Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00511)

Martin:

Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, my computer "burped" and
flung the last "ruminations"message into"limbo.

Alexis: why would this be fortunate?

And why this sudden change from E-mail to me to theos-l?
On a request of mine (in an E-mail exchange) for an answer on our Ruminations
discussion you replied on an E-mail to E-mail basis and now you're suddenly
changing that back to theos-l listserv. People will have no idea what you're
talking about here. But actually I prefer our discussion
to stay on theos-l. Others may chime in and have useful things to say.


A><snip>, we traveled all over Germany,
WEST and EAST. It was all one heap of rubble! I don't know who produced your
documentary, but then there's documentaries proving there was no holocaust
too. In any case, I'll trust my own eyes. The destruction in Germany was
awesome.


Indeed. But there may have been things happening that escaped your eyes.
Like people storing and covering machines somewhere.

A>Since reading and attempting to answer that last "ruminations" message.
 I've been doing some thinking. I just realized that I was allowing myself
to be manipulated into a public "Cat Fight"

I told you so in my E-mail to you.


A>, well, I won't "play".

That's a sensible decision.


 A>Our
relationship started off well enough, but ever since you started this
"Ruminations" string, you have been unremittingly hostile.


Not at all. In fact I've been very friendly with you, until my last post
to you which contained severe criticism on you for very good reasons
which I explained to you. Apparently you have a difficult time discriminating
between real hostility and sincerely meant criticism. There *is* a difference
between that. Unless you can accept severe criticism on your views,it will
be difficult to have discussions with you. And, since you strongly criticize
core theosophy, you *will get that criticism* from many sides.
Hopefully, new visions and a deepened insight in theosophy (small or big t)
will emerge. That is the essence of having a real discussion.


A> Now simply
announcing "I'm a psychologist" and claiming the hostility is all in my
imagination, won't wash.

Again, no hostility. This is *in your perception*. I was trying to get
across to you, but haven't succeeded very much so far.

A> You are hostile to my ideas, and to me for having
them.


Nonsense. You can think what you like, only you can not expect others
to agree with each and every idea you have. Plus that it would be beneficial
for discussions if you added as much arguments as you can think of
in support of your views. It is not enough to just state that you don't agree
with something.



A> I don't think much of G de P, or The Mahatmas, or "Core Theosophy",and
you appear to dislike me for it.


Again, a hasty conclusion. I would love to see *real* discussions
on theosophy, backed up with strong arguments.

A> I think that's plain. Wouldn't it have been
more open and honest to have told me: "Alexis, I read your "Ruminations",
and I disagree totally with you.

No, I said before that I agreed with many points
(certainly not all, however).


A> Instead you
carped and sniped and criticized and carefully tried to get me to a point of
irritation to give you the opportunity to "Flame" me which you did tonight.

There was no flame, but severe criticism and well-meant advice.


A>In any case, I don't want, and won't participate in another cat fight on
this board. If I've learned nothing else from my beloved fellow theosophists
it is that I can far too easily let my temper sucker me into totally
unproductive actions.

Well, that's a very valuable lesson, I'd say. (and no derision intended).


A>If you'd like to discuss my views of theosophy and the second generation of
theosophical leaders, and compare my views with your own, without hostility
and animosity. I'd be happy to accommodate you.


Alexis: I am always prepared (within limits of time I can spend to it)
to discuss views of anyone on theosophy. But be prepared for large
disagreements and keep strong arguments at hand to back up your vision.
That seems only a reasonable request to me.

A> But you must keep in mind
that, to me neither the Secret Doctrine, nor HPB, nor GeP, nor the Vedas
themselves, are unarguable authority. To me the only purpose of authority is
to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
religion higher than truth" seriously.


So do I and still we can have strong disagreements!

A>It is my strong opinion that
Theosophy has become a religion and that it displays all of the flaws of any
literalist group.

Well, this is true in some sense, although I do think that there are
quite some theosophists trying to do some thinking for themselves.
Also, the different TSs and lodges can't be all thrown on one heap, I think.

Martin