Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00060)

At 02:30 AM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>
>[writing to Chuck]
>
>>Somehow, it seems pathetically futile for me to sit here being
>>insulted by the inconsequential.
>
>I think that a cycle of anger and self-righteousness can only
>be broken when you, I, or others let the little words of others
>fall off us like water off a duck's back.
>
>It gets tiring after a while to respond to the negative, but
>the cycle only continues to feed itself when any of us reply
>with further barbs, like when you refer to your critics as
>insults by "the inconsequential".

Actually Eldon, I think one of the problems is that I keep forgetting that
no message on this list is personal and private. What I'm going to do
henceforth is make certain communications private messages and not available
to public perusal. In that note to Chuck I was referring to only one person
and it certainly we neither yourself or Daniel Caldwell. You know Eldon, I
have one hell of a "track record" when it comes to actual accomplishments in
the field of service to others. I'm not speaking of service in the area of
metaphysics, but in actual physical plane, political level service to the
unfortunate and excluded. I think, that without fear of too much
contradiction from those who know me, I can accuse the person I was talking
about of being "inconsequential" because he is. I'm sorry, I suppose it's
elitist of me, but I don't believe, and neither history nor experience has
proven differently, that everyone is equally consequential. Some people work
hard, some even, as I have, put their very lives on the line in the attempt
to help others, that makes a difference between us and those who do nothing
but talk.

secondly, I feel it is totally unrealistic to pretend that no one should get
angry. Anger is a real and natural emotion, when focussed out wards it can
be therapeutic, when focussed inwards (suppressed) it kills. I don't mind
being "criticized", as an political activist I've been so for almost all of
my life (since 1954), but I don't like being "insulted" and I really believe
there's a difference. Criticism is constructive, insult is destructive.

>There is a certain pleasure in responding with clever,
>sharp words in response to someone's angry blast, but that
>pleasure is quickly buried as one get's one's feelings burned
>yet again! There is a greater pleasure, I've found, in setting
>aside all angry responses, and responding to others as though
>they've never said an unkind word.

That, Eldon is altogether too Saintly for me to even attempt. I think you
can testify, based upon my correspondence with you, that I try to deal with
things in a reasonable way, and I believe that with both you and Daniel I
have, so far as it's in me. But, I am not a Christian and so I am not at all
interested in "turning the other cheek" for in my experience it only gets
"smitten" too.
>
>I usually find them glad too to leave the anger behind, and
>then it's possible to move forward -- with a great sense of
>relief! There's enough wonders in life to admire and share
>with people, that no one needs to look for the ugly side of
>life in people. Both sides of life exist, but which do we want
>to put our energy into?

But Eldon, if we pretend the "ugly side" doesn't exist, what's to put an end
to it?
>
>I'm trying to improve things with JRC. (and there is an
>occasional remark by you that would be tempting to respond to
>as well!) Even so, you may find me at times to be a pest,
>since I've got what I consider to be important views that need
>a proper hearing, along with everything else that is being said!
>
>-- Eldon
>
That's good, just as I am trying to "improve things" with you and Daniel. I
don't find you a "pest" though when you paraphrase (ergo re-phrase) things
I've said, I do find it a tad annoying. But keep it up if that's your
"style". We are completely different people so we can hardly be expected to
respond and act alike. There is one thing to remember about me: "I may
disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it!"> I very much disagree with your points of view on many aspects of our
mutual field of interest, but is not that what this list is about? To act as
a point of contact between differing views of theosophy? How does one differ
from Roman Catholicism if one maintains that there is only one view of
Theosophy? The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that your
accept the theosophical hypothesis as axiomatic rather than theoretical, and
that you have "faith" in the various "founders" and the "Masters of The
Wisdom". I on the other hand accept the theosophical hypothesis as
hypothesis (or why would I call myself a Theosophist?), and, where they
don't contradict knowledge and experience, both like and admire the
"founders". The primary source of our differences is that for me, the Third
Object isn't at all hypothetical, but experiential, and, as I see it, you
either don't "approve" of that, or don't actually "believe in it as a
possibility".
I also think that you're the kind of person I can discuss those differences
with, but you mustn't expect me ever to accept either HPB or "The Masters"
as ultimate and un appealable authorities.

alexis