Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01201)

Martin Euser writes

>After carefully having read the postings of a week's time I think I have come
>to an understanding of what's going on here on theos-l on a deeper level.
>Of course there's the question of the more 'experientially-oriented' versus
>the more 'theoretical-philosophically' inclined people.

Indeed. The ironic thing is that there's always an experiential aspect to
philosophical enquiry, and an inherent philosophical aspect to experience.
Yet another spectrum that people sometimes manage to get themselves at
opposite ends of, and lose sight of the connection!

>It now seems evident to me that there is actually an incompatibility
>of characters that is manifesting strongly here on this list.
>People shouting at each other - having intrinsic difficulties of understanding

As somebody else said recently, this sort of thing happens
in most families, and when we dialog as often as some of us do, about things
we feel passionately about, we can expect to get into this kind of interaction
sometimes.

The most aggravating conflicts are often between those who are closest.

One thing about doing it in writing, though: instead of our words disappearing
into the akasha, and being left to wonder, they are recorded for later
reflection. We can see the variation of interpretation, the projection onto
others, the hurt, the indignation, .... . Just like any family. Well, though
people often say at this point, "Where has the brotherhood gone?", in fact
the siblingship is operating at full strength! We're being real with each other,
in terms of letting our feelings and reactions show.

But it is precisely in working to understand such interactions, both in
ourselves and in others, that we grow the body of humanity, the global
crystal of incarnation of our life-wave. A web of relationships engaged in,
and in process of transmutation. Isn't "World Wide Web" one of the most
brilliant terms ever devised? And we're in it, in its broader sense.


>Where is the integration with transpersonal
>psychology, true healing-practices, etc.? Shouldn't there be an effort
>in this direction? The realms of the psyche and spirit will ultimately
>have to be 'mapped' and explained more fully in order to guide people, I think.
> ....
>Ideally there would be an opportunity to integrate such experiences
>into a newly phrased theosophy- a kind of theosophy which is in the forefront
>of what's happening on this planet.
>
>So, who else has been thinking about this kind of integration

Ha. I'm so glad you said these things. I've been thinking about this kind of
integration a great deal, and strive to realise more of its ramifications.
In fact, if we don't make at least some connection between the older
expressions of theosophy and the realms of current discovery, not to mention
day-to-day experience, we don't get very far in offering the treasure that
lies in the theosophical offering to those who could most appreciate it.

The business world has come up with a definition of marketing as "Finding
needs and meeting them", and I find it difficult to keep that out of the
central group of reasons for the TS's existence in my mind.

Without that attitude, which can also be expressed as "service" (though we
have to dissect some of the lesser meanings away from that word), I believe
the structures of the TS will indeed gradually lose their vitality and
relevance, and descend into a focus on power and dogma.

Now, I've got this list of things I'd like to get off my chest.

Alexis is too opiniated, and far too experiential for his own good.
Alan is too flippant, and word-miserly. Oh, yes, and experiental too.
Chuck is just too much. Obviously has experiences, I would say.
Dan is too reasonable. Look out.
Eldon is too considered and good-natured.
JRC is too strident, and dangerously perceptive.
JHE is too, ... I dunno. What's wrong with him? Somebody come to my rescue.
Liesel is too realistic.
Ramadoss always has a nice answer. You've got to watch those ones.

Me, I'm well, er, well, not bad, really. In fact most agreeable. A reasonable
sort of guy. Yes; that's it. I phrased that rather well, don't you think?

Please, the others, don't feel slighted or glossed over. I've seen hints of
your faults in the bits you write. Do consider that you are included in my
general expression of disapproval. This is after all, just like one big
family.

Which is where I got on, and where I think I'd better get off.

Love you, you lot.

Murray