Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00052)

Katinka wrote:

>Humanism seems so cold to me, at least what I know of it,
>which isn't much. I think that the whole foundation falls
>out under humanism once a higher something is recognised.

Yes, I agree with you that Humanism can seem cold.  The view that there is
nothing beyond what is here right now can carry a message of hopelessness
and purposeless.  Of course, depending on how a person interprets Humanism,
the philosophy itself can serve as a foundation of Compassion and Kindness.
 Humanists tend to be very active politically and socially due to the fact
that they want a 'good' world right now, not later.  There are some
Humanists who use the philosophy for purely self-serving gains, but they,
to me, have misunderstood the message. . .'course, they'll tell me I've
misunderstood the message. . .and so it goes. . ..

The foundation of Humanism, though, to me, does not fall with the view that
there may be more than what is presently before us.  I believe that the
foundation of Humanism is to bring forth a better world and that seems to
be the same foundation as other views, such as Theosophy.  Perhaps you and
I see two different foundations of Humanism?  Or maybe two different
foundations of Theosophy?  Being human can be fun, eh?!

>What I know of Sufi-philosophy (Islam-mysticism) makes me
>doubt that the way women are often treated in Islamic
>countrys has anything to do with Islamic-philosophy as
>Mohammed meant it.

I hestitate to say this, as it smacks of arrogance, but Sufi-philosophy is
a bit more - dare I say it - "sophisticated" than the philosophy of the
Islamists.  Muhammed did, in the Koran, speak of the equality of male and
female, but demanded that his own wives remain segregated from full social
interaction.  He didn't want other men lusting after "his" wives. . .an
immediate problem arises when a man thinks of another woman as "his."  The
Koran also states that it is acceptable to kill Christians and Jews. .
.another idea ripe with permission for those who claim to 'kill for God.'

>Did you know that the veils were
>originally meant as a protection for the women so they
>would not be mistaken for men, and beaten up for that
>reason? That is what I've heard.

You may be right.  But it would seem to me that, logically, a woman who is
UNVIELED is more clearly seen as a woman than as a man.  A man could, by
this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings!
It is easier to determine a male from a female if they are UNCOVERED rather
than covered.  There are physical differences between male and female that
make such determinations possible without the need for veils (well, duh,
Kym).  This excuse may be used as a reason to keep women covered, but it
doesn't pass the smell test.

I had read that it was due to the fact that men believed that women could
'drag them down' by sexual trappings, and the only way to avoid such
temptation was to remove the individuality and power of women by making
them 'invisible.'  What this is suggesting is that it is women, NOT men,
who are responsible for men's loss of sexual control.  Sorry, gentlemen, it
ain't so.

The Bible also required women to have their heads covered as a sign of
submission to their husbands - women were not to ask questions in church,
but to save them for the home and ask their husbands for the answers.

>Is it pushy to recognize differences between people?

Well, in a way, yes.  Recognizing 'differences' between people serves as a
means to pass judgment.  Humans 'label' people as stupid, sentimental,
immature, smart, wise, good and bad.  If humans were to look at people as
being no more or no less than each other, humanity may find itself more
compassionate and forgiving.  You mentioned differences in 'intelligence' -
I agree that there are different intelligences, but we consider some
intelligence more important than others when that may not be the case.  For
example, a person who is illiterate may not be able to work in any other
place except McDonalds, but he/she may excell in intelligence regarding the
raising of children or raising a garden to feed his/her family and
neighbors.  I don't think humanity realizes the IMPORTANCE of having those
who have "different intelligences."  Different intelligences are what
maintains balance.  The smartest person in the world may be colder than
ice.  Those who respond to events and people with violence or cruelty does
not, to me, show their level of intelligence - rather, it reflects the very
notion we are discussing - they perceive a difference in others and fear it
 -  and work to rid the world and themselves from it.  The doctrine of
difference, to me, is the cause of more 'hatred' and fear than any other
doctrine I can think of.

Who can judge who is a Mahatma or a "regular" person?  What distinguishes
the two?  Even Jesus went ballistic in the temple. . ..  How do I know if
you are really a "normal" person named Katinka, or a Mahatma writing and
utilizing cyberspace to further Love and Compassion?  Maybe I should just
quit worrying about the differences - and treat you, and all, like they may
just be Mahatmas incognito?

>It is of course better if we do things for the good itself.
>That is also a theosophical thought, and Blavatsky stresses
>it enormously in *The Voice of the Silence*. But isn't it
>better to act decently on ulterior motives than not to act
>decently at all?

I agree, it is better to act decently no matter what - and, perhaps, acting
decently for "the good itself" can be considered an ulterior motive.  Maybe
acting WITHOUT an ulterior motive is to act for NOTHING at all and that may
not be humanly possible.  You've brought up a good point.

>I think you ask all the right questions, a it is a joy to
>read your e-mails.

Thank you.  My ego enjoyed the compliment which proves I still have an ego
and I thought we were supposed to get rid of our egos and now you've just
proven to me I still have one and I have one in abundance.  Hmmmm. . ..

>answers are so boring, I hope I haven't bored you.

Not in the least, Katinka.  Besides, as a poet's mother once said "If
you're bored, it means you have no inner resources."  I really hope that
that is bunk, though. . ..

Kym