I took one university course before discovering I was entitled to go into a Master's Program at York University if I got over 75%-ile on the GMAT. With ten years successful business experience and by testing out of the Baccalaureate Level course (CLEP test). This one course was Logic. The professor got his doctorate by doing a thesis on 'Giving and Do-Gooders'. On the day of the final exam I brought him a one page premise in support of 'He who is least selfish, is MOST selfish.'. He read it while we wrote the exam, which I finished early enough for him to tell me all the things that were wrong with my premise. My best point in retort was 'Why didn't you consider this possibility?' He was incensed and threatened like a lot of people who deal with my 'know-it-allness'. After all, he had achieved his esteemed doctorate and I was just 29 in a first year B.A. class.


So why was I wrong? Why did it upset him so much? What could I possibly have known that made him avoid me like the plague when I saw him at the racetrack (horses, and he didn't even acknowledge a wave) a couple of weeks later? How could I see something he hadn't even considered or that his thesis guides hadn't brought up? What value is there in an education where 'do-gooders' are diminished by egoists who don't even observe that humanity has higher aspirations than mere selfish recognition in the mode of such arcane and abstruse ideologues and pedagogues as Hegel? I quoted Van Dyke's poetry and Gibran (maybe the poetry and its' heart touching rather than intellect enchanting appeal was the cause):


"There are those who as in yonder valley, the myrtle breathes its fragrance to the air. These are the children of GOD, and through them he smiles upon the earth!"


My sense of 'Brotherhood' was offended by his narcissistic pessimism but I smiled in the confidence that I was right. That annoying look of pomposity that comes from actually learning and being interested with an open mind rather than a sheepskin from fools who 'think' they are wise men. It could easily be said that this is arrogance and it has been said more than once. The reader may think that and if they have read this far in this book they are entitled to have that opinion of me. For myself I know I am a 'fool'. THE SOUL is another matter indeed. Yes, I know there are many who give in expectation of return or in hope of building fences that obligate and manipulate others to recognize their specialness. The white picket fences of fantasies have confronted my search on more than one occasion.


That was an unnecessary and obvious observation that I didn't feel warranted anything more than a mere stipulation to its veracity. It was his whole thesis though buttressed by other 'me-too' scholars who can wend words and vacillate like moths to a flame or deer in the headlights of oncoming vehicles. I diminished its import as a stage like puberty in the becomingness toward ‘bliss’ that comes from giving without need of return.

In fact the return of a favour isn't something I would want as much as passing it along to others in need. But, there have been times when I know I've given and seen others try to negate either the gift or me, so maybe I haven't always been so truly motivated at those times. As a child I had always valued true sharing and the model my father created in his simple and wondrous gift of friendship and respect to myself and my three brothers. He never felt any need (I could see, to the most part) to control or form us in his image vicariously or otherwise. He loved to hear us call him 'JIM'! It truly was unusual and people often remarked on that fact.


No higher position in his cosmogony than enabling and learning from and WITH us! He was a soul who participated without prejudice in the many wonders nature (God) provides us all. In the end, I knew LOVE was there when I 'let a bird go free'; if 'it returned' of its own accord and strong volition with hopes of adding to what I knew or sharing what it had helped others to learn - that infrequent treasure is the essence of what makes me proud. I knew it is not just in this world that we receive benefits or karmic reward. History is full of examples of those who gave openly being persecuted by those who take! Jesus, Socrates and Tesla were becoming even greater guides for my pursuit.


I was finding more than I ever thought there was, in the words of Shakespeare and I loved Victor Hugo's appreciation of the bard when he talked about 'glimpsing the waves of the marvellous'. I had no anthropomorphed or other entity that I could demand a hearing from in my prayers. No following, no cult, not even a desire to belong to most of the human race. I was wealthy in matters material. My goals had been met in most of the driven ways we seek recognition and it was only for those I wanted to share it with that I derived benefit. I spent money like a bandit waiting to be caught. Women had shown me things that I could never have learned in books. I had been able to know others thoughts and dreams when I was close to them. They were in tune with me on many occasions in the same way. My father had told me such things were possible. He called it 'the pixie-mind' and told me he loved how women could flit from topic to topic knowing each others feelings and not having to beat a subject to death with intellect. I had much more to learn - and was eagerly awaiting all that life would bring. Still - very much in stillness - I knew my life had ‘quickened’ and taken a firm stand on the path towards Love and giving with no expectation of return. How could I accept his thesis that do-gooders pursue only self-gratification or Hegelian recognition?


