Theos-Talk Archives (September 1994 Message tl00071)

This is by Eldon Tucker

----

Jerry H-E:

    I just went back to my dictionary and find that anarchism
is "the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are
oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." Your
mention of one of the good points of the conference, that it
was done by the participants rather than the organizers points
in this direction. I should have put a smiley face next to
"anarchists" in my earlier posting so as to not arouse
anyone's anger.
    I'm not sure that you have come up with an new
organization type. What you describe sounds like what happens
when friends hang out together. It is also similar to what
I've seen a graduate class in management back in 1973. The
different ways that people can relate to each other are as old
as humanity itself. Approaches seem new to us if we're
unfamiliar with them, but do you really think that you're on
to something really new?
    I also concede that since I wasn't at the conference,
there's much to it that I don't know about. The fact of the
conference itself, and the issues that it raises, are
legitimate subjects for discussion.
    You mention that Theosophy was present, talked about, and
explored in an open, uncensored manner. That's great. But this
brings us to some basic questions. There are many similarities
between the conference and other New Age gatherings. What is
it that makes your conference particularly theosophical? What
is Theosophy and where does it fit into the picture? Is there
anything at all that can be found in your conference that is
not found elsewhere? If so, what is it? Or if not, what call
it "theosophical?"
    As I puzzle over these questions, I may attempt an answer
at them. Later, should I grow in wisdom, my answers may be
different. It is obvious that, since I was not there, I cannot
answer to the particular experiences of people at this
conference. But I have the right to ask "where's the meat?" in
such a conference, because that question directly approaches
basic beliefs that our worldviews are based upon, very serious
questions. (As a side note: "where's the meat?" is probably
not the best phrase for a vegetarian to use...)
    I agree with you that pagan ceremonies should not be
banned, nor should conference attenders find themselves
censored. All viewpoints should be explored, *even those that
question your fundamental beliefs.* I might describe a scheme
where such a gathering is compared to a festive gathering
outside the Temple, and a contemplation of the Philosophy is
the most-direct approach (similar to the Neo-Platonic
approach). You might believe in a different scheme where the
approach I'd describe is not considered more direct, and feel
that what you value has been belittled. Certainly that is not
my intent. When I read about the conference, though, I feel
that a statement is implicitly being made about what Theosophy
is and where it can be found, a statement that I feel that
must be questioned.

J.T. Coker and 3rd Party:

    I may have hit a raw nerve in my last posting. As I just
mentioned with Jerry, I should have probably used a smiley
face when I said "anarchists." It is always threatening to
hear your basic beliefs questioned. When I find this
happening, I am encouraged to write positively about my
dissenting views, rather than blast the bearer of views that
I don't like.
    As anyone in this electronic discussion forum, I'm
entitled to write about my views as though they were true. I
doubt that anything can be said without some disagreement. The
beauty of the group is that there is truly *no censorship.*
When you disagree, you are free to write an alternate view,
without some editor picking and choosing the postings.
    Because of the lack of censorship, we see a wider range
of views represented. Some people have not lasted long on
"theos-l", because they cannot agree with some of the
postings. They prefer to read magazines and associate with
people of like mind, and do not enjoy the challenge of clearly
explaining their views on an on-going basis. One person may
drop out upon reading something "anti-Leadbeater." Another,
with a ULT-background, may drop out upon reading something
"pro-Leadbeater." It's a no-win situation if one wants to
cling to his intolerance. Those that stay on either have some
tolerance for views that fundamentally disagree with their
own, or simply won't read or look at things by writers they've
decided espouse "bad views."
    Your description of the retreat as a "private gathering"
about which word should be spread "privately among friends"
paints a different picture of the conference than the one I
get from Jerry's postings. I hope that the intent is not to
limit the conference to those of your variant of Theosophy,
and exclude participation by those of other variants, which
you may find espousing something that sounds like "boorish
bullshit, arising out of overbearing pride, that must be
censored lest it might infect others with its awful version of
reality."
    Don't you think that we'd all benefit more from you
participation in the group, if you would write about the
wonders and values of the approaches you find grand? It's much
better than warning others to watch their words, to find fault
with them for speaking bullshit that keeps the Theosophical
Movement small.
    There's a lot to write about and study with Theosophy. I
don't understand how some of us become bored with the basic
Teachings, and find them tiring to revisit. I find that there
is always something more to even the most basic doctrines,
when I try yet again to explain them. And our discussion group
gives us a wonderful opportunity to write about nearly
everything. Some people, like Arvind, last Fall, were drawn
into many long hours each week, finding much value in the
participation.
    I should state for the record that I'm not upset at the
conference, and that I'm not angry in response to your
posting. I consider you to have misread my feelings behind the
posting, and my intent, and were responding to that
misperception. I do thing, as a matter of policy, that it's
best not to respond when angry at something, since then it's
the anger speaking. If I was upset, I'd wait a few days before
replying to you.
    You tell me to "lighten up." Ok. I'll try, but I don't
feel myself as being intentionally harsh. I'm feel that it's
important to write about the things that I do. Granted, some
may not like what I write about. That's true, though, when any
of us write: some will not like it. Look at your last posting
and decide if you too need to lighten up a little? A humorous
touch goes a lot farther than an angry blast!