Theos-Talk Archives (October 1993 Message tl00113)

John M:

With respect and appreciation for the work that you have been doing to
make "theos-l" possible, I must say that I feel that the breaking
apart of "theos-l" into four lists was premature, and would like to
make a few comments.

The focus of a discussion group should be based upon the willingness
of its members to participate and contribute ideas and materials.
Until now, there has been a single, unrestricted group, "theos-l",
with everyone free to write about whatever theosophical matters
interest them.

You have proposed that "theos-l" be broken up into four lists,
and has given us a breakdown of what should go in each list. When
I first read the announcement, my first reaction was to wonder if
you are asserting ownership of the list, *telling* us how it will
now be, or if you are proposing a particular breaking apart of the
list. I would be seriously concerned if any form of censorship or
control is imposed.

I would have been happier about the changes if a proposal was
posted, and we all had time to comment and discuss it before the
changes were made. (And this would include a discussion where our
ideas were posted, and not just in private email to you.)

There needs to be a unrestricted group for general theosophical
discussion, with no requirement that it meet someone's standards for
minimum academic quality, where the content is not limited to just
one aspect of Theosophy. If the new definition of the groups allows
"theos-l" to continue as it is, and be such a group, then having the
other groups are fine.

Regarding 'news', I'd expect about two-or-three items a month to show
up, and don't see sufficient volume to justify a separate list.

Regarding the distinction between 'roots' and 'buds', it would be
fine to separate out discussions solely of theosophical history
apart from those of philosophy. But to classify a study of the
original writings of Theosophy and their study in a group
with history, in a group distinct from one based upon the
emmergent growth of the Theosophical Movement ('buds'), implies
the idea, which I think is mistaken, that a study of the original
materials is looking to the past, and different from the budding
growth of Theosophy in the future.

If we were to break apart Theosophy by content, I'd break it
between 'philosophy' and 'science', where one group deals with
timeless issues of philosophy, and the other relates the
ideas of Theosophy to today's science.

I'd expect much of the discussion to continue in 'theos-l',
where there are no restrictions placed on what theosophical
material is contributed.

----

If there were a general discussion of the list, my proposal would
have been to make it into three lists:

theos-intro

    Introductory discussion of Theosophy. Everything is kept
    simple. Content is aimed at people without prior background
    in theosophical study. This group is the one that is
    generally announced.

theos-gen

    General discussion of theosophy. No limit to how advanced
    the topic. Someone not familiar to Theosophy may not be
    able to follow.

theos-misc

    News, general announcements, discussion about computer
    technical issues regarding email and internet access,
    announcements of projects needing help.

                                 Eldon Tucker
                                 eldon@netcom.com