Twenty years passed before I read Aristotle's 'Nichomachean Ethics' and saw my 'contribution dynamics of day to day life' were therein contemplated. He had written this book in honour of his father, whose ethics had inspired him. Maybe that means society had screwed his father up a little in the matter of women too, I can't say it comes through in this book and I know that lots of people have wanted to put these words into the mouth of great men so others would follow. My father had failed to find his equal in love and my mother was a schizophrenic. He never implicated to us that this was the way of women and it was a great sorrow to him that we might be negatively inclined towards women as a result. It did happen to my oldest brother in some weird ways that I cannot trace to my father. My own placement of women on a pedestal was no doubt partially due to a lack of a good female role model or trusted friend (that a sister might have supplied).


Like fine porcelain objets d'art, I marveled at their depth and beauties as if on a pedestal by the gods they had been placed. 'Jim' was long dead when I began to write in earnest in order to attempt to express the Joy of LEARNING he had encouraged in me. All the marvels, mysteries, experiences and loves of life (except having children) had been mine. I knew my writing skills were rudimentary at best. Big words and the gift of the gab are not all it takes. With little hope of capturing the essence in style, I proceeded to do what Jim could easily have done. His wit and style, his writing skills were plentiful. I had encouraged him to take this as his purpose before his life ended. There had been two years during which our time together centered on his impending demise in the physical form. That was due to my 'occult' study of things like palm and face reading (chirogamy and physiogamy). It was clear to me that he would die around the age of 65. Unless, and it is a big word, just like 'IF'. Free will can over-ride the confluence of forces that create action if that free will is properly constructed with RIGHT THOUGHT. The best construct for me has always been helping others and giving. Thus I felt it would be for him. If he devoted himself to the path of giving to all of society the many things he knew that few apprehended. He was a truly educated man and could have been a Renaissance man if he had not devoted himself to our upbringing.


He said he had poor eyesight and had no desire to cheat fate. He was also quite unconvinced that such concepts had a high degree of fact and likelihood. Like me, he had always doubted and knew the value of such skepticism. He liked the idea of a spiritual cosmology that had a plan, purpose and consciousness in collective dimensional layers that harmonize. He knew I was not a follower and that my psychic experiences had been real for me. We all try to fool ourselves with massive rationale and wishful thinking. He did not accuse me of this, but he may have thought it - it was good to talk about his life and prepare myself. Saying how much he meant to me and my brothers for many times was a balm for my soul. There were so many things to thank him for and none of them were easy for him to listen to. In the end it was enough to honour his freedom and accept his choice to take whatever happened in stride. We put him in the ground the day after he turned 65.


He had a note in his wallet that gave me as the person to call in the event he died. I am the third born. He knew I knew what to say and that my story of where he was going was real and good. He had been given a clean bill of health to work after his retirement age just a couple of weeks earlier, before he went to the cottage for his vacation. He died of a heart attack and had crawled up from where he was working on the dock, as near as we can figure. He loved that place as much as he loved us. Years earlier he had visited me in Miami and we had time together as he thought about what he would do when he retired. His time in Miami Beach led him to say it was an ‘elephant graveyard’ that could not be his ending place. I stopped foretelling death!


Success is not my goal and no one should emulate me, it is a lonely and painful existence to be blessed with such insight. The gifts carry a heavy responsibility and separate me from those who I most enjoy. There is always the need even if I don't want to, to reach out and help someone. Being outside the materially focused 'reality' and trying to change the world like Don Quixote can also become something of a bore, when all the little things one does are crushed in the mendacity of despair and disbelief that allows the ego to deny its soul. No, I expect NO recognition and I know there is hope to see and learn for humanity. In the end if my writing has an impact it will make me have to do things that will take me away from the constant proof of ancient lovers of life that I do enjoy honoring in these words. It matters little what others think (I take a lot of pride in what they do.) because I know my soul will suffer less and enjoy more, the fruits of all I have learned, wherever I go.

