Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00292)

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
> 
> What I've noticed over several years is that JRC responds with personal
> criticisms to people that hold strong viewpoints that he disagrees with.
> Bee Brown once posted the idea that she heard from Joy Mills about how
> people visiting theosophical groups were either tourists or pilgrims,
> and JRC let her have it. I've faced all sorts of personal charges because
> of views I've expressed. And I could look over the archives and find
> the names of others. JRC is cheered on by people that agree with him.
	We've spoken of this before Eldon. My writing style, from your
point of view, often makes "personal" charges. Your writing style, from my
point of view, often very specifically refers to individuals, but does so
much more smoothly, and from my point of view, often passive-agressively.
If personal conflicts are to happen, I much prefer them to be overt rather
than buried. But we see the process of growth very differently. 
	This last paragraph of yours, for instance, is, on the surface,
quite measured and impersonal ... however what is embedded in it? I might
say a very distorted portrayal, that seems to be motivated by the fact
that a few people have actually taken my side here - something you've
commented on before. You can also look through the archives and find
numerous people who have "personally attacked" one another - in fact
different pairs of people have battled over the years of the list. You
could also find numerous occaisions when I've agreed with and had quite
harmonious conversations with the same people I've at other times fought
with. Including you and Bee. I might also point out that you have been
"cheered on" on many occaisions by people who agree with you ... is there
something wrong with this? In fact the norm on the list whenever there is
a subject of deep division is for two or three people (usually those with
the time and inclination to write) to be the principle spokespersons for
different perspectives, and for others to write short supportive posts for
whomever best sums up their own perspective. While appearing measured and
impersonal, is your post not perhaps your way of "cheering" Tom on? I
notice it began with a very specific sort of portrayal of me, but seemed
not to mention the *very* personal attacks, by Tom, on several different
people before I even entered the thread. I would be most happy to provide
the quotes and their dates if you'd like. 

> 
> A knife will certainly get attention and win respect while it's waved
> about, but arguments should really be won by the brilliance and seductive
> beauty of the words, by the clearly sensed presence of Truth, rather than
> by the ringing silence left after biting, hurting words.
> 
We've discussed this before as well. I suppose in my view, the words
"harmony" and "compassion" and "truth" are not things even possible - save
in extremely distorted ways - at the personality level. In fact often to
arrive at them *spiritually*, the appearance of great conflict is required
at the personality layers. Actual growth and evolution is bound to be
uncomfortable and extremely volatile - but ultimately whether the
*personality* gives the appearance of deep compassion or wild rage *makes
no difference* ... IT is not the thing spiritual growth is concerned with.
And this, I believe, is somewhat of a dilemma Theosophy has never fully
addressed - while words like "brotherhood" and "compassion" were
continually used by HPB, and the Adepts, they were clearly speaking of
things *other* than what the *personality* understands by those words ...
as if you actually look at their words and behaviour, HPB had emotional
rages that make anything on this list look positively tame, and the
Masters in the ML had no hesitation in using language often very personal
and severe. At the *surface* level, for instance, many of those priests KH
boldly stated to be the cause of 2/3's of the *evils* present on the
planet would *appear* to be much more "compassionate" than the Masters.
Their compassion at times has an almost *ruthless* quality about it ... as
has virtually nothing to do with modern culture's notions of being "nice"
(and sometimes I believe the two are assumed to be the same thing ... but
neither HPB or the Masters could be considered *nice*). 

