Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00542)

WOW!
     This post is just remarkable. When you launched that little
description of your descent into hell to enlighten us - complete
with the highly polished halo on your head - I figured that was
*irony*, a joke on yourself ... but apparently you actually
*believe* you are some peaceful innocent that simply looks down
in tolerance on the children.
     And of *course* your latest little shot at the "psychic" was
just an entirely pure hearted effort to get a peaceful,
reasonable discussion going on the topic.
     Apparently, however, unable to get anyone to even take your
delibrate, and wholly *transparent* bait, you then used a post by
Liesel to take another shot - again using a post having
absolutely nothing to do with the topic to introduce the subject
(or rather, your own very special point of view on it). Isn't it
getting difficult even for *you* to hold onto the illusion of
yourself as kind benevolent soul innocently in the name of
"brotherhood" taking all those nasty shots from people? Look,
*right now* Eldon - if the list descends yet again into this
argument ... *YOU* started it ... as you virtually always have in
the past. I'll engage you, if you wish ... have a bit `o fun ...
but let's from the very beginning drop this pretense that you are
some saviour, `kay? You are not bringing "light" to "hell" as
part of some noble self-sacrifice ... you cause as much
divisiveness - contribute as much to the "hell" as anyone else
here - and probably more than most.

>The article ties in with a number of topics that have been
>discussed in the past month or two. I can think of perhaps half
>a dozen topics that could come out of this article. Some would
>elicit certain reactions that I've come to expect:
     Actually, the article didn't. Your little "analysis" might.

>One person would say, "Non-psychics can be as crazy as anyone
>else." Another would say, "I'm psychic and you're not so I
>certainly know more about this than you ever will!" A third
>person would immediately assert: "They're quivering in terror!
>The poor fools are afraid of the psychic! It's pure fear!"
     Ah! But you forgot the most important one! "Psychism is
wholly subjective, untrustworthy, and mostly hallucination, as
opposed to a "higher" way of "knowing" that "certain people" can
possess" - a position *every bit* as predictable as the others,
no? But I forget, you never include your own perspective when you
categorize those of others.

>And I'd just have to smile, shake my head, and think, "what
>nonsense!" even  though I'd have to keep my mouth shut, most of
>the time, in the nature of putting up with petty slights in the
>name of brotherhood.
     As many others do when you decide to yet again enlighten us
with your insights on the "psychic". Do you actually *really
believe* you are as above us all as this paragraph indicates you
do? Are you really living in that much of a fantasy world? In
*one paragraph*, you actually manage to come right out and call a
whole list of different people's perspectives *nonsense*, and
then claim that *you* will gracefully "tolerate" the people who
will respond to you *in the name of brotherhood*. [Bet you're
doing it *right now*, aren't you!] It is not *tolerance* to throw
rocks at a bunch of people, and then not fight back when they
come after you.
     I knew kids like that in grade school. They'd continually
whisper behind the scenes - attempt to goad the other kids into
doing things ... and then stand back as the poor innocents when
everyone got caught. They would then, of course, get the
bejeebers whupped out of them on the playground later that day
.. of course causing the teachers to take even more pity on them
as the helpless victims of mean kids. These kids were absolutely
*nasty*, but their nastiness was not in overt actions or words,
but in petty manipulation ... the teachers always loved them -
but this was driven by a bad neurosis: *To look good in their own
eyes, and in the eyes of authority figures, they tried to
manipulate other kids to make them look bad ... the worse they
could get the other kids to behave, the more praise they got from
authority figures, the better they looked in their own eyes*. How
painful must be the insecurity that drives this sort of
behaviour!
     [I really try to give you the buzz you seek, I really do!
Look how nasty JRC is being *now*! Look at the heroic (and of
course totally blameless) Eldon rising above it in the name of
"brotherhood"!]

>I could go on, and on, and on, listing the words I hear time
>after time.
     Never, of course, listing the words you *say* "time after
time" ... usually to *start* it.

>There's no new information, though, and it's all an attempt to
>quash any discussion that would put the psychical in a neutral
>light,
     Oh, so *your* opinions are "neutral", while everyone else's
are attempts to "squash discussion". Tell me, what "new"
information did *you* bring here? You gave a couple of quotes
from a newspaper article (that did not even obliquely refer to
"psychism"), and then introduced pretty much the exact same
opinions about the psychic you've spoken over and over again.

