What does science and religion have to do with it?

 Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:01 PM
Subject: Any new developments ref de Grazia?

I hope you are not downhearted about the recent actions on 4D science. I spoke of my admiration of you recently, to someone Jan trusted a lot. I told this person a lot of us were monitoring 4th way LA. Anyway I was just thinking about you and thought I would drop you a note. Take care, Marsha

 (Reply-)

Hello Marsha,
Nice to hear from you. Re/ the boys on JC 4D, after reading what they had to say and thinking it over for a while, I blocked them. Now I won’t see their posts and they won’t see mine. Obviously, they’re both vain, deluded, egotistical teenagers. Dwa writes well of things he doesn’t know. He is above average in intelligence (but thinks he’s above everyone in intelligence), and understands some of pieces of ‘enlightenment’ or the kind of ‘mystical’ insights that JC had, conceptually, but that is all; and in his writings, he wants to impress us. Jac is perhaps even more immature; and they both show violence. For sure, they just steal time from the rest of us. So, I blocked them. Your concern is kind to me.
It is interesting to monitor 4W LA. I recently started a wordpress account/website. There, I want to post material and dialog with respondents; and I also want to be able to correspond with Jone; I am one of the contributors to her blog now. But Angelica, the admin of 4wla, responded to a post from Jone – she posts there via Jae Kamel’s accounts – on her forum, on 4wla. We commented back and forth a few times, but then I suggested she go ahead and direct her comment to Jone (jonedae.wordpress.com), since she was the one who would want to see any comments or replies. Now, Jone has sort-of tied together two account, her WordPress and her Thunderbolts accounts. I don’t think Angelica realized (a) that she’s a pretty serious scientist, and (b) that she sees Gurdjieff‘s Omnipresent Okidanokh, as it was presented in the chapter about Gornahoor Harharkh, as science, not metaphysics and not mysticism. And Angelica was not the first person to sort-of miss the mark that way. Even J.G. Bennett didn’t get that Gurdjieff might have meant it scientifically; but also he was writing in a pre-Velikovsky time, and did not have the benefit of what we know today from the Electric & Plasma Universe scientists; and there are many of them now. It is like a snowball rolling downhill, and becoming bigger as it goes. So… and I think that many of those who talk about it in metaphysical terms, aren’t themselves scientists, and that’s the cause. She replied, Angelica, that “she has friends who are”. Anyway, and then I told her about the dominance of old-school, mainstream physics, and the grip that it still has on many people’s minds. I sort-of advised her not to believe in all that too readily. She has not yet replied to Jone on either account.
Alfred De Grazia, of course, was one of the pioneers of the EU movement. All the topics that Thunderbolts has forums and threads about, he already wrote about during the sixties and seventies. He does give a less detailed review of the all the data and evidence, scientific and otherwise, and Jone often post there and on WordPress, sections of his books, links to his books, and links to where all of De Grazia’s Quantavolution books are stored on Skydrive. Some on Thunderbolts have noted this and thanked her for it; most don’t. Thunderbolts is different, since there many of the scientists are, as it were, beyond De Grazia, and are holding much more detailed discussions of the various sciences. However, they are re-inventing the wheel there a lot too; the could save time by reading the works in his notes and bibliographies which are, of course, in the books.
I am happy that you admire me. Now, I never met Jan Cox; even though I have met many teachers. But I understand him, his strengths and weaknesses, in what he taught and how he taught it, better than most do on the JC fb forums. They can never believe or accept that, since they did know him in person. They also have never gotten the hint, even though I have showed them the probability of it, that I’m a match for their Mr. Cox, that is, just as intelligent, just as good at writing and arguing a point, and just as knowledgeable about the things that he was knowledgeable about. But more: I can see why what he tried to do failed, and why his followers are not enlightened, not transformed. Some of them are intelligent; but they all worship JC as their hero too much (and deny that). They respond to observations, which, in a person who was transformed or enlightened, would cause that person to look at him- or herself, and examine, by instead automatically denying them, without even considering it. And of course, that is related to the reasons why they never can and never will accept what I am. JC and this writer both went to law school and argued in court, both studied spiritual and esoteric traditions in history, and so on.