> John: I can tell by your writing that you think that you're doing a good
> thing, but I think that you're simply unaware of the results of this type
> of communication. You're not responding "in kind" to others that are
> unbalanced, acting as a clever guru. 
	Perhaps I am more aware of what I am doing, and the results, than
you are. A couple of things ... first - I have no illusions, nor desire,
to be a "clever guru" ... in fact I don't believe in gurus at all (and I
fear I may have to say that much of your writing appears to be in the mode
you accuse me of ... no? The next two paragraphs to me and Tom have at
least a slight tone of "teacher to pupil", do they not?). Second, and most
important ... please look at the development of the conversation. I read
Tom's posts for a few days before saying *anything*. He began with
statements almost custom designed to stir people up emotionally ...
whether intentionally or not, he introduced ideas that, for instance, are
identical to those used as *excuses* by men who have beaten their wives
and lovers. Many men still have little understanding of how *terrible* a
thing abuse is. How its possibility darkens the lives of half our species
- how, for instance, my experience of something as simple as walking home
alone after dark is *very* different, and far freer, than that of a woman
doing so; how the *justifications* for abuse have been around for
centuries ... and only very recently have women decided that even if men
don't like it, they are going to *hear* about the issue ... that *no one*
is going to make comments about men being dominant over women - comments
that were made for centuries with utter impunity - without catching a
whippin' big pile of flack about it. To Tom, it seemed merely a matter of
totally intellectual concepts ... but to literally countless women through
the centuries words very similar to those he spoke were a matter of life
and death.
	While I in no way believe Tom has beaten anyone, his utter
lack of understanding of why some of the women on the list may have
responded more vehemently than he wished was at first suprising - but
when, instead of trying to understand, he then *continued* to make those
statements, became more rigid in them, and used the increasing reactions
as *ammunition* ... saying at one point that the relative emotionality of
women was yet *another* area in which men were "superior" to women ... and
his rhetoric was such that whenever someone tried to argue with him, he
blasted them. 
	I chose, on a whim, and because I had time, to engage him ... to
reflect his energy and magnify it to the point that it now really *is*
absurd (-:). With everyone else he went after ... he kept responding at
them until they just plain gave up and decided it wasn't worth it. I
simply chose to very delibrately do the same to him. All of those that
said (in what he considered "emotional" terms or not) that he should
re-examine his ideas or moderate his tone were met with hostility ...
often quite personal. (Eldon, as *deeply* as you and I have disagreed
about things, would either of us ever even *conceived* of saying that the
other was a hypocrite for claiming to be a Theosophist?) 
	Please also, notice a couple of things ... in going after him so
delibrately, I wound up being an "attractor" (as the chaos theorists say)
- the viscious energy he directed at several different people (and I
will give you examples if you wish, but I respect your intelligence too
much to believe you'd argue that he hasn't attacked anyone) is now solely
directed at myself, and he *has* actually significantly moderated his tone
and become far more careful about how he presents his thoughts. I am not
in any way saying I am solely, or even chiefly responsible for this, but
before you judge whether the "effects" of what I chose to do are or are
not negative ... wait till they play out fully.        

> At least as I see it, you're acting
> out of habit, out of reflex, perhaps using techniques you've learned in
> your "hard ball real-world state and federal politics". This approach
> does allow one the power to manipulate and control a group, but I don't
> think that is your intention.
	Well, you certainly are free to view it that way if you wish.
Subjectively, it is by no means habit or reflex, but (whether you believe
it or not) the dispassionate use of emotional force. Tom was, from my
view, using quite developed writing skills to almost beat his perspective
into people. Perhaps you evaluate his words differently because you
*agree* with his position politically, and were possibly even somewhat
happy to see someone bashing feminism and what you continue to misname
"political correctness". In fact he *was* for a time almost completely
controlling the tone of the group, and appeared, in several different
mini-arguments, to have "won" (and not, I might add, by inducing a "calm
and beautiful sense of the truth"). 
	To some degree, *everyone* manipulates and controls the tone of
the group - is that not, to some degree, what your post is trying to do?
To tell us your opinion that we should both *change the way we post*? I
see nothing wrong with this. Every group has a group energy that develops,
and every person contributes to it. You contribute in a way that you
consider best for the group - and so do I. You may not agree with how I
operate ... but Tom initially introduced an extremely divisive energy -
several people suggested in kind words that he alter his presentation, and
he did not. I used harsher tactics, and now that energy is solely directed
at me, is contained, and when he finally gets tired of the game, the
negative atmosphere will have disappeared completely ... as the minute he
stops, I will too. Even now, probably almost no one is actually reading
our posts anymore (-:). 
	While I don't personally feel as though you really understand what
I am trying to do, and don't at all grasp the perspective from which I do
it (as I don't understand yours), still, I appreciate the effort you put
into writing ... and if this post seemes to completely disagree with you,
please do also take it as a sign of the respect and esteem I hold for you
that I'd even trouble myself to try to explain what I am doing. We
probably will never agree - but from my point of view I couldn't imagine
the list being nearly as rich or interesting were you not on it. 
						Kind Regards, -JRC

PS. BTW, I read the last on-line publication ... well, some of it anyway,
.. and thought the article about geological time-periods was quite
interesting. While clearly very basic, its the kind of approach I'd like
to see more of - in fact, I'd kinda like to see a thread about it begun on
theos-l ... if you've got the time .....