Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00002)

At 04:55 PM 30/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Richard Ihle writes-->
>>Alan, jump in on my side against Kym and I'll join. . . .
>
>Alan writes-->
>Huh?  What a strange suggestion. It has nothing to do with the point I am
>trying to make above.  I cannot have failed to notice that you are having a
>discussion/debate with Kym, but it has seemed to be reasonably civilised to
>me - but now you are
>talking of "taking sides."  If you really mean this, then I suspect she has
>more right on hers, and that suggestions of "attitude" on your part might
>have some foundation in fact.
>
>R.I.-->
>Alan, please put a HOLD on my sign-up order while I do some deeper
>soul-searching on any possible attitudes I have which may not be consonant
>with TI's statements of purpose etc.  I thought I agreed with them all, but
>who knows?
>
>Certainly, the "jump in on my side" was meant humorously and merely trying to
>play off of Kym's earlier semi-remonstrations to the other women on the list
>for not jumping into the gender-fray more vigorously (with the guy who left
>with a rash and a pierced testicle)--as if one twitch of the clit and the
>women were supposed to form-up behind her like a Roman legion. . . .
>
>--See!  I probably just did it again with the "clit" remark:  On the surface
>it may just look like I am willing to follow her lead to whatever level of
>informality (Yo! Richard) or body part she wants to descend to; however,
>beneath the surface it may be indicative of some far deeper attitude problem
>on my part which needs to be corrected.
>
>However, one attitude I know I have but for sure won't change and that is
>that I hate bullies, especially ones who make their special prey other people
>who are less aggressive and more polite than they are.  In my opinion the
>history of Theos-l is nothing if not the continuing record of the driving-off
>of the more meek and courteous.  Many of these people had much to offer; more
>than a few left, I believe, not because they were intellectually or
>theosophically inferior, but simply because they were unwilling to "do what
>was necessary" to win arguments here.

I will stick my neck out too and agree with you. I have not said much lately
because I have grown much in my understanding due to the study of Vitvan's
teachings. One thing I have learned is that everything is energy in the
final analysis and much of what people argue about has no actual referent
when seen in that light. It is probably fun and dramatic to argue and defend
one's views but in the end, noone takes much notice unless they themselves
understand the issue or subscribe to it. It has taken me many years to
finally realise that what excites me only bores others even though some have
tried to tell me that for as many years as well. I came to the point
recently, where I had to decide if it was worth the expenditure of energy to
impress my point of view on others when there was a lack of interest in such
a view and I decided that I would not bother. I do not need others to
corroborate my viewpoint even though it has value for me. I have also
followed heated discussions here on many topics and in the end each one
retains their view and the discussion dies a natural death with much emotion
and energy used up in the process.
>
>So anyway, I brought up the ~brotherhood~ discussion again because I honestly
>felt that there may be something hidden within this illogical language
>situation (in particular, why it was not challenged for so long by
>egalitarians of both genders) which could reveal something about
>"psychogenetics" (the progessive maturation of the incarnation-embrangled "I
>AM.")  The result, unfortunately, was not a stuffy, pleasant-to-a-few,
>theosophical discussion or a request to explain myself further, but rather, a
>"plug-and-play," pre-formatted, extended accusation of "sexism (or maybe
>worse)"
>
>At this point I had a choice to make:  1) drop the subject because it might
>get messy, knowing from Kym's previous writing that she more or less gives
>herself permission to say what she wants (and there is a picture of me
>floating around somewhere which she might sooner or later make a comentary
>on), or 2) hang in there and "do what was necessary" (the ~Duh!'s-plus-one).
>
>Now, you can judge for youself by my writing conduct of the last couple
>years:  my normal course of action would have been choice #1 for sure.  Want
>to know what made me go for #2?  I hesitate to tell you because it is
>something seemingly unrelated and may get me in even hotter water with the
>rest of the list:  I was bothered by the big "gang-up" on Patrick for his
>"Purpose of Sex" position.  Here is another gentle-sounding guy, or at least
>he seems so to me, who has the misfortune of having an unpopular point of
>view.  While I don't agree with him either, there is something troubling
>about seeing so many people all on his case at the same time.  I thought to
>myself, "Richard, go ahead with this Kym thing, and maybe it will divert a
>few people."
>
>So I did.
>
>Well, Alan, I gave up long ago the notion that I could make myself understood
>on theosophical subjects, so I am not dismayed on that score.  Today,
>however, I cross a much more lamentable threshold:  the realization that even
>my jokes are becoming unrecognizable.  I am the twighlight Richard Ihle for
>sure. . . .
>
>Godspeed. . . .
Here is a little fuel for the fire from Vitvan. In his book The Christos
(1951) he writes:
"When we get to the final analysis or ultimate understanding, we find that
humanity on this planet is one brotherhood, one family. That is not an ideal
we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. We have to
discover that we are all integrated in the same field, and because we are
integrated on one field we are brothers; that is, we are one family. At this
point, remember we do not mean equality of development; we  mean there are
elder brothers and there are babies just born and all the gradations between
- yet the race on this planet is one family. We must learn this and we can
apply it to contemporary events. Because when we, the elders, neglect our
duty to the younger brothers, we begin to pay dearly for that neglect and
the younger ones gang up and turn against us.
All the long-winded reasons and ramifications and international policies and
the making of a lot of noise could be done away with and sum it all up in a
simple little sentence:- the elder brothers exploited the younger ones
instead of helping them along, just like a real elder brother in a family
will help the babies coming on. That is why it is a fact that must be
discovered and not an ideal to be brought in. It is a fundamental basic fact
that we are integrated and what affects one will affect the whole. Why learn
this the hard wayl, with rivers of blood and the wrecking of whole peoples."
(Bee says; please read brothers to incorporate all persons regardless of
sexual orientation.)
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy NZ, TI.

I don't have a solution but
I admire the problem.