Jone has had similar interactions with folks on WITW (What Is The Work), that poor graveyard of a website. She argued there, and I have argued on fb in both 4D science and 4wla, that what happened once, can happen again. People who have made Gurdjieff their hero react the same way. That is one of the consequences of hero-worship: no one can ever be, say, as good as their hero was; and they will ‘flame’ you, attack you, etc., etc. if you try to suggest otherwise. We are arguing, in the case of G. for example, that (a) since there were men like G. before him, before he lived, there will also be some of those afterwards; (b) that if was as good at what he did, as he is supposed to have been, wouldn’t he make another like himself? Or wouldn’t his great Legominism, if, again, if functions in the way they’re supposed to function, transform its readers? Especially if they’re in a School when they read it? And some people will go with you that far and say, well, sure, sure, what you say makes sense. BUT, if you then go on to suggest that, say, someone like Dr. Dae or myself, is such a person, then they start in again with the denials, the ‘flaming’, the attacks.
These behaviors show what our modern culture has done to these people. Whether it is TT (This Thing That We Do)  for the JC people, or The Work for the Gurdjieff people, the ways in which they respond, have nothing to do with those men, their teachings, or their Schools (although Jan Cox walked away from all Schools, since his way was better than their Way(s), in his mind). That is, our modern culture today, our knowledge ‘at the city level’, tells people, that there are no genuine teachers, saints, prophets, geniuses, spiritual leaders, etc., in the General Public. Only that very, very small group who have renounced the world, as  it were, and live in monastic orders, such as HHDL (His Holiness The Dalai Lama), or the Pope, or maybe, say some other religious figure, who wears their costume, their vestments, all that. Can you see what I mean with this? But if you suggest that some regular person like you or me is such a one; I guarantee that people will go into denial, and stay there.
For the Gurdjieff people, this means that they are again denying The Work, and saying that G’s methods don’t work, and, basically, that he failed. That is, we’re ‘in the world but not of it’; we are achieving physical transformation, while living ‘normal’ lives, and not renouncing or retreating as the Buddhist and Christian monks do. Jan Cox also saw the necessity and possibility of transformation, and also saw that it meant actual physical transformation, and said so. Some in The Work haven’t gotten that yet, and I think that is why so many of them take things, metaphorically, metaphysically, etc. Seriously. Only, Jan himself was transformed somewhat, but couldn’t bring others to the same place: he misunderstood or misjudged some of the components of Gurdjieff’s Work, and so left them out of his teachings.
So, Marsha, folks like you and me, in the opinion of people that blog, post, or comment online, as well as some I’ve conversed with IRL, can never be enlightened, we can never be saints, prophets, teachers, and holy men or women; and we can never be leaders, either. Like in the old phrase, “the judgment of Paris”, this is the judgment of America. And most of all, you and me can just never, ever, Marsha, be as high or great or smart as their heroes, Mr. Cox and Mr. Gurdjieff respectively. In this way those people condemn themselves to a much poorer world, and, preclude any chance for them to meet an learn from the saints and teachers that are alive today. Two of my favorite saints, are R. Buckminster Fuller, who died in 1983, and Thich Nhat Hanh, who is still alive today, though quite old. Probably HHDL is one to, saint, teacher, or both, like Hahn and Fuller. Jiddu Krishnamurti probably was one too; that he was a great teacher, very few dispute. But he was flawed; and people often couldn’t “get” his teachings; and cultural barriers sometimes caused that. He was an Indian Brahman, educated first in India by Theosophists, and then later in some of England’s best schools. His cultural background, paradigm, made it difficult for some Americans to understand him, and for him to talk to them. Many, of course, did “get it”  though. Anyway, and Jan talks about that, about the functions of what he calls “cultural essence”, in his book The Dialogs Of Gurdjieff, and I think that he was quite right about that.
So, this reply is longer than I wanted it to be. But I am glad that you wrote, Marsha; no one on fb has cared about any of this, and recent event there. I do hope that you’ll use my new blogsite, I’ll send a link to you for that. I am looking forward to your reply. Blessings.
HJK

Have A Nice Day!

---

From: Marsha Brown <marsha.brown@
To: Henry Koehler <jaykoehler36@