Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01071)

A few quick remarks:

For some reason nobody has as yet put the idea of spiritual growth into our
TI statement. Don mentions it. I think it should be incorporated. It's
certainly an important facet we wish to further.

Speaking of organizations, I again would like to call attention to "The
Unplanned Organization" by Margaret Wheatley, in the Spring issue of the
"Noetic Sciences Review". It describes exactly the kind of organization TI
is. Concensus is part of it.

Don, when you talk about breaking out of the TS wet paper bag, I think
that's exactly what I've just done. For me these last elections were just
the last straw.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution

Liesel
.............................................................................




>Hi Alan.
>
>Thank you for your thoughts and comments.  Let me address them.
>
>First, you are correct that I have not joined TI.  I do not feel it is
>necessary. My personal philosophy of life precludes belonging to human-created
>organizations.   However, I am in complete sympathy to the idea and offer my
>services as appropriate.  It is the spirit that is important, not the form.
>
>< The TI 1st object is the much needed reminder.  There may be a problem with
>the tern "nucleus" which can come over as elitist.  It could read, perhaps:
>
>"To further mutual aid and co-operation within [etc.]">
>
>Here is how the TI's 1st objective is currently written:
>
>"1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without
>   distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color."
>
>I like your suggestion.  I recommend something like:
>
>"To further  mutual aid and co-operation within within the universal human
>family."
>
>Period.  You don't need to say anything else.  I mean, implicit in the way
it is
>currently written, you would have to list every single trait that distinquishes
>one person from the next.  When you speak of the "universal human family", this
>says it all already.
>
>On the other hand, the idea that the majority of the world is still caught
up in
>a large variety of forms of discrimination does justify including the
qualifiers
>as they presently are.  Yet my sense is that by saying these discriminating
>traits you only reinforce them.  By not saying anything, and refering only to
>the "universal human family" more captures the spirit you are trying to state.
>This is my sense at least.
>
>But I really like the idea of mutual aid and cooperation.
>
><Alan: And so we who care are taking full advantage of the fact!>
>
>Its inevitable.  This coming of the "masters" in the last quarter of the 20th
>century is exactly the coming of the global communication networks.  No one
ever
>said they couldn't appear as silicon.
>
><The question is, can TI, in whatever form,
>provide a new kind of charisma to inspire people that is not dependent
>upon an individual or cabal of individuals?>
>
>You seemed to have fundamentally misunderstood what I was trying to say in my
>post by refering to Max Weber's ideas.  We do NOT want a charismatic basis for
>TI, or for Theosophy for that matter.  *That* was the problem in the first
>place!  No, what I was saying is we want to make a rational (in a Weberian
>sense) type of social organization.  By this it is meant a social order in
which
>the most effective means and methods gain ascendancy.  There is no charisma
>involved at all in this process.  What is involved is rationality (in the
>ordinary sense of the word), compramise and efficiency.  Weber called such a
>social order a "rationalized" social order.
>
><  I think TI recongises that as human beings we have our limitations - it is
>*Theosophy* International, not "Let's All Be Nice To Each Other As
>Members of Homo Sapiens" International <g>.>
>
>I am not quite sure what you are getting at here.  I'm hardly talking about
>people being nice to each other.  Quite often we are not very nice to each
other
>out here, but we do get over it, and we learn and grow from the friction we
>sometimes make amongst ourselves.
>
>But what I am saying is that the essence of Theosophy is spiritual discovery.
>Period.  All the particular teachings are just trappings, but they are not the
>essence.  They are only keys, if used properly, to unlock doors of spiritual
>growth and personal maturity.
>
>What I am suggesting is that TI could recognize this from its very inception.
>And hence, dispence with the trappings all together and get right to the heart
>of the matter.  As alexis interpreted (and I paraphrase) "don't try to fill old
>bottles, break them and begin anew".
>
>What this means is exactly what I said at the end of my post: to recognize what
>it is that people REALLY need.  People don't need dogmas or other people trying
>to tell them how to live and what to believe.  People need to feel like they
>belong and like what they are doing is worthwhile.
>
>Right now, TI serves this role because each of us contributes to the ongoing
>dialouges out here.  We do so quite voluntarily, when and as we wish, with no
>compulsion from any outside force.  In this regard, TI is truely serving as a
>Theosophical vehicle because it is allowing us all a place to grow and discover
>- together.