Sorry for asking, but

What was the name of your father?

Baird ...?

It is there in the piece - and of course it was Baird too.

I am Googling.

I mean First Name. What was the First Name?

Jim Baird?

More exactly

James Wesley Baird

There is not likely going to be anything about him in Goodle - he died before they existed. He did not get to do anything he could have - as the article points out. When young he ghost wrote book reviews for Canada's top paper(The Globe), had poetry published, appeared as a violinist at Massey Hall, developed an Olympic medal winning swimming stroke, knew many of the Jazz 'greats' personally, and was on the rowing/canoeing team at the Argonaut Rowing Club. When he left the army after time at Nuremberg he was later asked to join the new Atomic Research Group due to having scored 200 out of 212 in the IQ test and having more education than most people of his time - any post-secondary education was unusual.

I read what you wrote for 5 times.
Interesting.

>face reading (physiogamy).

Why you decided to study this?

You think man is potentially good creature, I mean as it is without knowledge?
It is very importnat question for me.

Life is such a difficult thing on this planet.
All is so foggy. Feelings are so complex. Doubt like a worm scratches inside.
It always challenges the moral frame of reference.
Erazmus Desiderius wanted to order this world and suppress human passions.
There have to be something able to resist the noise of illusion.
The text you have posted in this section is moving, it reminds me something very familiar but I cannot remember what.

Sorry for speaking about different things in this section.

Human faces are the most dangerous things.
They can destroy any concept.
Their dinamic image (even grasped by an artist) contains so much, that sometimes it has much power than words.
Human face has horrific power.
Some religions do not permit to protray human image.
And unfortunatly I know why.

sounds messianic

the self-sacrifice is needed because the Other wishes it, who is love. nothingness is her dream

hope is life, long live hope

We do not need a new Messiah to mess up our ability to think for ourselves. Jonathon Swift and the Green Language codes he and others used in their myths were necessary in The Killing Times of heresy - and though Patriot Act II is a lot like the Malleus Malleficarum we are still free enough to think for ourselves.

No - Swift and Carlyle and other Hibernians were part of the problem even though they wanted to enable people or have a real compassionate government.

As to nations - who created nations? Divine Kings - we need no nations but would do well as Toffler and others know to give power to the local and the more localized the better - and leave international things to structures that make sense - not nations with armies.

I agree that the World Must Live in peace.
But there are regions where you must be armed to survive.
I mean if there is no other opportunity to live in peace people unite in the frame of nation just to protect their legacy. Sometimes it is done by abandoning democracy. That is bad, but that happence. It is very sad but it is so.

Have I wrote something where you said Yes?

I am not advocating disarmament but I like Einstein advocate the formation of a One World Army for Peace. I have specific proposals and a framework for developing a real government for all life on earth with no nations as we know them - in line with the Club of Rome - but that is not really the type of thing people can even start to talk about until they have done a lot of research.

You seldom have anything to say which I can agree with although you do use words like Peace here - you are saying things which are not PEACEfull.

I agree what I say, in some parts, is not peaceful.
But if I stop to speak those things will not disappear,
they will remain as they are.
I am sorry for my intrusion into your peaceful paradise of
ideas and pure intentions. But I came here for help.
I just pointed at very serious danger.
I am very sad that this existing danger is underestimated.
I agree, maybe, what I wrote was a little bit non-standard.
But I thought that only people on such forum can fully and independently
understand that danger. Generally the counterterrorism experts
do not percept well that danger. And I made very brave
attempt to provide synergy of ideas, to bring those people
together, so together they will be able to IDENTIFY that
horrific threat. I want the investigation groups to
succeed. I want that very much.

I want smart people here to explain to them that what I wrote is not a fantasy and that the threat is real. It is very real.

I was not aware Einstein lobbied for a one world government - and I did not say that he did. He argued for a World Policing agency and the end of standing armies.

However, I do believe that decisions should be made by a One World Government that are addressed to One World issues - and decisions that are regional by regional bodies and local by local - as all futurists call for.

Dear Enki

It is good that you say you came to learn and it is true you took a brave stance. However, I do not see that your stance is founded on study of even the things you address. Terrorism is not just the act of guerilla fighters - it is more the acts of nations that are waging a larger terror even against their own people - and you have pointed this out recently too. But to get to the meat of the issue much more study is needed and actual plans and frameworks starting with principles are needed.

