if I looked for it)....
This says a lot about who this 'person' is.

Well, all of what you said is based on your assumption of your interpretation of the message which is being conveyed here. Btw, you shouldn't come to the conclusion that the purpose of the image is to put people into an hypnotic state without first asking yourself if that image is actually a valid representation of the One, so to speak. What he's trying to do is to give you an initial idea of how to look at the nature of the Universe so that you can then meditate on this concept within yourself and come to your own conclusion.

1. Hidden_Hand says that 4th Density is the highest density at which one can maintain an STS polarity, but the Ra material repeatedly describes Carla Rueckert as under the attack of a 5th density STS being in the latter part of the series

Well, what do the C's say about 5th density??
Furthermore, Hidden Hand did repeatedly say that the Ra Material is not entirely true, there are some distortions within it. The C's said the same...

2. Hidden-Hand says that the Lucifer social-memory complex originates from Venus, but in the Ra material, it is said that that is Ra's origin. Can both social-memory complexes originate from the same place? Even if that is possible, it is strange that Hidden_Hand didn't clarify since he claims that Lucifer and Ra are 'good friends'.

There are many things that we still can't comprehend due to our limited vision of the Universe. It's true that Hidden Hand didn't elucidate on that "coincidence", but there's a good reason why he didn't...because he wasn't asked about it. Don't blame him, blame ourselves. However, we could always ask the Cassiopaeans...

4. Hidden_Hand's description of Yahweh as the Earth-logos is completely at odds with both the Ra and the Cassiopaean material, both of which describe Yahweh as a foreign, alien entity (in the Ra material, Yahweh refers to a group of beings -- I would have to double check about that in the Cass material) who interacts with humanity at a mid-point in its history. Yahweh has not been with humanity from the beginning, certainly not in the sense of being the Earth-logos.

Again, the differences are due to your interpretation of the information given. First of all there is nothing "alien" in the true sense of "foreign". We are as alien as anyone else here.
When Ra refers to Yahweh as a group of beings, does he specify to which group of beings?? It could very well be us as a soul group he's referring to.
Humanity has existed on this planet long before the creation of us, the adamic race which was "created" by Yahweh. Yahweh did indeed "come here" and interact with humanity if seen from this perspective. As I said, it's all a question of interpretation.


I now see why I have been criticised so much in a matter of minutes, and it doesn't surprise me much. People believe to understand the message which is being conveyed by Hidden Hand when in reality they don't, and hence immediately accuse he message to be disinformation. Again it all comes to intrerpretation of the message.
 
So we (Lucifer) were sent to help

the C's have said (and i firmly believe this) that nothing "NEEDS HELP" evolving. that's why this quote stuck me as strange. i hate reading stuff like this, it's insulting to my intelligence. i believe it's self evident as well, that nothing needs help evolving, simply the fact that we all know the universe is a big machine, and i believe it does what it needs to when it needs to, and to do what it does it MUST change. "evolution", regardless of how it is defined, is (according to my grey matter) a completely automated process. do you "need help" to know when to eat or how to breathe? i'm pointing this out in particular because after reading the wave i learned it's a HUGE clue that someone is disinforming you when they say things like "humanity is evolving too slowly." i admit i didn't read much of the article but can anyone deny that it belongs in the mumbo jumbo pile, or at least the "oh wow, this is obviously a bunch of crap" pile?

Though as I say, even then it's not 100%. More like 85-90%.

if memory serves, the C's have said that the ra material is nowhere near 85 percent accurate.

Q:.. OK, since the Ra material is
considered to be a kind of primer to the Cassiopaean
material, could you give us a percentage on the accuracy of
this material? A: 63

so in that case, we also have some random speculation based on nothing.
 
I just finished reading the whole thing. My impression is that Hidden Hand lied about not hearing of the Cs, is well acquainted with the material, and used it liberally in his spinning.

The concepts of Lucifer, 8 densities, & YCYOR leanings are obvious oppositions to the Cs transmissions.

There is no mention of the need for objectivity, a devaluation of knowledge with emphasis on love as requisites for graduation, no mention of psychopathy, and an emphasis on everyone is on an upward evolutionary spiral.

Eboard10, your assertion that there is an "extreme similarity" to the Cs seems to say that you have a limited understanding of the work of this forum.
 
