.jpg?width=300)
Lester B. Pearson
14th Prime Minister of Canada, from 1963 to 1968 (1897–1972)
The numbers
3 + 4 = 7
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 5, 6. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 7 — The Seeker
Seven is the analyst and the mystic at once — the tradition assigns it both, and does not treat that as a contradiction. It is read as the number of depth, solitude and the refusal to accept a surface explanation. Its difficulty is distance: the withdrawal that makes the thinking possible is read as coldness by everyone outside it, and 7 is described as being misunderstood more often than it is disliked.
Complete lines
Line of Reason
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Expression
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Ambition
The 7-8-9 column complete. Read as drive that has both the wish and the machinery — the traditional marker of someone who converts intention into position.
Cooperation
A complete line in the grid.
Organisation
A complete line in the grid.
What is missing
Missing 5
The centre of the grid, so its absence is weighted heavily. Read as difficulty adapting mid-course — a preference for the plan already chosen over the plan now indicated.
Missing 6
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 5 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 7 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Budha
Mercury. Intellect, commerce, speech. Read as quickness and adaptability.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Alfred Nobel decreed that this award should be conferred on someone who, in the opinion of the Committee, should have done the most or the best work to promote fraternity between nations for the abolition and reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. As to the first, I do not know that I have done very much myself to promote fraternity between nations but I do know that there can be no more important purpose for any man's activity or interests. So far as abolishing arms are concerned, those of Nobel's day are now out of date, but I used they will destroy us all. So they must be themselves destroyed. As for the promotion of peace congresses we have had our meetings and assemblies, but the promotion through them of the determined and effective will to peace displaying itself in action and policy remains to be achieved.
Of all our dreams today there is none more important — or so hard to realise — than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.
Until the last great war, a general expectation of material improvement was an idea peculiar to Western man. Now war and its aftermath have made economic and social progress a political imperative in every quarter of the globe. If we ignore this, there will be no peace. There has been a widening of horizons to which in the West we have been perhaps too insensitive. Yet it is as important as the extension of our vision into outer space. Today continuing poverty and distress are a deeper and more important cause of international tensions, of the conditions that can produce war, than previously.
Things can be done under the incentive of terror and fear that can not be done when the fear disappears.
Nothing, I suppose, could better demonstrate than the Suez crisis the extent to which the United Nations had remained a central factor in our foreign policy. Our problem was, and is, one of long standing, how to bring about a creative peace and a security which will have a strong foundation. It remained my conviction that there could never be more than a second-best substitute for the UN in preserving the peace. Organizations such as NATO were necessary and desirable only because the UN was not effective as a security agency. UNEF was a step in the right direction in putting international force behind an international decision. The birth of that force had been sudden and had been surgical. The arrangements for the reception of the infant were rudimentary, and the midwives had no precedents or genuine experience to guide them.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.