Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00521)

Tom

>>Whatever JRC's motives, I have found the exchange extremely interesting,
>>both for its content and for the techniques. 

>This surprises me.  I fail to see anywhere near as much good there is in
>such an "exchange" as there is harm.  Never in a million years will the
>hypocritical preacher of open-mindedness ever consider the possibility
>that, in ways in which he and I disagree, he might be wrong.  And from a
>selfish perspective, even though I considered that what he said might be
>true, I had to wade through so much bullshit in the form of invective and
>falsehood that I fail to see anything close to a net gain for me.  Once he
>defended his statement about the connection between the TS's lawsuit with
>the Boston Lodge and the Boston Lodge's studying of Alice Bailey in the
>lamest way possible, instead of admitting he had lied through his teeth in
>implying that he had a reason to claim such a connection, it was the last
>straw and I decided not to read his posts any more.  If you see good to
>all of this, maybe you could more specifically explain it, because I have
>missed it, so far.

Yes, I was quite surprised when you said you wouldn't read JRC any more as I
consider you one of the more tenacious people on this list.

You're coming across to me as being too close to this to see what's going on
very well and have got caught up in the idea and feeling that you've been
the subject of invective. You seem to be missing the broader picture of what
JRC was doing, and why.

You particularly seem to be trapped for the time being in the interpretation
of what JRC has done as "personal vendetta" and "invective". But it is not
necessarily so, and in my opinion, most certainly wasn't so.

Your stated reason for dipping out doesn't wash very well, either, IMO. You
haven't given yourself many choices if that's the only interpretation you
can make; that JRC has lied through his teeth in bringing in the Bailey factor.

The earliest thing I recall JRC saying that started the Bailey component of
your interchange was

>the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million
>dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges
>for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*.

You seem to have missed the fact that JRC didn't say it was a fact. He said
what he considered the *current danger* to be. Not a very substantial bone
to grab and run off with it, it would seem. You should have argued the
likelihood of the proposed danger.

Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not
qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions
too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've
been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing
factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by
distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually
being distrustful of her, in my experience.

As for JRC, he has said

>It was my intention to be just that. ... to reflect your energy back at
>you as precisely as possible.

and in a later post

>My own particular way of dealing with such situations - the way of the Tao
>- is to not only reflect the energy as completely as possible, but to
>actually magnify it to levels where it becomes so absurd that even the
>originator of it loses the urge to generate it.

So JRC has clearly stated what he was trying to do. I don't blame you for
not liking it, but if you can stand back a bit and learn from it, it could
be a good thing.

In the more than 2 years I have been on this list, I have observed JRC to
write with a very wide range of styles, reaching peaks of expressiveness and
beauty that I have rarely seen elsewhere. You are missing a hell of a lot if
you choose to stay stuck in the perceptions of invective and vendetta. We've
mentioned projection before, but could it be that this response has more
roots in yourself than anywhere else?

Finally, I mentioned technique above. I am always interested to see how
people deal with each other in discussion, and I watch the group processes
with as much interest as the actual subjects themselves. Sometimes more ....!

Hang in there, Tom.

If you and JRC ever got into a more constructive mutual writing
relationship, I'd REALLY love to see it.

Murray