Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00255)

To Paul et al,

Paul writes:

> The one thing I think would be most helpful for me, and maybe for
> us, is to devise some guidelines for what should be reserved for
> private email vs.  general distribution.  For example, should
> Jerry post his evaluation of my book to the list, I'll respond to
> the list only with the most detached of clarifications,
> admissions, explanations of how missing pieces are dealt with in
> the sequel, etc.  If there are any comments that evoke an
> emotional response, and that I think he should know about, it
> will be posted only to him.  In other words, more sensitivity to
> the audience of one's remarks will probably reduce a lot of
> tension and irritation.  There's something about being PUBLICLY
> attacked that drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and
> contributes to the downward spiral of cyberpathology.

I understand what you are saying and would wholeheartedly agree
were it not for the niggliing objection that going public with
our deepest hopes and fears, even to the point of subjecting them
to ridicule, seems to me a sort of healing and adventure too.  I
have said things on line which I have said with fear and a sense
of vulnerablity but I know that I must be willing to be enhanced
or furthered in my understandings of theosophy, spirituality and
my communication style.  When what I pick up as a mean spirited
post comes my way I have the option of ignoring it, finding the
partial truth of it, or valiantly defending my position for all
it is worth.  The last option is rarely tried since I hardly have
firm positions in regard to theosophy yet.

I have generally assumed good will on the part of Theo-l
responders but I know there are many bees in our bonnets, many
sacred cows, and a lot to disagree on.  The major problem I see
in the dynamics of communication is that people take there
perspectives as more than subjective or individual.  I always
assume that my expression is limited and that language is
metaphor pointing toward the great Mystery of life.  Otherwise
you are delving into "revelation" which is subject to no critique
at all.  It is an arguement on a grand scale about whose
"revelation" is bigger than yours.  It is like the kids game, My
dad is bigger and better than yours.  Everyone comes to know that
subjectively that is always true and no one holds the correct
measuring stick anyway.  So have real Mahatma, have inner guides
, have extra terresterials, but more than that have love, a
desire to understand and the humility to not know what you are
talking about sometimes.

We can be good humoured in all of this or we can take ourselves
terribly seriously and perhaps those who do are accomplishing
something the rest of us don't understand but should respect
anyway.

> Somehow, if we write to just one person, even if there is an
> impulse to attack something they've written, the knowledge of one
> human being with feelings reading what we write is much more
> conducive to productive exchange than the quasi-anonymity of
> duking it out in front of God and everyone.  And if we just need
> to vent, there is almost always some individual to lend a willing
> ear on email and to sympathize with our feelings.  In the case of
> the TMR debates, that became abundantly clear to me through the
> private posts of quite a few people.

Love those private posts too! But please lets all be forthright
and ourselves never writing in order to avoid those inevitable
confrontations.  I want to hear about those Mahatmas and all the
variant views on them and on your book.  I would like to get into
it deeper once I get your book.

Here, I will say some thing personal.  I will undoubtedly change
my views but , I don't like some of what I have been reading
about the Mahatmas because they a seem to me to be extra psychic
sources of authority.  I prefer Emerson's acts of intuitive self
reflection to the Mahatma letters as Scripture.

The choice is to flame this because you have a advanced view and
want to prove you do.  Consider it the rambling of a noviate.
Try to understand where this poor refugee of religious
fundamentalism is coming from.  Debate the meta-issue of
authority in spirituality is .  Or just delete it.  Whatever, the
response I get will undoubtedly clarify my position, if my
motives aren't misread and good will prevails.  If they are I
will...  who knows what I will do, it ranges from crawl in a
corner and whimper, to get angry enough to read and study more,
in the end I will try to understand what gift I have been given..

Art