>
>Again, I suggest this be explicitly recognized, and all the stuff - teachings,
>favorite personalities and so on - be put to the side where it belongs.  There
>is nothing wrong with the "traditional" theosophical ideas, but when they get
>put at center stage, at the expence of real, live, living and breathing human
>beings, then something is very wrong.  It is people that matter, not ideas.
>Both of course have their place, but the people come first.  The TS has not
>recognized this. Hence they fulfill no real need for real living and breathing
>people.  The needs that the TS does fulfill nowadays border on the
>psychopathological.
>
>So, what I guess I am saying is that it is  it is  "Let's All Be Nice To Each
>Other As Members of Homo Sapiens" International.  What more could be the
essence
>of Theosophy?
>
><Alan: And I, for one, know that I am not in a "very high state of mind"
>24 hours a day - I wish I was!  The same is almost certainly true for
>all of us.>
>
>Well, one can learn to be in a "high state of mind" 24 hours a day.  Sure
we all
>get cranky sometimes, but there is nothing wrong with this.  The world requires
>that we be mean and angry sometimes.  This "high state of mind" is one of
>balance, not of a goodey-goodey two shoes.
>
><Alan: This, IMO, is the main thrust of the work of TI. Martin Euser, who
>has just signed up, is seeking to find ways of expressing theosophical
>ideas in modern language *as a starting point* for such inquiry,>
>
>If I may put forth a suggestion in this regard.
>
>I have been around the block - twice - making up philosophies and theories of
>Life, The Universe and Everything.  In the end, it has little to do with life
>*most* of the time.
>
>Coming up with high sounding ideas, philosophies and theories is no substitute
>for genuine kindness to another human.  It is no substitute for a good meal, a
>good time with friends, or a good night with one's lover, or even a good bowel
>movement for that matter.  I could tell you much about the philosophies of the
>world.  I could put you to sleep in 5 seconds with all the science I know.  I
>could go on and on about occult and mystical ideas and insights.
>
>But the most important truth I can share with you is these kinds of things are
>only meaningful to a *very* small proportion of human beings.  Some people have
>a very definite NEED to explore these kinds of intellectual venues.  However,
>the fact is, every human being has the need to belong to a greater whole,
and to
>feel that their life has some meaning in this greater whole.  The simple act of
>being kind to another human being satisfies this need in ways that no erudite
>philosophy or theory ever could.
>
>So, the point I am getting at, is one of the fundamental mistakes the TS
>leadership has made is to assume that high sounding ideas could substitute for
>real compassion amongst human beings.
>
>By simply allowing each person to be who they are, without fear of repremand
>from the group, is a greater service than any study group or lecture series
>could ever be.  And if a person gets too far out, trust both the person and the
>group to find a balance.  The "far outness" may be just a phase the person
needs
>to go through, or it may be genuine genius.  You can't try to frame it, all you
>can do is be TOLERANT.  Something the official TS has very little of.
>
>TI is already serving this role.  Again, I just suggest people here recognize
>the good for where it really is.  So, the intellect is moot in this regard.
>Being intelligent is a means, but it is not an end.
>
>< I have read a great many
>intellectual discourses which imply the pursuit of the second object
>while appearing to reject the implications of the third. (Actually, I go
>to the delete key pretty fast now when I recognise one of these).>
>
>We clearly agree here.
>
>< Is it not perfectly possible to investigate mysteries of nature
>and unrealized human potential etc. without religion or philosophy
>coming into the matter at all?  I think it is.>
>
>If you believe this, please justify your statement.  I cannot agree with you on
>this.  I will justify my position and await your responce:
>
>The reason one cannot seperate the study of their inner potentials, or of the
>mysteries of nature from religion and philosophy is because ALL knowledge is
>related.  Every facet of knowledge bleeds into every other facet of knowledge.
>Nothing is seperate.  God is a unity.  God is us. All is unity.  Therefore,
>knowledge, which is a reflection of God's unity, is also a unity.  It is
>delusion and bad mental behavior which creates separation where in fact
there is
>none.
>
>This is why is seems so redundant to me to talk about "the universal  human
>family *without regard to...*"  Just by saying its universal, which means a
>unity, should be enough.
