Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00422)

>>>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!

Having an ego and relying upon it's appeasement for satisfaction are two very
different things.  I have an ego, yes, for I am human.  But do I get
satisfaction out of strengthening it?  No.  And neither do I enjoy watching
humanity do the same.

>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.

Ok, in a previous post I mentioned that because people have changed the
meanings of words over the years, ancient wisdom has been lost.  I will admit
that changing a word in order to be better understood by humanity is a very
intelligent thing to do as long as there is sufficient proof that the word you
are replacing is truly congruent in meaning to the new word.  The issue at
hand is not so much the replacement of one word with another (i.e. he = one,
or a person), but the reasoning behind the transfer.  If you are changing the
word because you think it is more accurately described by a modern term...so
be it, change the word if you must.  But that is not the case, and that is not
what I am arguing about.  You (and not you specifically, "you" meaning those
who have stated that they wish to change the words on the following grounds)
wish to change the words because you, among  and /or in sympathy with others,
feel offended in a sexually discriminative manner.  This is undeniably an
offence to the ego and the ego only.  Therefore, by changing the words because
of the latter reason, you are giving in to and giving strength to your ego,
thereby weakening your attraction to the atman.

>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

---
The Triaist