Re: Perhaps All-Too-Alt.Theosophy?
Jul 08, 1996 03:54 PM
by m.k. ramadoss
I would like to add my 2 cents worth info on usenet groups. There are two
types - censored and uncensored. Setting up a newsgroup involves voting
in the cyberspace in a very democratic manner. Once set up, no one has
control over it. If someones postings are not liked, one can complain to
the Internet Service Provider about the particular individual poster.
Most ISPs would do nothing. Even if one ISP cuts off the individual, then
the provider is going to lose a customer and the individual can sign up
with another provider. Signing up ISP service is only a call away. When I
signed up it took less than 5 minutes when I signed up.
So we are dealing with a medium which has its own way of doing things.
Many of us have to adjust to the new environment if we want to make use
BTW, Krishnamurti Foundation of America, it appears set up a mailllist
under its control and supervision and it fell on its face. Then a new
maillist is setup and doing very well. Like John Mead, the owner of the
JK maillist is lurking very deep and if you hear from him it is on blue
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote:
> >Chuck writes>
> >You're gonna get a lot of answers to this one, but this the faq I prepared
> >for alt.theosophy.
> Richard Ihle writes>
> Chuck, I appreciate your sharing the frequently-asked-questions material.
> Let me take this opportunity to ask you a question as well: Is the piece
> just intended to be the one-time contribution of a common participant on alt.
> theosophy, or is in some way a "quasi-official" semi-defining or tone-setting
> introduction-to-the-newsgroup which will appear again and again?
> Also, don't hesitate to correct me, but I am sort of getting the impression
> that you feel that your role in asking someone to set up alt.theosophy gives
> you a special proprietary (ownership/control) relationship to the newsgroup
> which other possible participants do not have. I am not saying that it
> cannot work on that basis; however, I would like to get it clear from the
> outset to what extent you believe the newsgroup will be proceeding under the
> auspices/direction of "Uncle Chuckie."
> Now, as an individual contribution, your FAQ had some amusing things in it.
> However, I did not like it as a way to acquaint interested newcomers with
> either theosophy or the Theosophical Movement.
> >It helps to be three things, interested in things spiritual, slightly crazy
> and incredibly >stubborn. People often join the Theosophical Society because
> everyone else would >throw them out.
> >Every spiritual system imaginable is represented in our ranks, ranging from
> the >somewhat orthodox believers in common religions like Christianity and
> Buddhism, to >Witches, Magicians, Satanists (we don't like to admit that, but
> we have them) Tree >Worshippers, Rock Worshippers and followers of Jean
> Huston. If it exists, we have at >least one.
> >Is it true that Theosophists sacrifice and eat babies?
> >Not as an organizational practice, as lots of Theosophists are vegetarians,
> but Chuck >says they can be very tasty if served with the right sauce.
> I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know. As if it were not bad enough
> that Radha and John Algeo are on one side of me semi-officially asserting
> that ~Theosophy~ means specific, approved doctrine and belief in Masters, do
> I have to have a semi-official Sub-Genius, almost-nihilistic tone permeating
> alt.theosophy on the other side of me as well? While your FAQ piece did not
> go nearly so far in this direction as you are capable of, it went far enough
> to prompt me to hope that it is just intended as a one-shot contribution and
> not something which will be continued to be used as the first thing which
> acquaints newcomers with theosophical ideas, the Theosophical Movement, or
> I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know. This may surprise you, but if I
> had to chose, I honestly think I would almost prefer to have a newsgroup with
> a "Core Theosophist" in charge, filtering my ideas, rather than a newsgroup
> which is primarily characterized by a tone of ridicule or licentious
> If the most generic definition of ~theosophy~ is "knowledge which has its
> base in, or at least originally derives from transcendental, mystical, or
> intuitive insight or higher perception," doesn't this in itself imply there
> is something very special and worthy about the individuals who are drawn into
> such an arena to begin with? At the minimum, aren't these the
> "people-unlike-the-rest-of-the-world" who are or have been willing to
> consider this type of non-empirical knowledge in their search for Truth?
> I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know. I realize that many things you
> say about Theosophists being "slightly crazy" or "incredibly stubborn" are
> true in their own way; however, when I look at the Theosophical Family, I
> also sometimes just cannot help but see it more in the manner of Black Elk's
> Vision of his tribe, both the living members and the dead:
> "And as we went the Voice behind me said: 'Behold a good nation walking in a
> sacred manner in a good land!'"
> I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know. Flaws and shortcomings, present
> and past, notwithstanding, don't you think Theosophy is basically a good
> nation where the individuals at least ~try and have tried~ to walk in a
> sacred manner according to their own understandings?
> Anyway, if a FAQ must be developed for use and re-use by alt.theosophy, my
> hope is that it does not establish the "anything-goes" attitude so firmly by
> the "eating babies" jokes etc. that the first impression a newcomer would get
> is that we are a bad or foolish nation all walking upon one another
> sacrilegiously. . . .
> Richard Ihle
Peace to all living beings.
M K Ramadoss
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application