ET can tell you that we have tried long and hard for many months to get people to consider Principles and terminologies that the Head of the Club of Rome says do not exist. All the chatting in the world that I have seen from good people ends up in further misunderstanding and things like the edict called Dominus Iesoos that re-affirmed old religious boundaies after an ecumenical council. This is just one venue of disgust and deceit - there are all so many others. The people who advocate starting with animal rights or abortion or ecology and all the rest (Amnesty included) all have to agree on PRINCIPLES first.

Then there can be an effort to get the agreement of larger groups and people all over the world - only then can issue-oriented planning proceed.

"World government" is a phrase Einstein used (Einstein, the Life and Times). I think he was naive in calling for world government, underestimating how power corrupts. Putting all the eggs in one basket is not good. The temptation for totalitarianism by the "rulers" would be irresistable.

we'll have a legitimate one-world government iff humanity comes into contact with aggressive extraterrestrial civilization(s)

World Government is needed - we do live in a world. One World Government is not the same phraseology. For example - Einstein backed a World Court or Police group but that does not mean that 'One' group also would be in charge of economic activities or other functions.

In many ways this is coming to pass - but through force rather than communication. Woolsey and Bennett were quite forthcoming in describing the intent of the American agenda to create themselves as that ONE WORLD authority - unfortunately the corporate agenda of the American and British (read Rising Roman Empire) is not acceptable to people who wish for egalitarian potentials.

we'll have a legitimate one-world government iff humanity comes into contact with aggressive extraterrestrial civilization(s)

There is a theory that this is actually one of the plans or contingencies that has been developed by the US. It would indeed cause a unified approach to world issues I think. But if it is mere BS (and worse) what happens when people discover that? Like in Orwell's prophetic book 1984.

you can't have your cake and eat it too, RTB. If you want a single world court with teeth, you're going to need a literal unification of world governments. Otherwise, rogues will occur (like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc...) that will crash the nice 'peaceful' party

The correct word for that is martyr and my family has a history of martyrs. Righteous willingness to do what is right for others is a thing the world needs a lot more of - and I tired of being thought a hypocrite who just mouthed platitudes and was not willing to give my ALL. Needless to say some martyrs are dupes - as in the Jihadi cases.

A Messiah is an entirely different kettle of fish - it usually is a front for elites too - but that is not necessarily the case. I think people like Jesus (any of his adept amalgam) or Krishnamurti will throw off the mantle of Messiah (Christos) when laid upon them just as I have done when people want me to be their guru or leader. I think those who NEED to lead are power-trippers.

you can't have your cake and eat it too, RTB. If you want a single world court with teeth, you're going to need a literal unification of world governments. Otherwise, rogues will occur (like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc...) that will crash the nice 'peaceful' party

I can lay out a way to have a real world where members of the G-8 put their defense budget under the auspices of the World Court and abide by its ruling and yet are still in a position (based on a vote of the citizens) to withdraw. I would also suggest all other black budget and spying agencies budgets go to the same place. And there are concerted efforts by wiser people than me who back such plans. It does not even need to address the issue of real sovereignty of nations really - but in time it should. Gradual planned change away from destructive use of force and applying the positive profits therefrom to enabling all to raise their quality of life is a better way to manage the world through agreement - not force.

I think there is a bit of overlap when discussing messiahs and martyrs. It seems that the difference between messiahs and martyrs is that the martyr isn't interested in leading the needy masses by the hand but only paving the 'way' for the masses to take of their own volition. Both suffer for the cause that is greater than themselves, and both supply direction for others to achieve freedom from suffering.

the martyr seems to me to be more fatalistic, while the messiah sticks around like a bodhisattva in order to take care of business

The scenario of a world government coming together to address a common threat is not realisitic under the current paradigm. For evidence of this look at the recent Pentagon report on climate change which alone among government agencies specifically identifies a coming catastrophe and aims to plan for war over diminsihing resources and food affected by superstorms and global warming.

The hope lies with groups like the Club Of Rome as RTB mentioned and unity of scientists such as the Nobel Laureates opposed to fatih based government that recently met to underscore the charter of rights and freedom endorsed by the UN.