>even if it embraces science in some way, like a discussion of
>mental illness, how it might relate to psychic abilities, and
>how it ties in with the theosophical scheme that we find
>outlined in "The Mahatma Letters".
     This was a great one. How psychic abilities might relate to
*mental illness*? This is your "neutral" position? The entire
question, the entire framing of such a discussion denotes a
massive *bias*. Are you really going to try to pull off the
notion that you are simply interested in a calm, "scientific"
discussion of schizophrenia? And the "psychic"? Okay, what are
your qualifications to even raise the subject or postulate a
connection? What is your background in neurophysiology? What are
the neurotransmitters thought to be involved in the condition? It
is an illness so complex that some of the most brilliant
scientists in the field as of yet do not understand it.
     What *are* your qualifications to tie something as complex
as this to "psychism"? *Upon what foundation do you claim
knowledge of the psychic*? Ahhh! You will respond by saying "One
doesn't need to have the experience to have knowledge of it that
is as true (in fact even *more* true) than those who do". But
that is not an answer, rather is simply a means of *avoiding* an
answer. and the answer is to a question that *IS* relevent prior
to *any* "scientific" or "neutral" discussion of the topic.
     When asked, over and over, to state the foundations for your
claims to be able to speak competently about "psychism", all
you've ever said is that *not* being psychic doesn't *dis*qualify
you - but not being *disqualified* is not a *qualification*.
     You seem to have, at best, a passing familiarity with the
science of brain chemsitry (those that have studied it would be
rather unlikely use a *newspaper article* as source literature
for a conversation about it), and your familiarity with psychism
seems to derive entirely from books you've read (or at least I've
never heard you say anything that one couldn't take almost word
for word from the anti-psychics in the TS). This was not some
noble attempt to introduce a neutral, scientific discussion of an
issue - you just took an article you read and used it to further
articulate the same opinions you've been articulating ad
infinitum (with the charming twist that psychism is now related
to schizophrenia) ...


>>Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between
>>schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself,
>>"Is it possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up
>>this presently quiescent subject again--especially in this
>>manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis and
>>possibly some others in a predictable way again?"

>That thought crossed my mind. The information in the article,
>though, is interesting, and draws our attention away from 'the
>gang' nonsense. It would be tempting to use the same rhetoric
>and harsh words that I read daily, but that would only further
>enrage people, and not be productive nor helpful.
     So then, in order to draw attention away from the "gang
nonsense" (that you started in the first place), you decide to
introduce a discussion that ties schizophrenia to psychism - no
one bites - so you then launch another little shot in a post to
Liesel - then in this post sum up everyone's opinion except your
own, state that you just sit above us all and smile at the
"nonesense" - and then have the balls to try to place yourself on
some higher plane, not being "harsh" because you wouldn't want to
"enrage" people. (Look teacher! Look at what they're doing! No,
I'm not involved at *all*, in fact, I've been delibrately trying
not to enrage them ... at great personal sacrifice!).

>I think that the final result of *everyone's* postings is that
>we'll all tire of things we realize inflame each other with
>anger, and instead learn to find words that inflame each other
>with the spirit. That requires some personal experience of the
>futility of nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words.
>With enough experience, we'll change our ways, one by one, and
>become more productive people in the world.
     Or perhaps you'll just learn to stop starting things. Which
would actually remove fully half the "nasty, condemning,
condescending, vehement words" spoken on this list. Look back
over the last number of months. Look at the various threads that
descended into rancor. Trace them to the originating post.
Curious how *many* times that post is signed "Eldon".
     I remember once when one of those "little saints" was in a
class of mine. He was taken sick for two weeks, and curiously
enough, a surprising amount of the "disruptiveness" of our class
also disappeared for two weeks.
     So far as I go ... I'll continue to use the tools of the Tao
in response ... I'll respond in a way that gives you exactly what
you wish ... and even more ... hell, I even construct personas complete
with emotional charges specifically to facilitate the life in your world!
- you want to be the innocently suffering noble one? Cool! Live the
fantasy! [You can commence smiling tolerantly down upon me now ... and
after this post, you should be able to feel yourself closing in on
Shambala itself!].
                                   In your *service*,    -JRC