Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01102)

On Sun, 19 May 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>
> So, now it is all on again, emotional outbursts at 10 paces. This list is
> getting so reactionary.
	Why is it when Eldon says something like "chasing the phantoms of
the psychic" it is not an "emotional outburst", but when someone
complains about it, it is? Perhaps the list is reactionary because there
is so much that *needs* to be reacted to.

> It  doesn't seem to have taken on the semblance of a
> Universal Family since I have been on it and I suspect it never will so that
> is a pipe dream.
	Universal Family is *work* - it doesn't just come about by
pretending there are not deep divisions in viewpoint. Virtually everyone
wants to have "Universal Family" so long as it means they do not need to
alter either their point of view or their right to hold it and strongly
articulate it.

> I keep wondering how come I can understand mostly what Eldon
> is trying to say with the words he uses yet some others do not seem to and
> get at him for his choice of 'words'. Much of what he says has deeper
> meanings that he is trying to express with the 'words' he choses to use and
> it now seem to me it is quite a waste of time. We all have to use words to
> express ourselves and some words used may have emotional overtones for some
> people reading them but the writer probably is not aware that he/she has
> struck a raw nerve yet has to take the flak for doing so.
	Much of what *everyone* says has "deeper meanings", doesn't it?
But we all, I suppose, tend to find the "deeper meaning" in the words of
those we *agree with*, do we not? And almost *everyone* on this list has
both given and received what in the opinion of others might be called
"flak". You've just called my post an "emotional outburst" have you not?
Do I "deserve" that kind of *flak*? I was attempting to say that the
creation of "Universal Family" does not mean just ignoring the *shots*
others take at me, not in the *avoidance* of conflict for the sake of a
superficial *appearance* of "brotherhood", but in full conscious level
engagement. One gets *through* conflict, not *around* it. Do you
understand that there is a "deeper meaning" in this? That it is the
surface statement of an entire philosophy? Do you understand that when I
say that so long as Eldon wants to take cheap shots at the "psychic" I
will *not* keep my mouth shut, but will *mirror* his attitude towards me
back at himself, it is *to do the work of "Universal Family"* that I do
so? But I guess when Eldon says things like "chasing the phantoms of the
psychic" there is a deeper meaning, while when I respond it is nothing
but an "emotional outburst", eh?

> I was so keen to join this list to learn and discuss theosophy and related
> things but I find myself disappointed by what goes in the name of theosophy.
	Yes, this list certainly has not met *my* expectations either.
But once I *got over* my expectations, got over the notion that it was
never going to look like *my* idea of what "theosophy" is, I came to
enjoy it immensely.

> I could well imagine that the reactionary style of this list would put many
> potential contributors off. I used to turn my computer on in the morning with
> great anticipation to see what was being said but it has turned out to be a
> more negative experience than I am willing to bring into my living room by
> choice. I guess I will have to decide if it is worth it.
	Well, this is normal. Most of the list has taken time off. Left
and returned. You may see it as negative. That is certainly your choice
(and your perception).

> I have tried to
> participate in my own inadequate way but it seems rather fruitless and when a
>  knowledgeable person is continually being misunderstood by some participants
> only, then I wonder why it is necessary to get so reactionary over it.
	You certainly can adopt the attitude that Eldon is just a poor
innocent and misunderstood person. Certainly a couple of others
(including Eldon) would agree with you. But I could give you a page of
Eldon quotes that absolutely drip with condescension and low intent. I
you agree with him you'll tend to try to find the "depth" behind them. I
wonder if you're as willing to find the "depth" behind the posts of those
you do *not* agree with?

> Why not just ignore him if it bugs you that much.
	Why don't *you* ignore "emotional outbursts" if they bug you so
much? Why doesn't Eldon ignore the "psychic" if it bugs him so much?
	I suppose I'm one of the "Eldon bashers", but in every post that I
might be accused of doing that, I've also been making a distinct
intellectual, and often a spiritual argument. These are generally
*ignored*, and my tone alone is focussed on, and dismissed as
nothing but "emotional" outbursts.

> Do the Eldon bashers think they
> are exempt from the mistakes they accuse him off? Perhaps each of us should
> look to our own methods of relating to others and see if we can afford to
> cast aspersions.
	Including you. Would you have appreciated it if I had begun this
post by saying "oh, well, yet another emotional outburst from Bee"? Does
everyone that doesn't agree with Eldon need to examine their methods of
relating, while Eldon, who has started as many arguments as anyone on
this list, does not?

> As the saying goes; First take the mote out of thine own eye
> etc. This is all becoming very boring so I think I will close down and get on
> with living my day without all this nonsense.
	Sorry to have filled your mailbox with my "nonsense". Thanks for
your attempts to see the "deeper meaning" in it. Fact is, I cannot stop
Eldon from writing in any way he wishes, and he has often articulated the
point of view that he has every right to hold and articulate his
perspective, and if people are displeased with it, either its content or
its tone, then tough cookies - its *their* issue to deal with. But then
again, neither he, nor you, will be able to control either the content or
tone of the responses. And that is *your* "issue" to deal with.
							Regards, -JRC