Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00278)

Aki Writes:

AK> It seems, that first God created Man as His Image and now man
has created computer as his image.  This is not matter of good or
bad, just a fact.  But sad is, by my view, that some people get
so deep hooked on computers, without first learning to manage by
themselves, that it might take lots of incarnations to learn the
other side.  But I also think that we have created this situation
by ourselves and knowingly, so this phase is obviously needed.

     Perhaps in some ways the computer has replaced God.


Paul Johnson Writes:

PJ>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.

     Sounds fair

PJ> There's something about being PUBLICLY attacked that
drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and contributes to
the downward spiral of cyberpathology.  Conversely, private email
can heal such interpersonal conflicts that originate in public,
as I have observed on all the lists and newsgroups mentioned.

If appears so.  It may be that fighting is a necessary human
activity, even on Internet.  If so, then perhaps we need rules
for fighting.

PJ> In closing, to speak theosophese for a minute, cyberspace
seems to accentuate the extent to which we live in kama-manas.
But in all the clashes of thoughts and feelings is the key to an
evolutionary process in which manas will eventually become more
dominant.  Gradually, what we know will be more important to us
than what we want to believe.  It may take a million years, but
the Internet might cut it down to 900,000.

Now that's the most positive thing I've heard all day (!?).  Do
ya think with some dedication we can cut it down to 850,000? :-)

By the way Paul, I'm still waiting for your itinerary and plans
for April.  Will you be staying with us?

Lewis Lucas Wrote:

LL> C.W.  Leadbeater wrote a small pamphlet about lodge work in
which he talks about the need in each group for three types,
which he referred to as oilers, boilers and toilers.  The toilers
were those stalwart members who created a solid foundation.  They
were always at the meetings no matter what the topic, often
holding routine offices in the lodge, taking care of the lodge's
business interest, etc.  The boilers, on the other hand, could be
counted on for stimulating discussion, advocating change,
exploring new ideas and territory and being a general nusiance to
the toilers.  Which is where the oilers came in with the skills
to keep the tensions from other two extremes from riping the
group apart.

Interesting that CWL's description of over sixty years ago still
can be applied to Lodge dynamics today.  I wonder where the line
is between when the oilers, boilers and toilers are holding the
pathology in check, and when true harmony emerges.  Thank you for
the citation.

[Citation from a post that appeared today]

>One associate of mine is _convinced_ (He's away right now, but I
>will ask for backup :-)) that HPB wrote (most of?) the Mahatma
>Letters to Sinnet.
>Alan

Sounds great.  I'm  looking forward to learning about his
convincing evidence.

Alan Bain Writes:

AB>Some _very_ good points in your posting.  I wonder if there is
a case for posting _academic_ approaches to a different list? For
example, querying Paul's (or anyone else's) sources, asking for
verification data for research purposes, etc., etc.  - much as
one would in a college situation.  Transcibed material has been
posted on t-roots and t-buds - should we have a t-scholarly or
something similar .  .  .  .  blah blah blah ...

Alan

Sounds like an exciting idea.  I think that a discussion bound by
the rules of academic discourse might be fascinating-- and
perhaps even productive.  Such rules are very easy to learn, and
one doesn't have to be an academic to participate.

By the way, did you ever receive my private post to you dated
March 13th.?

Peace
Jerry Hejka-Ekins