Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00635)

At 06:06 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Alexis,
>
>  I'm sorry these things are happening to Chuck.
>
>I don't however think that this gives him a right to mess up theos-l ... and
>he has been, IMHO. People are complaining, because what he writes is just
>senseless venom. I don't think anyone has the right to impose himself like
>that on other people, who, I'm sure, being human beings, have their own
>problems. I know I do, but I try to keep them out of theos-l, because I
>don't think most of them belong here. The purpose of this list, seems to me,
>is to talk theosophy, all brands of it, not to vent one's spleen. I don't
>have any suggestions as to what Chuck could do instead. Maybe you do.
>
>Liesel
>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR

Liesel:

I wish I did. But I don't. When I haven't got the vaguest idea what someone
else should do, and believe me that's very rare, I just sit quietly till I
do, or the problem goes away by itself. In this instance I think Chuck is
doing the wrong thing, but with him it's clearly a "free speech issue",
therefore anything I say to him will only make it worse. I agree with you,
this board is to discuss varying ideas and conceptions on theosophy, that's
a big spread of ideas. The most important part of it is not to get down into
personalities. I know how hard that is for some people to do. So those who
don't must, hard as it is, try to just pretend certain things weren't said.
It's the only way to avoid grief. Despite the gentleman from Canda's ideas,
I don't think we need a moderator, and we certainly don't need or even want
"decisions" we only want to make our divers points clear to people who don't
share them.
I'm attaching something I wrote on the subject of the list...I hope it works
>
>
THOUGHTS ON THEOS-LIST


There has been a lot of discussion on the purpose of a list like this, and I thought I'd like
to give my own notions on the subject. I have been engaged in secular political activism
on behalf of human rights since 1954, and in secular politics for even longer. I have been
engaged in metaphysical studies and activities since 1969, and so I am fairly familiar with
the varieties of human inter-action.

One fo the worxst effects I have experienced, both in political activities and in metaphysical
activities, is the tendency for people to speak and inter-act only with those who totally
agree with them. This is entirely incestuous, and causes nothing but trouble for those
involved. It does so because the people so "encapsulated" never have to hear any opinion
other than their own (or their leaders) and absolutely never have to so arrange their
thinking so to be able to explain their views to others. Far too many people in the over-all
Metaphysical-Occult Community (and it's hardly limited to Theosophists) are totally
disinterested in what's happening in the world we all live in. Far too many people in
political sub-sets never talk to anyone but themselves and are totally unaware that some
people may think differently than they do. Far too many Theosophists have no knowledge
of other metaphysical-occult activities in the world, and when they do, they are far too
contemptuous of anyone who doesn't agree with them. This is all harmful to the growth of
knowledge and understanding.

That is the great service performed by this list. It permits people of entirely dichotomous
views, of entirely antagonistic views, to discuss those views in an entirely "safe" and
"neutral" setting. Everyone, of every faction, learns something from this inter-action. This
inter-action cannot take place if people refuse to deal with those who disagree with them
strongly. This inter-action cannot take place if one faction dismisses the other as
"Blasphemers". It cannot take place if both sides regard the other as "revisionsits" or
"traditionalists". We are, I presume, all people who are, for some or another reason,
attracted to, and dedicated to, theosophy. It is obvious to me that there are people who are
subscribers to this list who believe me hostile to theosophy as they know it, and I, in turn,
regard those people as people who are misguided in their views of what theosophy
actually is. But this list permnits us both to interact and to explain to one another why we
believe as we do, and what we believe.

As far as I am concerned, and as far as my understanding of theosophy goes, I think there
are almost no topics that cannot be discussed and in fact dissected from a basic
theosophical viewpoint. And that certainly includes speculation as to why a truly evil
person can write transcendental music, and where the "creative muse" comes from. In fact,
it can be argued that such a discussion is appropriate under all three "Objects". In my point
of view that makes me, and those who think as I do, an "orthodox" or "Traditional"
theosophist. Other's view of me is as entirely "revisionist", I of course, view them as
revisionist. That's why this list serves such an excellent purpose. It provides a venue for
us to "excercise our differences" safely. It's a case of "I say Tomahto and you say
tomayto", we'll never know what each of us say if we don't communicate. And Theos-List
is a perfect venue for communicating.

I wish, in a way, that we could entice some non-theosophist occultists metaphysicians onto
this board so that their opinions too could be added to the Theosophical "hopper". I have
been involved in the non-theosophical metaphysical/occult community since putting on the
"Science and Spirit Exposition in 1973, and becoming Involved in a Group called "The
Meeting of the Ways" at about the same time. Being exposed to "Guru Groups", Wiccans,
Pagans, Anthroposophists, Asatru Fellowship folks" and the people of the Odhinnic
Brotherhoods, has given me a breath of view, and a perspective thatI believe is extremely
positive. Atleast I know that Theosophy isn't everything, or the only thing, but to me, it's
freedom and its nature as an investigative attitude, make it by far the most useful thing.

That's what this list is really about, it let's people of really different perspectives have an
opportunity to broaden that perspective. There isn't anyone on this list I haven't disagreed
with occasionally, there are some with whom I have disagreed frequently, but there's no
one on this that I have never agreed with. I've learned from them and I hope they've been
equally open and learned from me. That, I believe is what communicating is all about. That
and the fact that, if you're aiming at real communications, there should be no forbidden
subjects.

Alexis dolgorukii