>
>This is, as a matter of fact, one way to make realizing unity a 24 hour affair
>(or at least a constant realization while you are awake):  just think about
what
>the hell you are saying when you say "the universal human family" or "all is
>unity".  Just think about these statements.  They are ALL INCLUSIVE.  There is
>nothing they do not contain.  Burn this idea into your mind and even when you
>are grouchy and cranky sitting and cussing in 5 pm traffic, you can still do
>this while realizing the UNITY of it all.  Nobody every said God was all rosey
>and nice.  God is smog and traffic as much as God is love and cooperation.
>
>Anyway, all knowlege is unified.  All ideas relate to one another.  Therefore,
>it is impossible to pursue inner growth or the study of nature without
reference
>to religion and philosophy.  Growth is expansion.  When this happens at the
>level of the mind, the mind grows to encompass ALL perspectives simultaneously.
>There are no distinctions in God's mind.  And our minds are little vortexes in
>God's mind.
>
><Alan: In my view, TI does this (i.e. give people a meaningful role), and can
>continue to do this (it's a waste of time of we don't) *and* keep a
statement of
>intent to which
>people totally unfamiliar with any kind of theosophy can relate.>
>
>I guess where all this is leading is back to the very reason I have never
>"joined" TI.  Why need any kind of organization at all?  By being out here and
>interacting, by each of us sharing our perspectives with the others as we all
>pursue our own indivduality, this in itself IS LIVING Theosophy.
>
>Why give it a name or fence it in?  It is LIFE ITSELF.
>
>Personally, and I do not say this to be cruel.  This is simply my point of
view.
>But I see TI almost in a tounge-in-cheek manner, almost as if it is a parody on
>the TS.  I mean look at what you are saying:
>
>" As THEOSOPHY  INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules, whether
>   anyone participates in or supports any such activity is an entirely personal
>matter."
>
>This is almost like Zen, Alan!  No rules, no specific teachings.  Well, then,
>what is the point?  Organizaitons always equate with some degree or another of
>compulsion.  This one does not at all.  So, in fact, it is not really an
>organization.  Or maybe its a new type of an organization: a non-organization
>organization.  The way I see what is going on here is what I have been saying
>all along: we are people exploring our spirituality together, one on one, with
>no intermediaries. Why call this Theosophy at all?  Why call it anything?
>
>Now, Alan, this is simply one perspective, and one wide open to debate.  I've
>not come out and said any of this because clearly TI means something to all the
>people who have joined and I don't want to offend anybody at all.  But in all
>sincerity I would like to put forth the suggestion that what is going on
here is
>people declaring their liberation from any type of compulsion as they pursue
>spiritual discovery *in their own terms*.  Its not even democracy, but it is
>consensus.  It is a consensus to live and let live, to be tolerant (within
>reasonable bounds) and to explore together, for good or for worse (because we
>don't always play kissy face with each other out here).
>
>And also, as I said in my last post, I also think what is going on here is a
>rebellion against the spiritual stranglehold the TS has put on most people who
>have come within its grasp.  See, I've been close to Theosophy for over a
decade
>now, but have never been close to the TS.  Its only been since John created
>these lists that I had any idea what the TS is and what it is all about, or
that
>there are actually people out there in the world who are *members* of this club
>called the TS.  So, to me, I've always been a Theosophist though I've never
>really been a member of the TS.  So, it is very natural for me to look at
things
>the way I am expressing them here.
>
>And what I see is a bunch of very sincere folks trying to break their way
out of
>a wet paper bag.  And that wet paper bag is the TS.  Because of the way I was
>raised and the various influences in my life, I've always been a loner kind of
>person, never one to join groups or clubs or anything like that.  I've only
come
>to appreciate in the past few years that some people derive great meaning from
>belonging to social groups.  So, what I can offer, as alexis said, is an
>"outsiders" point of view, yet a sympathetic outside, one who considers himself
>a Theosophist through and through.
>
>There is a big world out there.  The TS is a very small part of that big world.
>What is more important increasing the prestige and social power of the TS, or
>actually living the ideas of Theosophy?  Which, as you said, involves
mutual aid
>and cooperation, and which, as I see it, is a spirit: its an intellectual
spirit
>of openess, its a social spirit of kindness.
