Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01397)

At 11:11 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
Daniel:

I'm going to respond to your message paragraph by paragraph. But first let
me say this, as of this morning I was (and perhaps still am) seriously
considering signing-off this list as I do not wish to be considered a
divisive or dominating influence. But perhaps JRC is right..take a deep
breath step back and calm dawn...I'm trying to take his advice for myself,
and for the nonce, we'll see what happens.
>
>Your characterization of what I do or don't do, I will let each person on
>Theos-l decide for themselves whether
>it is accurate or not.  I would simply suggest that the interested person go
>back and read the content of what I have
>written to you over the last month or so.  Until recently I did not know
>that you were upset with me.I had sent
>you a copy of my book, etc.  But starting several days ago, you seemed
>really put out with Rich Taylor and then it
>seemed you turned your displeasure on me.

Now I want to ask you, will you grant that I am sincere in how I feel about
these things? If you grant that, I can deal with it. As to Richard Taylor,
yes I was "put out" with him, and honestly I still am. It is not his age
that bothers me but his attitude and crassness. To me it seems as if he
doesn't grant anyone else the right to any opinion counter to his own, and
that bothers and irritates me. I really don't feel that I "turned my
displeasure from him to you". I got hot under the collar because I felt you
were not, in some way, reading what I felt to be calm and reasonable
responses to your questions, and instead of saying "O.K. Alexis, I read your
response and now I'd like to ask you....." It just seemed to me that my
attempts at answering you were ignored entirely and the same old questions
were slightly re-phrased and asked again as if I had made no attempt at all
to communicate with you. This I think, is adequate to explain irritation
even in a person without my admittedly "hair trigger temper". I was, as I
told you earlier, very glad to receive your book. But Daniel, I honestly
felt that you were not interested in discussion with me but only interested
in making me look foolish. Perhaps I was/am wrong I surely hope so, and if I
am, I apologize, but I truly think that, perhaps simply thoughtlessly, you
contributed to this situation.
>
>As far as I know I have not called you names or anything like that.  And
>what's wrong with asking you for more
>details on a statement you've made or asking you for a quotation or
>citation.  Now if you don't want to provide the
>information, etc,, then fine.  I won't waste my time asking for it.  But I
>thought this was a DISCUSSION group.....
>As for asking for the original source, when someone says HPB taught this or
>CWL was accused of that, is it so
>unreasonable to ask for the source for this general statement?  This is my
>modus operandi and I sometimes drive
>myself crazy, but I believe it is a good way to get to the heart of the
>matter.  If your statement is not just based on
>a simple quotation, but is the result of study or something else, would it
>not also be helpful to give a short explanation of that and try to convey
>some of your reasoning BEHIND the bald statement.  Maybe you are correct in
>some of what you
>say about HPB, her books, etc.,  maybe you're not, but how can I or anyone
>else determine that if you don't share some
>of that with the rest of the group.  I would hope that theos-l could be a
>place where those who would like to learn more could in fact do so.  Again
>maybe Theos-l is not a discussion group where the players involved can share
>their
>opinions, insights, etc.

Well I should hope, and certainly DID hope that Theos-L was a place that all
people could share their thoughts with others and perhaps, in sharing them,
come to understand them better. But Daniel, being called a "heretic" a
"Blasphemer" and "Anti=Blavatsky" is hardly "sharing". Now I hasten to add
that you didn't do that, but it created an atmosphere of animosity that I
felt was out of place and unfortunately the "old Hair Trigger" went to work
and I reacted rather than pro acted. Now I do think that you will admit that
I almost never (if ever) preface any of my opinions with a statement that
"So and So said". I don't feel the need for authority to back my opinions. I
may sometimes say that "I think that So and So thought thus and such". but
then it should be obvious that this is based upon my "reading" of them. Not
everyone works the way I do for I am an individual and I do things "My Way".
Look at it this way, when I say: "I think H.P.B. thought.......etc." I am
giving an opinion based upon a synthesis of everything I have read both by
her, and about her. This is my "modus operandi" in everything I do. Perhaps
it's because of the fact that I have an eidetic memory and so synthesis of
stored data is the easiest thing for me to do. But then, when someone comes
along and asks me to justify my opinion with "chapter and verse" it's really
hard to do. As I understand it, a synthesis is just that, a
blend or compendium of a lot of otherwise disconnected data. I have written
a five hundred some odd page book on my synthesis , how can I explain one of
them in a venue this limited? I welcome questions because I am relatively
sure of my syntheses, but let me know you received my responses, and by
responding to them directly go on to ask other questions. That I will have
no trouble with.
>
>In the recent dialogue between Jerry S and Jerry HE, one would say HPB
>taught this and the other one might say
>HPB said that.  Since this is a discussion list with almost 90 people on
>board, I believe a few people on this list
>might have appreciated HPB's own words or some reference to where her words
>could be found.  This is why I suggested to both Jerry HE and Jerry S that
>they should reference their sources since the issue being discussed
>was whether there were differences between what HPB and CWL taught on the
>subject.  I have studied HPB for years,
>but in some of the comments by both Jerrys I had no idea exactly what they
>meant or were referring to when they said
>HPB taught or CWL said.  Now if they don't want to cite the exact source,
>okay.  But it makes it difficult for anyone
>else [at least for me!] who wants to really follow the thread of discussion
>and TRY  to understand the content of what is being said.

