Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01442)

At 10:06 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>
>>We were Christened "The Gang of four", which is certainly not a
>>compliment, by one of the group to which I referred. That we have
>>chosen to flaunt the insult, I do not feel to be a bad thing.
>
>In a posting where you mentioned that you and three others on
>the list where supporting a certain position, I coined the
>term "gang of four" with intended humor. The four of your seemed
>to like the term and you've already had one outsider join, making
>five!
>
>Somehow you've decided to take it as an insult and carry it with
>bitterness, when you only would have had to ask me what did I
>mean by the term! It certainly was not as strongly worded as
>a Chuck-ism...

Eldon: Oh heaven knows it wasn't as strong as a "Chuckism" but when a term
as commonly familiar as "Gang of four" is used, and when that term has never
been perceived anywhere as anything but a pejorative, I don't think I, or
any of the other four were remiss for not asking you what it meant. Your
care, and aptitude with words is very well appreciated by me, and so I
assumed you wouldn't be guilty of a "carelessness".
>
>Also, you seem to be putting me in a group with others with
>different views and approaches to Theosophy. The only thing
>that we may have in common is to believe that it might actually
>be true. Should that be so remarkable on a list that would
call itself theosophical?

Eldon: I sincerely apologize for including you in a group to which you
clearly don't belong. Please for give me, as my most recent messages both to
you  personally and to Daniel Caldwell should make clear I have the highest
opinion of you even though I do not agree with many things regarding your
views on Theosophy. But then that's what I think theosophy's all about. I
can only speak for myself, but I'm sure the rest of the "Gang" would largely
agree, but I do not have any less belief in the reality and validity of
theosophy than you do, it's just that our points of view, or perspectives on
that reality are completely different. But I think we are all, in our won
ways, equally dedicated to the motto of the society and to it's three
objects. It's regarding "what came after" that we disagree, and I may say,
disagree strongly. I don't disbelieve in theosophy, I just don't believe in
the same theosophy as you do.
>
>Why all the us-versus-them polarizations? I'm not taking sides nor
>seeing battle lines drawn. I respond to various people and postings,
>or make original postings of my own, as I feel an interest and
>attraction to do so. I'm not operating out of some crusade to make
>things a certain way.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>P.S. When I was trying a cut-and-paste in constructing this
>message, it somehow escaped before it was fully edited...
>
Eldon, as I view it the "us and them" polarization was instituted when I,
and some other people were referred to as heretics, and blasphemers, and
disrespectful of HPB. Believe me, no one at all is more respectful of, and
fond of, HPB than I. I believe I, at least, may have over reacted to that
polarization and added to it. But then I am Russian, and I do try to control
the volcano, but I don't always succeed.I've had things snatched into limbo
during "cut and paste" too. The other day, I carefully saved a long and very
interesting message from you so I could answer it at my leisure, only to
discover that the computer ate it!

Very cordially:

alexis