Vulcan59 said:
Another topic that might be of interest is this one here called "Straight from the Illuminati's mouth? I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's found to be the same character in both cases. In any case, the articles should help you tune up your "BS" detection meter, I hope. :)

“1) Can you cite two or more previous instances whereby this directive has been upheld?”

Once in 1999, to what you would call an 'alternative' media source.
Once in 2003, on another internet "conspiracy" based forum. Though the information relayed was not entirely 'pure'. Not from the intention of misleading, but rather through imperfect or incomplete knowledge of the messengers. "


That's what the C's have been telling us all the time.


I have read the whole thing. I completely agree what RyanX said, the guy has some issues with achieving a negative harvest in order to be positive as "Family". He says it is necessary for them to reach 6th density and he admits it is not only ironic, but also a paradox! Eboard10, if you can explain this to us, that would be great, I think this contradicts with what C's said, as they said plans of 4D STS will fail.

First of all Lucifer is a 6D STO soul group and not the 4D STS being which the C's talk about. I do remember the C's talking about the Orion 6D "STS" who are manipulating the lizzies; when I have the time I'll see if I can find those passages and quote them here. Anyway what Hidden Hand is telling you is that Without Polarity, (derived from Free Will), there is only the Unity of Love and Light, and no choice to experience 'other than' that. So, we were to be the Catalyst for change, in order to provide that choice, thus bringing Polarity.
They are basically here to create that Negative Polarity which we weren't allowed to experience. It is a crucial part in the evolution of souls in this grand scheme of the Universe. He then goes on to say:

It is complicated to put into words, and also I must be careful with what I say on this. I've already had a "slap on the wrist", you could say.

If we do not have a Negative Harvest, we are bound with you for another cycle. Once this Great Harvest is completed, our Contract with the Council and our Creator is also completed. In other words, we have done our duty, and would be free to return to our Fullest Expression, that of Sixth (nearly Seventh) Density Galactic Guardians, and ones who joyfully offer ourselves in Service to the One Infinite Creator, and to our Brothers and Sisters across the Galaxy. However, there is a problem. Well, you would call it a "problem", we call it a Challenge. I will address this later in more detail, in response to another question, but in short, we need a very high percentage of Negative Polarity, if we are to achieve a Negative Harvest. In other words, we have to be Self-Service-Centred to an extreme degree, in order to become Negatively Harvested. This is why we work so hard to be as Negatively Polarized as we possibly can be, If we do not make a high enough percentage, we will miss out, and will end up with the majority "luke warm" percentage, that have to go through another Cycle in 3rd Density.

Continued...

By attaining a Negative Harvest, we can still "Graduate" to 4th Density, only it will be a Negative Polarity planet. Not a great place to be. But, as I've stated previously, we (as a Group Soul) have incurred the natural Karmic restitution process that we must work off, for all the Negativity we have caused upon this planet. We will do this for a Cycle in our new 4th Density world, and then we will be freed to once again be the Glorious Being of Light that we truly are. We need a Negative Harvest, so that we can create our 4th Density Earth, and clear our Karmic Record.

Understand, that we HAVE to be Negative. That's what we were sent here to be. It is our contract, and it has always been to help you, by providing the "Catalyst" I spoke of earlier. Being Negative is very hard for us, not on a physical level, (the characters we play enjoy our roles, as we're programmed that way), but on a Spiritual level, it is hard. We surpassed the lowly negative vibrations eons ago. We are Light, and we are Love. It is a very hard thing for us to do Spiritually, to create all this Negativity, but we do it because we love you, and it is for your highest good, ultimately. You could say, that it is our Sacrifice that we have made, in order to be of Service to the One Infinite Creator, and to you, our Brothers and Sisters in the One.

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.


If it still doesn't make sense please tell me, I'll try to explain it with my own words, though you should be able to understand from his message.

the C's have said (and i firmly believe this) that nothing "NEEDS HELP" evolving. that's why this quote stuck me as strange. i hate reading stuff like this, it's insulting to my intelligence. i believe it's self evident as well, that nothing needs help evolving, simply the fact that we all know the universe is a big machine, and i believe it does what it needs to when it needs to, and to do what it does it MUST change. "evolution", regardless of how it is defined, is (according to my grey matter) a completely automated process. do you "need help" to know when to eat or how to breathe? i'm pointing this out in particular because after reading the wave i learned it's a HUGE clue that someone is disinforming you when they say things like "humanity is evolving too slowly." i admit i didn't read much of the article but can anyone deny that it belongs in the mumbo jumbo pile, or at least the "oh wow, this is obviously a bunch of crap" pile?

