Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01022)

Hi Everybody:

I couldn't resist getting in on this one:

<That downhill path seems endemic in religious movements when the founder
dies,...>

There was a very intelligent Germman sociologist who lived at the turn of the
century and talked about this kind of stuff.  His name was Max Weber (pronounced
"Vay ber").  Weber tried to identify the types of social structures we humans
form and he identified three main types:

1) The traditional
2) The rational
3)The charismatic

I'll define these in a second.  The basis for identifying differences in social
structure have to do with *where* AUTHORITY comes from for the social patterns
of behavior.  The difference in these 3 types of social forms that Weber
identified is the source of the authority.  This is what makes these 3 forms
different:

1) The source of authority for a traditional social structure is tradition
itself.  These types of societies change very little over time.  Knolwedge is
handed on from parents to children.  The world has seen many, many of these
kinds of socieities.

2) In a "rational" social order, authority derives from the person who knows how
to best get the job done.  That is, "rational" socieites are based on impersonal
rules and regulations which come into being based on achieving specific
purposes.  Our society today here in the West is highly "rational" based on
Weber's ideas.  Rational is not meant to imply "rationality" or "being
reasonable", or "rational" in the everyday sense of the word.  "Rational" in
Weber's context very specifically means: "a social structure derived from rules
and regulations designed to get a job done".  Therefore, as there are always
better ways to get things done, rational societies change quite frequently -
which is clearly the case with modern socieity.

3).  In a charismatic social order, the authority for the social forms comes
from an individual person - someone who possess great charisma and can thus
influence people's actions and beliefs.  Both traditional and rational socieites
are relatively impersonal social forms, but charismatic-based social forms are
highly personal being that they are usually based on the actions of a single
person.  Many of the world's religions have their origins in charismatic social
systems.  Christianity is a great example: the original leader was Jesus, a man
whose influence affected people greatly.  Many cults are of a charismatic
nature: Jim Jones, for example, or that goof ball in Wacco, Texas; even Pat
Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and all televangelists for that matter operate on the
basis of charisma.  They claim that their actions derive from the word of God,
but in fact, and in truth, the authority surrounds them as individuals: it is
their personality that is the source of authority for the social systems that
arise around such individuals.

And another excellent example of a charismatic social order is the Theosophical
Society.  The TS has derived almost exclusively from a charismatic basis:
Blavatsky.  It was her personality that was the glue that created and held
together the early TS.  When she died, the TS fractured into many pieces, which
is a hallmark of any charismatic based social order.

Since her time, the various factions of the TS have gone their merry way, each
trying to appeal to the authoity of HPB, or the Masters she claimed to
represent.  In other words, the sociological  basis for the TS up to today has
been in worshipping a ghost (HPB).

The TS in not a traditional social order because traditional societies *evolve*.
No one activley creates a traditional society.  These evolve over long time
periods  Active intention is the exact opposite of a traditional social order.

The TS is not a rational society (rational in Weber's sense) because these
change rapidly based on finding new means to achieving ends.  Our modern
business institutions are highly rational social orders because they are
constantly altering at every level - managerial, technological, etc. - so as to
better accomplish whatever they percieve their goals to be.  And again, the
basis for this change - the source of the authority - in a rational social order
is highly impersonal.  Whoever has the best idea at any given moment is the
source of the authority.  And this person does not stay an authority for very
long because someone always comes along sooner or later with a better idea.
Clearly the TS as a social institution does not operate in this fashion.  Here
and there the TS has slowly adapted technology, but these adaptions have always
been made subservient to the TS's social  order.  The TS has never allowed
technology to direct it.  As one simple example, look at how slow the official
TS has been in adapting the internet as a tool.

So, the point is, the TS is neither a traditional nor a rational social order.
It is a charismatic social order.

This is why the TS has gone downhill in the fastest possible manner.

When a social order comes into being based on the vision of one person, or a
small group of people - it is this person (these people) who are the intrinsic
authority of the social order.  But people are very finite things - they die.
And when they die, the authority - and more importantly - the social glue that
was their personality - dies too.  And then, it is only a matter of time before
the social organization they created dies with them, or transforms into
something completely different.

