Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00689)

Alan Bain writes-->
Delete "merely."  I have no desire to put you down personally.  I
genuinely feel that you are confused, as parts of your post seemed to be
at odds with other parts of it.  And, of course, a post which begins by
saying that you intend to take your stand regardless of others' views,
and talks about people "hating" you suggests to some (me, at least) a
denigratory attitude towards thos of differing opinions.

Richard Ihle writes-->
No, actually I think that "We Were All Once Brothers" was one of my most
successful posts.

Think about it:  I wanted to make an ancillary point about the danger of
making THE THREE OBJECTS something that can be changed, even for perhaps the
best of reasons like updating the language.

I may be confused about many things; however, I am pretty sure that my
perception about the existence of individuals who would like to change the
fundamental nature of the Society from Truth-Seeking to [T]heosophy-Finding
(H.P.B. doctrine) is not among them.  "THE THREE AIMS" (where one of the new
purposes to "assist the Elders" or Whomever in Their Work etc.) did not
invent itself.  With THE THREE OBJECTS firmly in place, at least those in
control will continue to be forced to do what they usually have had to
do--work around it.  With THE THREE OBJECTS firmly in place, at least we will
continue to have some basis for complaining--i.e., that what is being done
may be out of sync with what has been officially DECLARED that the Society is
all about.

So anyway, I wanted to bring up a point that had not yet been discussed.  The
problem I faced was that virtually everyone, including me, is in agreement
that ~brotherhood~ is not a good term in this universal context any longer.
 On the other hand, I also felt that lowering the status of THE THREE OBJECTS
from inviolable icon to pulse-of-the-moment-monitor might have ramifications
that many, sisters as well as brothers, might not feel was worth the word
change.

I knew I had to be careful.  ~Brotherhood~ seemed like it might be a very
strong desire-mental idea for many--i.e., that not just "pure dispassionate
reason" might be involved (it was for Eldon, though, as usual), but perhaps
very stong emotions as well.  Yes, I knew I was running a big risk.  For
example, I knew if JRC decided to nail me, I would ~stay~ nailed and never
recover.  I had to come up with an introductory strategy.  Thus, the "don't
hate me for saying this" motif.  I assure you it had nothing to do with
having a "denigratory attitude towards those of differing opinions."

And it sort of worked, don't you think?  At the most, just quite a few people
now think I'm confused (thanks a lot); anyway, no one has stepped on my
testicle or put a rash-spell on me--yet, at least.  Furthermore, it was an
honest feeling of apprehension, and hey, I'm not so macho that I need to lie
about such things. . . .

So anyway, I brought up a controversal point and survived theos-l.  To me,
that's a very successful post.

And, all in all, perhaps changing ~brotherhood~ in THE THREE OBJECTS won't
set the dominoes falling in the way I fear it might.  Who knows?  I'm not a
prophet; I'm just a guy, hmm . . . , who suddenly has a itchy tes. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle