Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00320)

Jerry Hejka-Ekins:

Following are some comments on your posting on the state of
things on `theos-l'. (Excuse the writing style if there are
too many should's in it; I just want to get out my reaction
before too much time passes.) I'm not writing about you or
any particular people on the list, but speaking in general
about the great opportunity we have in this forum.

Achieving Our Potential -- Eldon Tucker

Our expectations of the behavior of the mailing list depend
upon which paradigm that we use to describe what is going
on. We can be happy with the state of things, or at least
not surprised at what happens -- or we can be shocked and
disappointed.

If we take the model of a study class, there is a single
thread of conversation. Depending upon the type of program
going on, there is an appropriate topic, and we are expected
to stay on the theme, and not change the subject. The topic
might be an historic study of past Theosophists, and people
offended by too much explicit history would stay away. The
topic might be a psychic travelogue, with those feeling that
approach to be degrading could stay away. Or the topic could
be a specific study of the Theosophical philosophy, where we
actually study the tenants, rather than promoting dozens of
conflicting opinions, each opinion informing the world how
much better it is than the old, out-of-date, half-developed
theosophical literature of the last century!

The problem with written rather than spoken, in-person,
communication is that we don't see the other people. We
cannot gauge their reaction to what we say, and adjust our
exposition accordingly. With the internet, in email, we are
at a greater disadvantage than other methods of written
expression. In magazines and books, there are a number of
graphic, visual cues that we can embellish our writings
with.

Let's consider the advantages of `theos-l'.

First, there is *complete freedom of expression.* We are not
subject to the dictates of a magazine editor or publisher
regarding what is suitable content. We do not have to
conform to someone else's standards or ideas.

Second, there is *immediate feedback.* We have a form of
expression where we are published immediately, and can hear
a number of reactions to our writings within hours of when
we sent it out.

Third, there is *a healthy diversity of viewpoints.* We have
a group of students that have come together through a common
interest in Theosophy, and that are not subject to any
organizational restrictions or structures. No matter what we
might say, there could easily be vocal disagreement. Is this
bad? No, within healthy bounds, a good discussion needs
differing views. We can sound out, and work out or define
the differences in viewpoints on Theosophy that may not
otherwise find a forum. The meetings of no Theosophical
group, I'd say, would be as inclusive of differing views on
the Philosophy as we find on `theos-l'.

For a healthy participation in `theos-l', we need to not
have any expectations, but take for ourselves the same
freedom we'd expect everyone to have: the freedom to write
on what we find true, and what we find important and worthy
of sharing with others.

No matter what we may write on, we'll find some people
interested, and enhancing our discussion; others might
object or be offended. So what? The only problem with this
is when intolerance takes over.

We have intolerance when we must tell others to "shut up!"
rather than allowing their interests to co-exist with ours.
We can pass over writings or discussion on topics that we
don't like, or that we may find offensive, without seeking
to stifle or punish their writers. We need to grant to
others the same freedom of expression that we should
properly take for ourselves.

We should give up the paradigm of a single-threaded study
class, and embrace openness. A better paradigm would be of
an interactive magazine, with multiple articles on its
pages, some of interest to us, and others we may decide to
skip over. Or we could consider that of a community college,
with multiple classes under the same roof. Some classes we'd
find intellectually challenging; others would bore us to
tears, or would redden our faces with anger. To exist in
this setting, the responsibility is on us to pick
appropriate classes to attend, rather than drive away
students and instructors of `inappropriate' materials, or
rather than our dropping out and missing the classes we'd
value.

We're continually getting new people on `theos-l', and it
takes them a little while to adjust to the new environment.
They may initially write too harshly, or be unnecessarily
confrontational; diplomacy and tact is learned by
experience, and we get that experience fairly quickly
because of the immediate feedback that arises to our
postings.

The recent discussion on Paul Johnson's books is a single
thread of discussion, a single class in our `online
community college'. This thread may deal with the topic of
Paul's situation of dealing with the anger and intolerance
that is given to him in generous portions. This is an
entirely different thread or `class' than the topic of the
completeness of his information, and of the discussion of
the logic of how that information leads to conclusions.

We can all appreciate the topic of dealing with anger and
attacks from people not wanting to hear what we say, because
it challenges certain core beliefs of theirs. We experience
this, potentially, whenever we present theosophical ideals
to someone not quite ready for them. We all can experience
hostility and attack from others on an emotional level,
unrelated to what we consider are our better ideas.

I don't think that a historic discussion has to go
elsewhere, or hide on some other mailing list, so as to not
offend some readers. If we did that for historic discussion,
who's to say what other topics are next to be banished,
because a few readers are offended, until there is very
little general discussion left at all? We could find, for
instance, that all discussion of OOBE's and the psychic be
banished to `t-psychic', all talk of the Masters as real and
not fictional characters to `t-masters', all talk of
recarnation to `t-rebirth', etc.

The solution is not in banishment of topics based upon the
intolerance and offense taken by people. Rather, the
solution is in increased tolerance by our vocal readers, and
the ability to either be open-minded or to politely not read
materials that are not personally liked.

We have an opportunity to write on Theosophy to an audience
so diverse that we're guaranteed a sympathetic hearing. And
at the same time, we have an opportunity for immediate
criticism, sometimes of an unexpected nature, which
challenges us to write even more clearly and to better
express ourselves.

I would not say that `theos-l' is pathological. Because of
our lack of control over the participants and their
responses, we have to deal with unexpected emotions and
inner reactions. Dealt with properly, they help us to grow
and become better people. Ignored or denied, they lead us to
strike out angrily, or to withdraw our participation.

There will always be people that, to our viewpoint, don't
think straight, and allow emotion to rule, people we cannot
talk to logically. And there will be those that are eager to
mock ideas and ideals which we hold close to our hearts and
hold sacred. This happens everywhere in life, even in
theosophical meetings. How should we react? We respond with
greater clarity, with greater insight, with greater
inspiration, with the hope that we can touch the others and
eventually share the truth and beauty that we have found in
the Esoteric Philosophy.

There's a saying: "don't cast pearls before swine." But like
all sayings, it's a half-truth. It aptly applies in certain
situations; in other situations it may be completely wrong.
In the case of `theos-l', I'd say it does not apply. Every
expression of something of value, every attempt to share
something of value, does good to both us and the world. This
is regardless of the objections or disagreement we'll
sometimes hear.

When we take a step to given tangible expression to the
great Teachings, we're doing the work that the T.S. was
founded to assist in. The work is in the giving expression
to the Gnosis of Life. It is not a quantitative thing, where
a readership count affects its value to the world. We change
ourselves for the better, and brighten the world, when we
sit down and write, *with the intent of sharing*.

We should all be free to write about what we value and want
to share. (Even John Mead should freely dive into the
discussions. If John feels he must hold back to appear
neutral because of his position of maintaining the mailing
lists, I'd suggest he get another account, perhaps on
AOL.COM, and join in under a pseudonym.)

It's equally wrong for us to hold back from writing on what
we'd say, because of fear of others attacking us and telling
us to shut up, as it is wrong for us to tell others to shut
up and not write on certain topics we'd rather not see.

Let's see more people open up and start sharing their ideas,
sharing what they've learned or have been wondering about.
Let's come alive on `theos-l' and let it achieve it's
potential!