SUBJECT: Michel Jullian, and the "critic" within us all Since Michel Jullian has been banned for two weeks, and as such, cannot speak on his own behalf I feel compelled to say something (almost by proxy) on his behalf in an unofficial capacity. Michel did not ask me to speak for him, nor did I solicit Michel for his opinions. The following are my opinions and my opinions alone.
Recently there appeared to have been what might be considered a reconciliation concerning the Ed Storm's electrolysis title definition. I gather there may have been private conversations that transpired between Michel and Ed. I bring to Vort's attention the following post from Michel, Dated March 25, 2007: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > SUBJECT: [VO]: MJ-ES terminology controversy > > In the spirit of international friendship, Michel > and Ed have agreed that the title of the paper used > by Ed (1) while not strictly academic is technically > unambiguous and emphasizes well the role of the > palladium cathode, and the title suggested by Michel > (2) is more academic but emphasizes less the role of > the cathode. Both approaches are acceptable. > Therefore, no conflict exists. > > (1) "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of > Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte" (2) > "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of a > Heavy-Water Electrolyte using a Palladium Cathode" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Michel's post suggests at least to me a concerted effort on his part to find an honorable way out of his recent actions, and in the process come to a reconciliation that he can live with. What is interesting about Michel's post is that no official public apology (as had been requested by the Vort moderator, and perhaps indirectly by others including myself) is likely to be forthcoming. As such, a question many may find themselves asking is whether Michel has really "learned his lesson". I would guess that Mr. Beaty as concluded: No, he hasn't. Instead of a public apology I can suggest what I believe might be a more worthy "sentence". It is the sentence of self-reflection. Has Michel had the opportunity to learn something important - in the same manner that we all hopefully learn something important and useful in our interactions with others. I really don't know. Nevertheless, this recent reconciliation of sorts does gives me an unexpected glimpse into Michel, a perception I think is worth mentioning here since it's an issue I suspect most of us must deal with throughout all of our lives. I'm referring to the matter of "JUDGMENT", which in this case manifested in the actions of criticizing the technical terminology used in Ed's title. A question worth asking is: who was really judging whom. Ironically, the most important person of all had been left out of the judgment process. It's been my experience that when people seem to become fixated on criticizing specific issues pertaining to the works of others it's often a glimpse into how they are ultimately judging themselves, their own behavior, their own worthiness as an individual. Judging one's own worthiness is indeed a scary issue fraught with many pitfalls. Often, this form of judgment can be completely unconscious, ESPECIALLY when it comes to judging the most personal and intimate part of themselves. As such, the "critic" within is often running on autopilot, pulling and jerking strings here and there, and in the process irritating the hell out of everyone who is unfortunate to come in contact with them. To be honest, in my view, a public apology is irrelevant. What I personally hope Michel would instead find the time for would be to make an effort to become more aware of the "critic" within, that he become more conscious of how it occasionally can manipulate his posting behavior. Truth of the matter is: We ALL have a "critic" within. It would be ridiculous to single Michel out on this matter. It's just that Michel's "critic" became, in this incident, blatantly obvious. So, what happens when one finally begins to observe the "critic" within? First of all, don't pass judgment on its behavior as it attempts to pass down another one of its incessant sentences. That would, ironically, be more of the same insanity at work. The point I'm trying to make here is if one can start observing the "critic" within (such as in regards to terminology used to describe a topic title) one suddenly has a brand new choice they never knew they could make. The choice being: Is it really worth it to continue perpetuating the existence of the "critic" within. If one chooses to say "No, I don't need to follow those orders anymore", do not be surprised if the "critic" immediately retaliates and passes additional judgments against you. That's just the "critic" within, the false persona's way of telling the Observer that it feels truly threatened. It SHOULD feel threatened, cuz barking out orders to be followed to the letter is the only way it can justify its own existence. In time, however, if one chooses not to follow those incessant demands any longer the "critic" within will begin to fade away leaving more of the real essence of You to engage others in ways that make others want to interact and learn what they can from you, to value your contributions. Why do I even bother to make this suggestion? I have no doubt that Michel is extremely smart, intelligent, and well as educated both formally and informally. Also, as the moderator has stated Michel has made "positive contributions" Truth of the matter is, the real reason I've made these suggestions is: It takes a "dick" to know another "dick." One final thought: Some may ask what-in-the-tarnation is all this pop-psychobabble doing here cluttering up the vortex discussion list. Isn't Vortex-l about the exploration of AE? When did discussions start rambling off into these touchy-feely topics where thinly veiled layers of mysticism seem to be thrown in just to spice things up. It hasn't, of course. I chose to bring this particular "touchy-feely" issue to the Vort forefront because, IMHO, if one hopes to explore the mysteries of AE in all of its surprising and occasionally controversial facets it really behooves one to become as centered within the sacredness of their own Being-ness as possible. This is impossible to do if one must constantly serve the whims of the "critic" within. Performing AE R&D is hard enough work all by itself. Who really has energy to spare feeding the needs of the useless "critic" within whose only purpose in life is to stay in control - to justify its own survival. I, for one, hope to see Michel back in two weeks. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