>
>So, you can see there are actually a number of reasons I've not joined this
>non-organization organizaiton.  But yet I have joined it because I share a
>mutual spirit.  But it means nothing to me to have my name on a list saying I
>accept certain ideas.  It means much more to me to actually live these ideas in
>my everyday life.  People learn by example and imitation, not from high
sounding
>philosophies.  Read Machiavelli some time about this.
>
><I also believe that for TI to be truly effective, it needs to branch out
>of cyberspace into the larger world beyond.... TI could
>have its "lodges">
>
>A think alexis made a brilliant point and I will refer to her again: don't try
>to fill old bottles with new wine.  Scrap the old bottles.
>
>See, there is a lot going on here that you are not taking into account.  Trying
>to make the TI into something more than a cyber meeting place and taking it out
>into the world entails things that you would not want.  This is why I study
>sociology and history: to understand the nature of human social organizations.
>
>See, once an idea becomes a social organization, it transforms.  Social
>organizations are like living organisms, they need to do things to sustain
their
>existence.  These necessities very quickly overwhelm any original goal or
>intention of the organization.  Look at the TS as an example.  They are bogged
>down with the need to get money to keep the club running and this takes
>precedence over going out and doing any *real* Theosophy.
>
>I would submit to you, Alan, that we do NOT want TI to leave cyberspace and we
>do NOT want TI to become a real organization in the physical world.  Again, to
>do so would alter the very nature of what is going on here.
>
>On the other hand, obviously the effects of TI can be *felt* in the real world.
>As people come here and interact, and explore and exchange ideas, and sometimes
>fight and argue, this affects them, changes them, and, if all goes well, causes
>them to grow and mature.  Then, when that person goes out to the office,
school,
>factory or shopping mall, they take with them the growth they have achieved
>here, and they interact in the "real" world a little more maturely than they
>would have otherwise.  And maybe they are more confident too because of their
>role as a participating indivdual in this forum.
>
>So, maybe TI is best effective as the cyber forum it is.  Do we really want to
>get bogged down in the necessities of the real world?  Of buying property and
>managing money?  Of trying to organize events that are little more than
carnival
>side shows most of the time?  Of scheduling and voting and forming comittities
>to do this or that?  Of printing up stuff?  Of trying to sell stuff?  Do we
>really want this?
>
>Truthfully, we could be ultraproductive out here in cyberspace.  We don't need
>to leave cyberspace at all.  We don't need to even have a formal name.
>
>What we can do is first and most importantly, always be a forum ready to accept
>who ever comes in. Period.  We are not an exclusive club.  We are more like a
>tavern where people meet and exchange news and gossip, then leave and go their
>merry way.  This is the most important thing that can be done because it
creates
>a safe place where people can come and grow and make friends.  God knows the
>world needs this very badly right now.
>
>But we can also do a lot of digital stuff too.  We can make Web sites, scan
>documents and make them available in cyberspace.  We can write new ideas about
>Theosophy and relate it to the rest of the world.  We can create sites where
>artists and writers can make their art and writing available for the WHOLE
world
>to see.  And screw money.  If you need to make a money, spirituality is not the
>place to be doing it - that becomes bogus real quick.
>
>So, there's a lot we can do.  And it will be WORLD-WIDE.  We simply exist here
>in cyberspace, and people can come in and out of this place.  There is no
>compulsion other than what people feel inside themselves.  There are no
rules or
>limits out here.
>
>And of course, this can carry over to the real world in an informal fashion.
>I've sent Xmas cards to John Mead, and we've mailed files and worked on
>documents together.  People can meet here, and go publish real books, make
>collaborations or whatever they want to do.
>
>The last thing we want, I would think, is to fall into the glamour and the trap
>of trying to create a real live social organization.  Its NOT what the
people in
>the world need.
>
><shall I add Don DeGracia to the membership list?  That would
>make a nice round 40 :-)>
>
>Please don't.  See, you're already preoccupied with quanity.
>
>So, in closing, please appreciate that I share my thoughts only in a deep
spirit
>of goodwill.  All of us are exploring together.  This is my contribution.  Take
>it or leave it for what it is worth.  I do this because I am full of hot
air and
>have some deep seated need to write a lot (that is, I am internally compelled
><g>).  All I want to see if people being happy.
>
>Take care everyone!
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>