Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00320)

On 18 199512 Coherence@aol.com wrote:
> Now I ask you several things:
>
> 01 Do you think the energy flow will really change?
Slightly but yes IMO.

> 02 Why was it so important to know a NEW PSEUDONYM as opposed to the old
> one?
Perhaps because the "Nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of
Humanity" can only be formed from relationships between *people* messy
as they get who will always be far more than bundles of abstract ideas
floating through space.

> 03 Was this a correct ethical move? i.e. to uncover and announce the
> identity of one who chose to remain anonymous not to hide but to keep the
> focus on ideas.
Somewhat of a disingenuous argument is it not? Though I wasn't
the one seeking your name I find it rather odd that you would question
the ethics of simply using the `review' function on listserver software.
Your name wasn't "uncovered" ... its "announced" every time someone gets
the list. If you *did* wish to remain anonymous it takes but one command
to supress your name from the public list. You didn't. `Tis a tad odd to
question the ethics of people for knowing what your living room looks like
when you keep the curtains open and the lights on is it not?

> 04 What if you would have discovered something you would have rather NOT
> known?
> Beware what you ask for.
A *warning* about knowing something? What could anyone *possibly*
discovered that might have been upsetting in simply finding out who you were?

> I bet you hunted and shook all your Christmas packages when you were small.
I sure did. As well as the vast majority of American children
past and present. There is something wrong with this?

> Another comment you accuse me of hiding behind a screen name so that I can
> make condescending remarks about people and ideas which I don't think I
> have. But you do not consider that my screen name has not shielded my
> feelings when people have been condescending to me and my ideas. So which
> way does the issue cut? You also fail to note that I never use the
> participants name in my replies or comments but speak to the idea..
Not using the name doesn't mean the person is not being attacked.
Surely you have some personal involvement in at least some of your ideas
or you would not say "my" ideas or experience any sense of
condescension and hence may feel attacked when people go after them ...
just as others may feel attacked. Impersonal vocabulary is certainly
capable of thinly veiling harsh personal intent.

> <I do encourage people to use their "real" names. This actually gives their
> <comments more validity. People who speak from "behind the curtain" are
> easily <ignoredand assumed untrustworthy.
>
> Is this true? I don't think so. The idea will speak to those receptive to
> it regardless of the traditional or non-tradional pseudonym. Would you trust
> me more or would my comments have more validity if you discovered my real
> name was "Flock-of-Birds-by-the-Lake"? William Q. Judge did most of the
> writing of his lifetime behind pen names. The Masters did not use their
> "real" names. Your comment does not jive with the history of the movement.
> Names are meaningless. They identify only which "Coherence" did nicely.
But this is a discussion list the cyberspace equivilent of a
Lodge meeting ... not a book. WQJ may well have written under pen names
but did not attempt to use pseudonyms when he was actually engaged with
discussions with people. And as so far as the "history" goes that vast
majority of Theosophical writers including HPB herself certainly did
use their real names. Names are only meaningless if you believe all
Theosophy is is pure impersonal abstract ideation.
And for instance I believe the post of yours that caused your
name to be questioned had political overtones to it ... and I would say
the source of such comments is *quite* relevant; if for instance that
long legal post a couple of weeks ago had been posted anonymously I
would have been *damn* curious to know who had written it ... as the
fact that it was written by in essence a spokesperson for Algeo means
it is evaluated quite differently than if it had been written by Eldon
or KPJ or Jerry either one -:.

> I am Gregory D. Hoskins says boldly beats chest
Good to meet you.

While I certainly grasp that various aspects of the path fill people with
the urge to supress the personality which might as one of its
expressions find the supression of the personality's name to make sense
at least I know more than one friend for whom this is the case ... but
there are also other possibilities. A person for instance might like
the mysterious aura that surrounds anonymity ... might even if they were
insecure about their thoughts believe that anonymity actually lends some
weight to them.
In fact the history of occult literature is full of people using pseudonyms
and anonymity for a whole variety of reasons many of them not all that
elevated. There is almost an entire genre of second rate "occult and
mystical" whose authors fill the titles with words like "Secret" and who
write anonymously because of the titillating air of the mystic that such
devices lend ... and as publishers know it quite often *works*. Just a
sec let me get an example ....
Ah yes ha ha- a gift from a friend who gave it to me as a joke:
_The Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge_ ... subtitled "The
complete guide to the Occult" imagine! only $3.50 in paperback! what a
*deal*! -:. It is by "Zolar" who honors us his students tee hee
with the following final paragraph in the "about the author" page:
"This book is the culmination of Zolar's years of study
research and expertise. He is seldom seen because he feels that reality
is a disillusionment. He prefers to be simply "Zolar" the name everyone
knows - the person never seen".
[And I might add that after reading but the first chapter I too
felt that reality was a disillusionment -:].

While I don't believe that your motives are anything closely
resembling his still you must admit that the world of esotericism is
perhaps more than any other field of thought and letters filled with
people using psuedonyms and perhaps the majority them fall far closer to
"Zolar" than to WQJ ... its far more often a device to *get* attention
than to deflect it.
Besides if your motive was purely to keep attention on ideas
and away from personalities on a list where everyone but yourself *uses*
their name is not the use of the psuedonym *more* likely to attract
attention to your person? Regardless of what your intention was you
differentiated not your ideas but *yourself* by attempting to remain
anonymous in a discussion ... creating a situation something like a
person standing in a room of people and shouting "*Don't pay any
attention to me*!". Your motive IMO is more likely to be accomplished
by simply using your name than by not using it.
Regards -JRC