When he talks about evolving his not talking about the evolution of makind, but the evolution of the soul; remember, we were living in a "benign dictatorship" as we (the souls) weren't allowed to experience the Negative Polarity. Also, the C's go extensively on about how we were 3D STO before being tempted into acquiring "materiality", not by the lizzies!
 
When he talks about evolving his not talking about the evolution of makind, but the evolution of the soul; remember, we were living in a "benign dictatorship" as we (the souls) weren't allowed to experience the Negative Polarity. Also, the C's go extensively on about how we were 3D STO before being tempted into acquiring "materiality", not by the lizzies!

you sort of dodged the issue. IT IS NOT STO to "give" or "help" when others DO NOT ASK. when you read things about "oh, the poor humans need help evolving (or whatever the excuse it) because we said so." this is free will violation. you'd know that if you read the wave.

i think most of the forum members can agree, it is STS to give or help when not asked. in that instance, you are taking.
 
MC said:
I just finished reading the whole thing. My impression is that Hidden Hand lied about not hearing of the Cs, is well acquainted with the material, and used it liberally in his spinning.

If you've read the whole thing you should also know that he doesn't "interact with us" and is isolated from our society. The only information he has about all the chanellings is what has been told to him by other members of the family.


The concepts of Lucifer, 8 densities, & YCYOR leanings are obvious oppositions to the Cs transmissions.

As I said before, the concept of Lucifer is a matter of interpretation. Just because the C's have used the word Lucifer to explain how we fell into 3D STS doesn't necessarily mean that what Hidden Hand is saying is false. These two events are not related (to an extent), but just becaused the same term is used doesn't mean that one has to be true and the other false. About the 8 densities concept, it could as well be a different approach in explaining all the levels a soul has to undergo before becoming one with the One. It could also of course be a lack of knowledge from the messenger about the levels above him. Afterall they are still learning even in 6D.

There is no mention of the need for objectivity, a devaluation of knowledge with emphasis on love as requisites for graduation, no mention of psychopathy, and an emphasis on everyone is on an upward evolutionary spiral.

I'd like to know what do you mean by devaluation of knowledge. Love is a requisite for graduation, if you understand what he truly means by Love (not the Love perceived by our society). He says that while some go towards unity with one, others choose to separate from the one becoming STS, like the Orion 4D. No difference with the C's.

Do I smell a noodle about to bake?

I find this very ironic. I'm trying to share some information with you people and I get dumped in the trash for this. That's not the philosophy of the Cassiopaeans if I recall well.
 
abstract said:
When he talks about evolving his not talking about the evolution of makind, but the evolution of the soul; remember, we were living in a "benign dictatorship" as we (the souls) weren't allowed to experience the Negative Polarity. Also, the C's go extensively on about how we were 3D STO before being tempted into acquiring "materiality", not by the lizzies!

you sort of dodged the issue. IT IS NOT STO to "give" or "help" when others DO NOT ASK. when you read things about "oh, the poor humans need help evolving (or whatever the excuse it) because we said so." this is free will violation. you'd know that if you read the wave.

i think most of the forum members can agree, it is STS to give or help when not asked. in that instance, you are taking.
 
I find this very ironic. I'm trying to share some information with you people and I get dumped in the trash for this. That's not the philosophy of the Cassiopaeans if I recall well.

no one is trying to personally attack you, myself and the others just don't believe it's objective material.
 
abstract said:
When he talks about evolving his not talking about the evolution of makind, but the evolution of the soul; remember, we were living in a "benign dictatorship" as we (the souls) weren't allowed to experience the Negative Polarity. Also, the C's go extensively on about how we were 3D STO before being tempted into acquiring "materiality", not by the lizzies!

you sort of dodged the issue. IT IS NOT STO to "give" or "help" when others DO NOT ASK. when you read things about "oh, the poor humans need help evolving (or whatever the excuse it) because we said so." this is free will violation. you'd know that if you read the wave.

i think most of the forum members can agree, it is STS to give or help when not asked. in that instance, you are taking.

Yes, sorry if I didn't answer correctly.

Actually, our Creator, or Macrocosm did ask for help and allowed Lucifer to interfere with Yahweh's "pet garden" and with us for the whole Grand Cycle of 300,000 years. Hidden Hand explains it very well in the quotes from my first post. Remember that we are Yahweh as he is our Macrocosm.