Basically, if a charismatic social order does outlive its creator, it has one of
two paths of evolution: (1) evolve into a traditional social order or (2) evolve
into a rational social order.

The TS has tried to evolve into a traditional social order.  It has tried to
deify many of HPB's ideas and use these as a basis  for creating a theosophical
tradition.  It has tried to set up a hiearchy of power both in the world and
here in the US, with its levels of officials, each handing commands down to the
next lower level on the power rung.

However, in the case of the TS, there is a problem with this.  The problem is
that the ideas HPB was conveying had to do with thinking for one's self, with
not accepting higher authorities, with coming to truth by one's own means, of
eliminating intermediaries between one's self and the higher truths of life.
Tradition, on the other hand, is blind obedience to tradition.  Period.

Can you all see the contradiction?  HPB herself was completely rational, by
Weber's definition.  However, as a person, she was the charismatic authority
that formed the TS.  When she went, the mindless followers tried to make a
tradition out of her, to diefy her.  This they did only by ignoring her
essential message of the freedom of the individual.  The ignorant always try to
deify what they do not understand.  And the ignorant love to revel in games of
power and intrique.

The original vision of HPB and some of her early followers (notably Annie
Besant) has been completely lost from the TS.  Today is it mere ignorant
power-seekers who have turned HPB into a golden calf and have created a social
order that is a very contradiction at its core.

Compare this now to the newly formed TI.  Here in TI, there is no leader.  There
is no one personality at the center of this.  Look at the medium: cyberspace.
This is a highly impersonal medium.  Though we all know reach other as people,
we actually do not really know each other as people.  Out here all we really are
is ephemeral ideas that we interpret when we sit at our computers as other
people.  The point I'm trying to make is that TI is evolving in a medium where
no one personality can dominate. If someone did try to come in and play
king-of-the-hill, the rest of us could go and meet elsewhere in cyberspace and
leave the king-of-the-hill with an empty bit-bucket.

Furthermore, the medium within which TI exists - cyberspace - is itself created
by the highly rational social order of the computer industry, where things
change daily.  This is perhaps why the TS has hesitated to get into cyberspace:
the TS *fears* cyberspace because cyberspace is completely outside of the
control of those who are playing king-of-the-hill with the TS.

What this comparison between the TS and TI does is bring into sharp relief this
idea: TI is poised to evolve as a rational social order (again in Weber's sense)
because it simply cannot be a traditional or a charismatic order based on the
nature of the cyberspace medium.

But, we cannot forget, the entire basis of a rational social order is:" he who
can get the job done the best".   And this brings immediately to mind: what is
the "job" we are trying to accomplish here?  What is the purpose, the goal to be
accomplished?

So far, what we have out here is a forum for the free exchange of ideas.  This
forum is, in my opinion, presently bogged down with the weight of all of us
trying to figure out what the difference is between Theosophy and the TS.  I
think we all agree that Theosophy is different from the TS.  The TS is a social
organization that owns land and money (though these apparently are dwindling
rapidly) and has its heirarchy of pseudo-power. Theosophy, on the other hand, is
a set of ideas that can liberate our spirits and our minds and take us, as
indivduals, to new heights and new levels of understanding (providing that the
ideas are not madeinto dogma and forced down people's throats).

So, clearly, in all our minds, its probably fair to say that TI, and more
broadly, the internet mail lists we share, is not an organ of the TS.  This
cyberspace presence is an organ of Theosophy itself.

The next step is to try to formulate what it is we are trying to achieve, and to
begin to set about doing it as efficiently as possible, for this is the essence
of a rational social order.

Lets take the the Three Objectives of both the TI and the TS as a basis for
understanding what we may be able to achieve out here in cyberspace:

1. Provide a nucleus for a unified humanity.

Clearly this is pure bunk.  The TS has done quite the opposite by all its petty
denominational fracturing, and all its petty hierarchies of power.

