Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00515)

Psychologically speaking we have Alexis coming down on anything and
everything he does not agree with in a very emotional way. At the same time
he claims he is basing his opinions "only on facts". He also tends to see
things in a simplistic white and black pattern. These factors make
constructive interchange with Alexis very difficult. He also tends to
project his own hot temper and condemnatory style on other people, accusing
them for the tendencies he himself is constantly dsiplaying. All the while
consuming more band width than anybody else on this list and tying up
constructive people in more or less meaningless and fruitless interchanges.

In my case he decided NOT even talk to me, because my opinions, in his
opinion are so outrageous. Perhaps that is advice that many of us should
apply to him. This would leave us with much more time and energy for
constructive work to further the cause of Theosophy.

As Martin notes, he is very fond of forcefully condemning this or that,
without having substantial backing for his position. He enjoys throwing his
opinions into the throat of everybody without being receptive to the
necessary reactions.

Bjorn


At 08:36 AM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>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.
>
roxendal@alpinet.net