“If "Yahweh" is a positive polarity entity, how is he "wrathful" and "jealous"?”

Does Yahweh have Free Will? Would you like to think of yourself as reasonably positive? Can you still be wrathful and jealous at times? Is Yahweh a Macrocosm of you?
 
Eboard, at this point it looks like you are heavily invested in the Hidden Hand website, so much that you are unable to see the differences between it and this forum and its associated websites. Their is nothing wrong with this of course, but continuing in your current defense of it here is not productive to the aims of this forum. You are very welcome to any and other discussions, but at this point the current discourse has run its course and to continue on would only be adding noise. Best to agree to disagree and move on to more fruitful discussions.
 
Yes, sorry if I didn't answer correctly.

Actually, our Creator, or Macrocosm did ask for help and allowed Lucifer to interfere with Yahweh's "pet garden" and with us for the whole Grand Cycle of 300,000 years. Hidden Hand explains it very well in the quotes from my first post. Remember that we are Yahweh as he is our Macrocosm.

“If "Yahweh" is a positive polarity entity, how is he "wrathful" and "jealous"?”

Does Yahweh have Free Will? Would you like to think of yourself as reasonably positive? Can you still be wrathful and jealous at times? Is Yahweh a Macrocosm of you?

this is getting a bit silly, even for me. since i'm too lazy to sit here and tell you specifically what is wrong with "hidden hand" let me just say i think you may be a bit off track, and out of touch with what we are trying to accomplish here. there are numerous contradictions in that work. you may not see it now, but if you are looking for true knowledge, you will find that it is better to be severly skeptical when you read such things. and as heimdallr just stated, continuing this argument is useless.

(100 posts. yippee)
 
Eboard10 said:
I wanted people to carefully read... ...However, that's not the answer I got.
I am a bit disappointed by some of the members here, I was expecting something more from them.
Btw, you shouldn't...
What he's trying to do is...
...but there's a good reason why he didn't...because he wasn't asked about it.


Eboard10, no offence intended, but it has become apparant what you wanted from others and that you are so identified (although you are cautious to try and appear not to be) that you are already defending stuff that can only remain 'up in the air' for now.

I recommend taking a break for a moment and check out something that might aid you in gaining some perspective.

[quote author=People in Quandries]

PROBABILITY
The probability principle follows directly from the three basic premises of general semantics. It sums up the wisdom that truth is tentative, because all things change even though some things may change slowly and by imperceptible degrees. Truth is tentative, because it is abstracted by human beings who are not infallible. The principle may be stated simply in some such words as these: In a world of process—and by creatures of process—predictions can be made and reports can be given only with some degree of probability, not with absolute certainty.

In other words, and bluntly, one cannot be absolutely certain of anything—except, it would seem, uncertainty. Einstein has very aptly expressed this general notion: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." This is equally true of languages other than mathematics. It is not to be denied, of course, that sometimes probabilities are very great; one can be very nearly certain that somewhere tomorrow the sun will shine. Death and taxes are practically foregone conclusions. And as Will Rogers said as he stared at the French menu, "When you get down under the gravy, it has to be either meat or potatoes." But even about such seemingly invariable matters one speaks from experience, and experience has the tantalizing character of incompleteness. There is always at least a small gap between the greatest probability and absolute certainty.

"Then," you may well ask, "is it absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain?" As we answer this, let us remember the levels of abstraction. It is certain that statements about reality cannot be absolutely certain. This statement of certainty is, however, a statement about other statements; it does not refer to reality. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." To put it simply, it is certain that 2 = 2, because we say so; it is certain, that is, unless we are referring to 2 pigs and 2 pigs, for example. Ellis Parker Butler notwithstanding, 2 pigs is not 2 pigs, provided they are real pigs.

To paraphrase Einstein, as far as 2 = 2 refers to reality, it is not certain; and as far as it is certain, it does not refer to reality. We have to deal here not with a mysterious paradox, but simply with the fact that the levels of abstraction are different, that a statement about reality is different from a statement about that statement. The one is not certain; the other may be, at least so long as we treat it as such. The essential point is this: a statement such as 2 = 2 is certain, when it is, simply in the sense that we agree to treat it as certain. The elementary fact, so easy to forget, is that language and the rules of its use are man-made—and they are still in the making.

