Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00514)

At 08:36 AM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>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?

Because things I may have said that should NOT have been said went into
"limbo" with it.
>
>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.

Now that's a REVELATION! I had absolutely no idea that we hadn't been
communicating on the board all along. No kidding, I am really not much of a
"techie" and just responded to messages by pushing the >reply< button, and I
never looked to see the address to which I was replying.
>
>
>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.

Mine perhaps, but my Father's? Never! That's exactly one of the most
important items he was there to report back to the President about. How much
aid did the Germans really require, and how much potential capacity they had
left. The American Army spent a lot of time and energy searching for "hidden
caches" of all sorts of things. (Gold, securities, art treasures, various
paperwork, and industrial machinery). I think the preparers of the
documentary you mention had an agenda of their won. I have no idea what it
is. But they have played fast and loose with facts. The only motivation I
can imagine is to discredit Germany's "Wirtshaftswunder", but I can't
imagine why.
>
>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.

I think where we have a problem of different understandings here is in the
idea that while I can easily accept very strong disagreement with my views,
I regard the word criticism to be beyond simple disagreement and indicative
of hostility. "Severe criticism" to me is an expression of hostility, not an
expression of different opinion. I really think it's possible to entirely
disagree with a person without resorting to sarcasm and sniping. I am used
to hostility but I don't have to acquiesce in it. You probably don't know
this but in my book that's coming out, I ignore "Core Theosophy" entirely
and attack (and I use the word carefully) the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
Religion. Believe me Martin I will (and long have Been) the object of
"slings and arrows" from Fundamentalists of all stripes, Theosophical
Literalists are only some of the mildest.
If you actually understand my attitude towards "Core Theosophy" you will see
that I don't criticize it, I simply find it irrelevant and unfounded in
reality. Now for that, a reasonable person can disagree with me but not
criticize me. Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.

>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
>
>
Well, it's a beginning:

alexis>