Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tl00148)

Dieter Dambiec wrote:

> I also consider animals should not suffer needlessly by human activities
> and killing for food.

    Most people would agree with that. Most people would not, however, agree
on the definition of the word, "needlessly".

> The collection of all natural human expressions, the collection of all
> natural expressions of all flora and fauna is Neo-Humanism.  All human
> expressions, all human manifestations--and not only human expressions, or
> human manifestations, but all expressions, all manifestations of all
> living beings, including flora and fauna.

    The second sentence is not a sentence, and does not explain the meaning of
the term "expressions" as applied in the first sentence. I am seriously trying
to figure out what you are trying to say, but have a nagging feeling that you
are attempting to put emotions into words, and not succeeding very well.

> This Neo-Humanistic approach is the human asset, it is the charm of human
> existence, it is the fascination of human existence, and it is the glamour
> of human society.

    Once again, I have no idea what that sentence means.

> spiritual approach.  A day is sure to come when human intuition will
> realize that the essence in the sub-atomic world is pure Consciousness.

    Interestingly, H. P. Blavatsky stated (and most theosophical authors
agree) that you cannot have Consciousness without matter. What is your reason
for differing on this point?

> We can give joy to the Supreme Consciousness by serving creations -- human
> beings, animals and plants -- and this service will be the best
> application of Neo-Humanism.

    What kind of service?

> Neo-humanism is the psycho-intellectual approach and spiritual practice is
> the spirituo-intuitional approach.  Also there is the socioeconomic
> approach of PROUT (PROgressive Utilisation Theory). The mid-point is the
> path of spirituality - the path of spiritual practice.

    There are several words there for which I cannot find a defintion. Can you
please define "psycho-intellectual", "spirituo-intuitional", and the phrase,
"Progressive Utilisation Theory"?

> inanimate world. For example, human beings have damaged and destroyed many
> hills and mountains and this affects the rainfall.

    This is news to me. I would greatly appreciate some examples.

> objects. Human beings should not kill the creatures of the animal kingdom
> just for their own survival.

    Unless Human beings are not creatures of the animal kingdom, the statement
is a clear paradox. If they are not, then are you saying that human beings
should die so that animals might live? If so, then who chooses which human
beings die and which ones live?

>  So we
> must always maintain an equilibrium among all the different human beings
> for the development of all, regardless of race, caste, creed or
> nationality.

    What do you mean by an "equilibrium"?

> So the actual task of human beings is to maintain a subjective approach:
> that is, they will advance psycho-spiritually towards the Supreme
> Consciousness, inspired by Neo-Humanistic ideals; while at the same time
> they must strive for the expansion of humanistic principles and thus
> establish a social structure based on universalism. Otherwise, their inner
> psycho-spiritual rhythms will not be able to properly adjust with narrow
> sentiments such as geo-sentiment and socio-sentitment, and this will have
> a disastrous effect on society.

    One of the major purposes of language is communication. I think that the
above paragraph means, "Don't think, only feel, or else there will be
trouble.", but I'm not sure.

> Humans will continue to suffer from the mental disease of dualism: that
> is, where there is no correspondence between their inner minds and their
> outer expressions. This psychology of duality within a single personality
> creates a very serious psychic disease which may destory them.
> Neo-Humanism will liberate people from this disease of dualism, so they
> will be able to do good to themselves and to others also according to
> their abilities; for everyone is endowed with some degree of ability.

    Except that your description of Neo-Humanism is, itself, dualistic, in
that it assumes two worlds, the world of human beings, and the world of
everything else.

> In the Cosmic Family, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects exist
> together and maintain a harmonious balance.

    Except, apparently, that human beings should be sacrificed so that the
others can exist.

    You then go on for several paragraphs explaining how great Neo-Humanism
is, yet you fail to explain what it means, except in platitudes and paradoxes.
As nearly as I can tell, what you are attempting to do is convert an emotional
state into words, and  failing to do so. Neo-Humanism may be an important
philosophical movement, and I believe that you are looking to get people to
believe in that philosophy. The only followers you will get if you do not
explain what the philosophy is, however, are those who are afraid to point out
when the emperor has no clothes. So please put some clothing on your emperor,
rather than try to state how good he's going to look once he's clothed?

    Bart Lidofsky