Transcribe
Translate
Timebinder, v. 1, issue 4, 1945
Page 20
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
THOMAS S. GARDNER, Ph.D. I have read your THE TIME- BINDER with interest. The last issue has moved me to this letter. I had planned to write it a few weeks ago, but find that my time has been taken up by some special work elsewhere. The Problem of the Conscientious Objector is the reason for this letter. I have met about a dozen C.O.'s. This is the first case wherein religion has been used. The others were frankly atheists, or at the least agnostics. Therefore I am especially interested in getting the viewpoints of anyone basing C. O. on religion. About three years ago, I wrote a letter to a fellow whom I knew, in regard to C. O.. In it I outlined some reasons for his not taking the stand he did. He stated that he was a C. O. and also an atheist and seemed to think the one followed the other. After reading Mrs. David Newton's reasons for being a C. O. I realize the great gulf that separates her mind and mine. I must come to the conclusion that we are mental alients. If she is sane, then I am insane, and vice versa in the semantic sense. Our viewpoints are as different as if one of us had been born or reared up along another life stem from Homo Sapiens. She has answered one question that I have found all other C. O.'s refuse to answer. That was, would they fight to prevent the United States from being dominated, and treated by the principles laid down by the Japs and Nazis: i.e., the Japs frankly state that they and the Western peoples cannot exist on the same planet together. We must die or get off, or they must. The Nazis frankly stated that America could only exist as slaves to Germany. Mrs. Newton accepts slavery or extinction. I can only say that any one who desires either, should have their desires, and not muddle up the thinking of people who are willing to fight, die, and work for a better world. There is no common ground for the two types of minds. (( I have reread her letter a number of times, and do not find those statements. I think Dr. Gardner has misinterpreted her meaning. -- EEE )). Biologically, and I presume that biological laws work for both C. O.'s and other people, such a viewpoint can only end in one way, extinction of the species or group having it. Isn't it rather strange that there are practically no C. O.'s among the great scientists, great doctors, great engineers, great statesmen, in the world! Is it possible that the passive attitude and will for oblivion prevents sane thinking? I am using the expression "sane thinking" in the semantic sense. Also a careful study of General Semantics, for example, A. Korzubski's Science and Sanity has been known to cure psychopathic cases. I wonder what it would do for a C.O.? Is there a C. O. willing to try it as a scientific experiment? It would be at least interesting. 20
Saving...
prev
next
THOMAS S. GARDNER, Ph.D. I have read your THE TIME- BINDER with interest. The last issue has moved me to this letter. I had planned to write it a few weeks ago, but find that my time has been taken up by some special work elsewhere. The Problem of the Conscientious Objector is the reason for this letter. I have met about a dozen C.O.'s. This is the first case wherein religion has been used. The others were frankly atheists, or at the least agnostics. Therefore I am especially interested in getting the viewpoints of anyone basing C. O. on religion. About three years ago, I wrote a letter to a fellow whom I knew, in regard to C. O.. In it I outlined some reasons for his not taking the stand he did. He stated that he was a C. O. and also an atheist and seemed to think the one followed the other. After reading Mrs. David Newton's reasons for being a C. O. I realize the great gulf that separates her mind and mine. I must come to the conclusion that we are mental alients. If she is sane, then I am insane, and vice versa in the semantic sense. Our viewpoints are as different as if one of us had been born or reared up along another life stem from Homo Sapiens. She has answered one question that I have found all other C. O.'s refuse to answer. That was, would they fight to prevent the United States from being dominated, and treated by the principles laid down by the Japs and Nazis: i.e., the Japs frankly state that they and the Western peoples cannot exist on the same planet together. We must die or get off, or they must. The Nazis frankly stated that America could only exist as slaves to Germany. Mrs. Newton accepts slavery or extinction. I can only say that any one who desires either, should have their desires, and not muddle up the thinking of people who are willing to fight, die, and work for a better world. There is no common ground for the two types of minds. (( I have reread her letter a number of times, and do not find those statements. I think Dr. Gardner has misinterpreted her meaning. -- EEE )). Biologically, and I presume that biological laws work for both C. O.'s and other people, such a viewpoint can only end in one way, extinction of the species or group having it. Isn't it rather strange that there are practically no C. O.'s among the great scientists, great doctors, great engineers, great statesmen, in the world! Is it possible that the passive attitude and will for oblivion prevents sane thinking? I am using the expression "sane thinking" in the semantic sense. Also a careful study of General Semantics, for example, A. Korzubski's Science and Sanity has been known to cure psychopathic cases. I wonder what it would do for a C.O.? Is there a C. O. willing to try it as a scientific experiment? It would be at least interesting. 20
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