The computer industry - a completely secular, greed-driven buisness enterprise
has done infinitely more to unify humanity - by creating an international
network of computers that we are all using right now - than the TS ever has.  If
anything, this goes to show that good intentions don't mean squat, neither do
high sounding philosophies.  God drives humanity no matter what.  Most often, it
is those who explicitly claim to be working for God who are the biggest
obstacles to true progress.

I suggest, to make TI a more rational (again in the Weberian sense) social order
that we completely scrap this first objective.  It has no meaning.  The world IS
unified.  Its only us, by the delusions in our minds, that do not see it this
way.  If we truely see the unity of the world, and of Nature, we do not need to
explicitly say this because it should be completely implicit in everything we
think or do.  We should not care about distinctions of sex, sexual orientation,
creed, class, or color.  We should be above this reminder by now.  For God's
sake, most of the civilized world is.

Don't forget, this idea was expressed in 1875.  Back then, things were a lot
worse.  Today, our secular Federal Government here in the USA has made it law
not to discriminate on these bases.

Of course such discrimination does occur.  We will do better simply not to
discriminate in this fashion.  If we do need to remind ourselves not to
disciminate in this fashion, its not a very high state of mind.

2) To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion,
   theosophy, philosophy, and the scientific method, according to
   individual ability and inclination.

Here truely great progress could be made.  Unfortunately, the TS has done much
to impede this kind of inquiry, as our friend Paul Johnson knows only too well,
and as I also have found out.  Many of us are not driven like Paul is, or like I
am, to discover new insights.  This is fine.  But such people should not stand
in the way of those of us impelled on such quests.

Now, objective no. 2 and no. 3 are redundant:

3.) To investigate mysteries of nature and unrealized human
   potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all
   life.

One cannot study religion, philosophy and science and not investigate the
mysteries and unrealized potential of our human being.

Saying these as seperate statements is redundant and it makes you look dumb.

What we are talking about in both objectives 2 and 3 is allowing people to
freely explore the spiritual dimensions of our humaness.  That's it.  When a
person does this, they ARE studying science, religion and philosophy and they
are investigating unrealized potential.

I would suggest to all of you that trying to copy the 3 objectives of the TS is
completely out of date.  What TI *should* stand for is this:

            To provide a forum where each person can explore
            life and contribute  their unique perspective to the
            good of the whole.

This does NOT sound dumb.  This implies everything in the 3 objectives.  It
leaves the means wide open.  It implies that each *individual* has something
worth contributing.  It implies that when an individual contributes, it WILL be
good for the whole.  In fact, we have all learned out here in cyberspace, from
all the ups and downs we have caused each other, that this last statement is
very true.

I'm ramblin too much.  Let me wrap up.  I've tried to explain to you all what
the TS looks like from a sociological perspective: it is a remnant of a
charismatic social organization.  It is today a living contradiction: trying to
deify HPB, who was the epitomy of the free thinking indivudual.

TI *could* evolve into the next step, but only if:

(1) we are clear about the mistakes of the past - look at them  (from an
eclectic variety of perspectives), absorb them and be determined not to repeat
them

(2) be clear about what the hell it is we want to accomplish.  This only comes
from having a sense of what people NEED.  People today do not NEED to have some
semi-Victorian social order (i.e. the TS) dictate the particulars of their life
(what to eat, what to believe, ect) - people get enough of this from a sick and
pathological mass-media.  What people NEED is to feel they belong to something
greater than themselves, and to feel that they are contributing to the good of
the world.  THIS is what people need.  If TI can fulfill this role, then it will
have a life.  Otherwise, it will not.  Surely, because the TS does not address
these basic needs, it has ensured its demise. People don't NEED things to
worship - be it HPB, John Algeo or poop.  People NEED to have a meaningful life,
and life is meaningful when we belong and when we are contributing in a positive
and constructive way.

So, thanks for reading this far.  I just had to get this out of my system.  Hot
air, and all.  Sometimes Rolaids just aren't enough. <g>

Bye!

Don