Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00275)

Bee Brown:
>I will have one of those labels and I won't take it off. Wouldn't it be a
>boring world if we all agreed with each other all the time. I thought it was
>diversity in unity.

We don't ever have to worry about that.

Dave Kirk:
>But, I'm presently in conflict between saying, "Hey, folks, I know you're
>having fun clashing intellectual antlers, but I for one think that perhaps
>you could be communicating in a more constructive way," and  "Perhaps they
>really have a right to express themselves in this way."

I felt the same way after I read the guide for email expression, and
several protestations regarding attacking the argument and not the
person.

Dave:
>And we could ask the question, "Is there a sign that in all this there's a
>growing sense of understanding and acceptance of each other?" It may be too
>simple a query for some to accept, but c'est la vie.

In my short stint on this list, I see a pattern.  An opinion will be put
out that will fire up some opposing view points.  Then opposing
arguments to the opposing view points will be put out, and everyone gets
into the fray.  When we've all had enough, we all accuse each other for
being bad t/Theosophists for getting into the fray in the first place,
or in how we got into the fray.  Then we all do the good t/Theosophists
mantra, agree to disagree (and perhaps hold a secret grudge), and move
on.

>Finally, I suggest that what's transpiring here seems a microcosm of the
>T.S.'s  long-term tendency for intellectual conflict and disparity with
>stated principles (!) ... can of worms (?)

T.S. and everyone else in this world.

K. Paul Johnson:
>Strange and wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how
>to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within
>it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist!
>Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and
>paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a
>real person.

That's my take on this whole talk like a t/Theosophist approach.  The
funny thing is that once one expresses a viewpoint with "emotion" and
frankness, we get rebuked by saying we are not talking like
t/Theosophists.  I guess the way to be a true t/Theosophist is to be
passive-aggressive.


The Triaist:

>This was the point I was trying to make a long time ago when I was
>attacking sexism in general with the defense of "deny the selfish ego".
>Nobody seemed to understand me, so I decided to take a different turn and
>"fight fire with fire".  Perhaps by helping others to understand that the
>problems they face are not only their problems, and that there are many others
>out there, they will ...broaden their horizons.

Yes, I agree.  However, any causes requires a defender.  Some of the
most eloquent people for a cause are ones who have experienced much
suffering at some injustices.  It requires the selfish ego to say,
"That's happened to me.  I suffered, and I'm going to do whatever I can
to prevent future suffering."  Suppose we want to say that everyone, and
in particular the wealthy and corporations, should pay heavy taxes to
make sure that no one will ever have to starve or be denied medical
treatment.  The people that heavy taxes are imposed upon will protest
that they have alimony and house payments to make.  Corporations will
say that we are hurting the economy by hurting them.  All arguments can
be trivialized by stating that "things are tough all over," and "deny
the selfish ego."  Anyone who defended a cause is guilty of denying the
other side, and is guilty of doing it through their ego.

Kym:

>Heads up, though!  If I see posts I feel are sexist, or prejudiced, or
>anything else ripe with rot. . .my yap will flap.  Free speech is one of the
>few things on this planet who prides itself on being no one's friend.

Amen to you, Sister!  May your "selfish ego" continues!

TTT S=o)