The foundation of such a body will by necessity be authoritarian to a degree that is required by the scope of the crisis.

Such a government will come into being, the only questions being how much suffering is required before humanity demands it and what form the world body will take.

The insitituions most threatened by a peaceful transition to a species oriented assembly are dependent on dualist perceptions of being. Us/ them, left wing/right wing, dogma/dogda, male/female, black/white etc.

A charter of human rights that empahasizes liberty and provides a legal line that cannot be crossed by hate mongers or imperialist nationalists requires defintions as basic as traffic codes in the minds of the populace.

The clash of civilizations of the past centuries has taught us that the term 'civilized' needs to be applied in eco terms. A civilized speices does not foul its own nest and makes itself adaptable to nature rather then forcing nature to fit the perceptions of one tribe radiating from a temperate northern eco system.

People are afraid and with some reason that a new world government would upset the satus quo but the relative importance of continuing as a speices is a priori to the status quo and it is this perception which requires a paradigm shift.

There are no true ants in our bi-pedal colony just ants or the evolved term 'being'

It's inevitable, provided an extinction event doesn't interuppt the process so we should plan for it now. Of course some will cling to denial and the hope that the way things are and were is the way it always will be. Sorry it just isn't possible to keep depleting the planet in wasteful enterprises like religious and militaristic bickering.

Those who desire an apocalypse should be raptured to one geopgraphical area along with other sociopaths where they can strive against each other to their hearts content while the rest of the speices looks forward to exploring the cosmos and tidying the place up in case any neighbors come calling.

LOVE it!!!!

Those who desire an apocalypse should be raptured to one geographical area along with other sociopaths where they can strive against each other to their hearts content while the rest of the species looks forward to exploring the cosmos and tidying the place up in case any neighbors come calling.

Dear Dan
Actually the Bodhisattvas like Krishnamurti choose to exit more often than the martyrs - they develop the ability to transcend this reality in ways few others do.

But there certainly is a similarity when it is a real Messiah (who will always [like K] say they are not Messiahs). The problem is - all the people claiming to be the Lord's ONLY representative or Messiahs who are in fact something quite mad.

A sutra designer who I knew (she was married to an Arhat) said that we both were of the Bodhisattva Way. She called it 'householders'. There are many titles and many WAYS to the godhead or Nirvana etc.

Some Ascended Master types will leave with all their energy - she was able to do this and de-materialize - I am not - as yet. Nor do I care (like some Sai Babas) to pursue such siddhis that Krishna taught me to eschew.

Krishnamurti is widely regarded as of this level of adeptness and he chose suicide - as have I and probably will again. Death is not real as it relates to how ego sees it.

why did/would you choose suicide?

Suicide of the ego.

I choose suicide because I would not accept handouts and I would not continue to play the paradigm game. I wanted to offer my services for free and was told I could not - even in a nuthouse. But after almost succeeding in taking my life I self-admitted myself to a group home - and after five years of fighting liars in government I got my Canadian pension - but gave up trying to get the same which I am entitled to in the US.

On the more mundane level of ego - you might think I am a pretty big egotist. I am - you must get there before being ready to lose your attachment to the 'things' of ego.

There is no such thing as Death - it is just a stage in life. Our soul is immortal but it is not of the persona. I am not 100% absolutely certain of this to the extent that I can say I KNOW or even that I believe - but I have had experiences in the hereafter dimensions which I look forward to.

Dear Dan

NOT suicide of the ego alone - much more than that.

Dear Eternum1

Trip still lives in Kelowna until the end of the month and he is a known artist there.

why did you need pension? did you give all your money away?

as for death,
there is nothing sacred that cannot be lost except being itself. In the sense that people commonly understand death (cessation of existence of the subject), there is none. However, some particular structure that binds a state of being (memory, persona, 'soul', etc...) can certainly be dissolved and as such the associated state can surely 'die'. In a bottom line sense, it is a waste to 'kill' a state of being if that state of being is survivable and can act positively in the universe. It would be a disappointment to see a valuable state of being self-destruct.

I did give some money away but it was not enough (after losing the yacht in the effort to get the stele in Mexico to a serious institution) to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.