As to the above, at the risk of being considered a "Philistine", after an
early perusal I avoided that "string" because the discussion of "who said
what" just doesn't interest me, nor does the topic they were discussing.

>Alexis, in summary, I have many times (not all the time) enjoyed reading
>what you have written and in fact you have
>presented many interesting and even thought-provoking ideas.  You certainly
>have made Theos-l sometimes a
>more exciting place.  But you yourself recently said that you admired HPB
>for she challenged authority, etc.  Well,
>if HPB was here today on Theos-l, might not she challenge some of my
>opinions, or some of your statements or something Eldon or Rich or whoever
>might say?  I would suspect that she would.  Maybe each of us on Theos-l
>(at least those who participant) need to take a deep breath (as JRC wisely
>counseled)  and try to take a step or two
>back and not be caught up in any emotions that may distort our
>perceptions,etc.  Surely each of us can take some heat
>(if that if what we perceive it to be) from others on this list.  IF WE CAN
>GIVE IT, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IT.
>Or as they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  HPB
>challenged entrenched dogmas and ideas of her
>day.  She was willing to turn up the heat.  In turn, what was she to expect?
>On Theos-l, with such diversity of opinion,
>what can one expect but some heat, sometimes scorching heat?  But why can't
>the heat be directed at the ideas,
>instead of at people on the other side of the discussion.  For example, Rich
>Taylor has been criticized a number of times on this list for his age.  Oh,
>when you are older, Rich, you will see my point of view and its validity.
>Maybe or maybe not.  But what is this, but not a not so subtle reference to
>Rich's supposed immaturity of thought.    What does such
>a reference really prove?  Maybe I'm 74 and I agree with Rich.  Win your
>supposed "opponent" to your side by showing
>with reason, etc. the superiority or the truthfulness of your ideas.  Focus
>on IDEAS not the person who conveys the
>idea. [ I betcha that there are people on Theos-l and out there in the real
>world who would agree with Alexis'
>ideas about HPB's anthopogenesis.]  Therefore focus on the idea not the
>person.  Does the idea or statement merit attention, approval,rejection,
>etc. regardless of who wrote or said it.
>
>Food for thought,
>
>Daniel
>
Now as to that last: I was considering "signing off" because some people
seem to find me a disturbing and distracting influence and I don't want to
ruin the list. I do get upset with those who imply disagreement with H.P.B.
is "heresy", I do get upset with people who imply that disagreement with
their point-of-view makes one not a theosophist. Now as to Richard Taylor
and the age question. I am not the only person who has brought that up. It's
not the immaturity of his ideas we are finding fault with it's the
immaturity of his attitude. So he's got a degree from Harvard, so what?
There are people on this board who have several degrees and are as
well-informed and easily as intelligent as he is, but he doesn't seem to
grant that possibility. He seems to operate on the premise that anyone who
doesn't accept his views as gospel are either ignorant fools or malevolent
heretics, and this I, and others, object to. I also object to his incapacity
to hold a gentlemanly discussion. I tend to judge people this way: "Would I
invite them to dinner"? Now you or Eldon I would gladly invite into my home,
and even cook you one hell of a vegetarian meal. But Richard Taylor? No, I
don't think so. Of course that's based upon our interaction on this list,
but based upon that interaction he just doesn't seem to be the kind of
person I want to get to know better. If he was only rude to me, I might
assume a good portion of the responsibility for it, but I read this list,
and He's really rude to almost everyone. I had an early very bad experience
with the ULT and to me, he typifies that experience.

alexis
>
>
>
>