The great importance of the principle of probability (or un-certainty) lies in the fact that our living reactions are on the low, non-verbal levels of abstraction. It is on these levels that "all things flow." On higher levels we can say they do not. We can say what we like. As Hayakawa has so vividly expressed it, we can put up a sign that says "Free Beer Here" when there is no free beer here. The levels of abstraction are potentially independent. In the meantime, we and the world about us do not remain absolutely fixed and static and are not, therefore, absolutely predictable. We can be sure that 2 = 2 in principle, but not in a horse trade. The next oyster is not the same as the last oyster if you have just eaten twenty-seven oysters.

Since no two things are the same and no one thing stays the same, your inability to adjust to reality will be in pro-portion to the degree to which you insist on certainty as to facts— and believe that you have achieved it.

In a practical sense, in terms of behavior, this principle can be reduced to a sort of motto: "I don't know -let's see." That is to say, whenever one is confronted by a new situation one does not unhesitatingly respond to it in some way definitely decided upon in advance. It is rather as though one were to say, "I don't know — let's see," with a sensitiveness to any respects in which this situation might be different from previous ones, and with a readiness to make appropriate reactions accordingly.

It is to be clearly recognized that such an approach to new situations does not involve indecisiveness. It does not represent failure to "make up one's mind." Rather it represents a method for making up one's mind without going off half-cocked. It provides a measure of insurance against the blunders we make in judging people by first impressions, in applying to individual women drivers our attitude toward the woman driver, in condemning a person—or in committing ourselves to his support—on the basis of hearsay or on the basis of very brief acquaintance. We make such blunders by reacting to the individual not as though he were an individual, different and variable, but as though he were merely a member of a type and the same as all other members of that type—and then we react inappropriately because we are so very sure of our opinion of the type.

From time to time in the Sunday supplements there are articles concerning the type of man the college girl wants for a husband— "Betty Co-ed's Ideal Soul Mate." It frequently happens that such an article is written by a reporter who has gone about some university campus asking a dozen or so girls what type of man they prefer. It appears that usually the girls' answers are very positive and in some respects they are more or less specific. Dorothy, for example, says she wants to marry a man who is tall, blonde, a good dancer, and popular. That description is fairly specific, and still sufficiently vague to apply to any one of thousands of men. Let us suppose Dorothy meets one of them. To her, he's "the type," so it is a case of love at first sight. She does not love him, she loves "the type." Being sure that he is "her type," she is equally sure that he is "her man." It will not be until sometime later, after her life has become rather thoroughly enmeshed in his, that she will discover—with great unhappiness and shock, and perhaps resulting bitterness about "men"—that besides doing a neat rhumba and being tall, blonde, and popular, he is also "lazy," "quick-tempered," and "unfaithful." Since it will not occur to her that she had no basis for being so sure in the first place, it will occur to her that she has been cheated, and that "men are not to be trusted." And she will be just as sure of that as she had been sure that she had found her "soul mate."

Maladjusted people almost universally complain of feelings of uncertainty—or else they express their unfortunate condition in dogmatic pronouncements and attitudes of sure finality from which they refuse to be shaken, in spite of the mistakes and miseries into which they are plunged because of them. It appears to be quite incomprehensible to such persons that there could be anything amiss so far as their basic assumptions are concerned. Most of them seem not to consider that they have any assumptions at all. They have been taught and have never questioned that certainty is desirable, even necessary, and altogether attainable. Most school children are early taught a sense of shame at having to say, "I don't know." From their prim and impeccable teachers they acquire the amazing notion that the proper ideal is to know everything correctly, absolutely and forever.

In a grading system in which A means "perfect," a grade of B can and very frequently does leave children in a state of chagrin and demoralization! Such children grow up with feelings of profound distrust of politicians who waver in their judgments on national and international issues. As they themselves enter into the councils of men they bring with them the "virtues" of resoluteness and dogmatic conviction—or, as it is sometimes called, pigheadedness. They tend to become what someone has referred to as "men of principle and no interest."

In the realm of direct experience whether we look backward in memory or forward in anticipation, nothing is absolutely certain. Each new situation, problem, or person is to be approached, therefore, not with rigidly fixed habits and preconceived ideas, but with a sense of apparent probabilities. It is as though one were to say, "I don't know for sure, but I'll see what there is to see." Above all, this principle of probability, or uncertainty, is not merely something to "know" or to touch upon in a classroom lecture. It is a principle to be acted upon from minute to minute, day in and day out.[/quote]


--Edit: I agree with Heimdallr. This is my last contribution to the topic. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom