Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00402)

In message <199610160333.XAA29048@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
<JTarn@envirolink.org> writes
>Dr. A.M.Bain writes:
>>In message <Pine.BSD/.3.91.961015070257.21434A-100000@matrix.eden.com>,
>>"m.k. ramadoss" <ramadoss@eden.com> writes
>>>It did say "men". It would not matter at all. I recall that "men"
>>>was used in a generic meaning those days and had no connotation of any
>>>sexist manner.
>>
>>It does now.  That's why there is discussion (?) and debate (?).
>
>It does now.  Who decided that the meanings should be changed?  The general
>populous who rely on their egos for satisfaction?  They must be right.

By which you appear to mean that they are wrong.  You don't have an ego?
Your posts suggest that you very much DO! The consensus opinion or large
numbers of human beings doesn't mean anything?  People change language
all the time, and do you know, they are most likely never to have heard
of theosophy, nor care if it exists or not.  Millions live and die
without us.  The KJV of the Bible says "Suffer the little children to
come unto me."  In the 17th century "suffer" meant "allow" - now it
means to experience the bad.  In England now we use more American idioms
than ever before, and much of our own cultural language heritage is
fading away.  It's part of history, of change.  "Let" used to mean
"stop" - now it means the opposite.

We are moving into the 21st century.  Many of the ideas of the 19th have
gone, and many need updating.  Can you imagine anyone talking like the
characters in Dickens, Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, or Wm. Shakespeare in
today's world?  If someone spoke to me in Chaucer's English, I wouldn't
understand what was being said.  And, BTW, this post is entirely in
gender-inclusive language.
>
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk