Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01100)

At 02:45 PM 5/19/96 -0400, you wrote:

>I must disagree. We do not have a serious problem ... we have the
>*actual* work of creating a "Universal Family" ... a thing that has been
>avoided for most of our civilization's history. It is not *ideas* that
>form a Universal Family, nor *ideals* that travel the path. It is
>*people*, people with all their brilliance and all their flaws. It is
>not, for instance, ideas that (IMO) are destroying the TS, but people.
>When I, for instance, *name* John Algeo and Rahda Burnier, I suppose I am
>"moving away from ideas and discussing persons", but in my own analysis
>of the problem, it is not ideas, but rather specific people behaving in
>specific ways that *is* the problem.
>	Why is it that Eldon seems to get attacked so much? From my point
>of view, he has a very slippery style of communication - he never
>mentions names, but is as viscious in his attacks as anyone on this list.
>In a single post he will write fine words of "brotherhood" and "mutual
>tolerance", and then write utterly sneering and condescending remarks
>about the "psychic". Of course when someone then goes after him, he can
>always stand back and innocently say "but I didn't mention any names".
>	If there are intense *personal* differences in viewpoint, I do
>not believe the road to "Universal Family" is to try to avoid them and
>drive them underground, to try to gloss over them and pretend they don't
>exist - but rather to make them *fully overt* ... expose them at the
>surface. Universal Family and "tolerance" happens when there is
>*genuine*, not superficial respect accorded to the viewpoints of others.
>And the fact is that this is not something easily achieved. Eldon may
>speak fine words, but he almost continually writes in  way that shows
>utter disrespect and even outright condescension towards the perspectives
>of many on this list. It is intellectual violence to do so even if he
>never mentions anyone by name. It is not "Eldon bashing" when someone who
>is subject to this decides to respond. He is every bit as much a
>participant in the situation as anyone else is.
>							-Regards, -JRC
>

Well thank the 'Gods" for John Crocker! At least someone who has been
actually reading the interchanges. Also I want to underline something you
pointed out. I did not attack Eldon personally, I attacked some of the
things he has been saying and doing that effect me on this list. He is,
unlike me, "slippery". I am unfortunately a tartar barbarian and say what I
think openly. Basically what we are up against is a case of double
standards. And that's all it is, anything that Eldon or Daniel Caldwell, or
others of their group  (and they really should stop pretending they are not
a cabal) is perfectly O.K. and anything that the rest of us say and do,
especially me, isn't o.k.! There's a word for this and it's hypocracy!. I
tell Eldon he's wrong for calling psychics psychotic, and I am accused of
Bashing! That's so irrational I don't know how to describe it! I think the
last sentence in Daniel's diatribe is the clue. They want me, and for some
reason particularly me (is it because of the family relationship with
Blavatsky?) off the board and they'll do anything to attain their goal. They
know I'm hot-tempered and they bait me, which is want Daniel's message was
clearly designed to accomplish. Well I am easily baited, but not so easily
defeated.

alexis
>