Response to Kym
Oct 15, 1999 07:00 AM
by Gerald Schueler
>>As far as "bashing," well, some people have some very serious concerns
about personalities in Theosophy and life itself. >>
Having concerns and disagreements does not give anyone
the right to slander or vent their emotional baggage. As
Theosophists we are supposed to be trying to get rid of
such baggage, not increasing it. Finding a target for our
inner hatreds and angers is no excuse, although it is a
human tendency to rationalize it that way. If this were
any "normal" list, it would be OK, but I like to think that
we Theosophists are a bit more mature than most. Hatred
is immature, a sign that we are not spiritually advanced
very far. Anger, on the other hand, is OK as long as we
are aware of it and it doesn't control us.
> What one terms
"bashing," another may believe it is genuine distress. >>
This is no excuse. We have had some very mature discusions
in the past on Theosophical history without throwing mud around.
Dan and Paul went at it for awhile while being relativity kind
to each other. Of course, we have also thrown a lot of mud
around, probably against CWL more than anything else but
I opposed all of that too.
I have opposed certain teachings of Blavatsky, G de P, Judge,
and just about everyone else but I did so without any emotional
"bashing" because I have no hatred for those persons, only a
disagreement over a few specific issues. Frank, Leon, and others
have accused me of being anti-Blavatsky because I dared to
disagree with her on a point (to wit, sex) but that is their
problem, not mine.
>> Labeling those who
vent their disagreement with others as "children" is an example of someone
believing that because others do not agree or approach life in the same way
are somehow less mature than themselves.>>
Not at all. I have never said such a thing to Dan, for example,
who always forms his criticisms in an adult manner. No, its the
emotional undertones and choice of wording that reveals immaturity,
and I am sorry if this seems to come out like I am bashing
anyone, but I don't know any other way to do this on an impersonal
list like this (you can't see if I'm smiling, or my body movements
while you read my words, etc). I do not really mean to imply
that Frank is immature, but rather than his choice of words
used against Conger reveals an inner immaturity due to strong
emotional currents overriding the cognitive processes that probably
function just fine on other subjects (when a person gets fixated
on a topic that topic becomes an obsession fueled by any strong
emotion such as hatred -- which is always rationalized away
by the belief that one is acting "rightly" such as having God on
their side, or taking up for an underdog, etc etc).
I can't really explain psychology here, but those on this list
who understand even a little of how the human mind works will
follow what I am saying here.
>> I am surprised that, as a professional counselor, you would
announce to the cyber world that Frank is "exhibiting a compusive obsessive
behavior disorder." Surely more information about Frank is needed to come
to such a conclusion.
To conclude that Frank, or anyone else, is a compulsive obsessive
or borderline or anything else is indeed impossible to do based on
just this list. What I said was that his choice of words suggested
such a possibility and that he should seek professional help. The
first thing that such "help" would do is to diagnose. It may be nothing
at all. Why is it that we can do this kind of thing with our physical
body, but it appears "wrong" to do it for our mind? If someone
sneezes, we would think nothing at all about suggesting going to
a doctor for a checkup. What should we do if someone exhibits
characteristics of a personally disorder? Keep quiet and just let
them continue on their merry way?
>>A writer is often much different in person. If
Frank chooses to vent his frustration out in e-mail, rather on family
members or other people he may come in contact with, I say "Go, Frank!." >>
Again, I have no problem with an adult discussion of Theosophical
history. But this can't be done with someone who refuses to listen
to a possible difference of opinion. Anyway, I find it hard to just sit
back and listen to Frank spouting off silly nonsense about poor old
Conger without offering some defense, since he is dead and can't
defend himself. But Frank's response is to attack me because he
sees me as an opponent of something that he very deeply believes
in. If he listens to me, then he may realize his mistake and his
whole worldview will crash down around him. Heavens know that
we will all fight to the end to maintain our cherished worldviews.
So, while I see where Frank is coming from, I am still left in the
awkward position of having to defend the good Colonel. Notice
that I have never accused Frank of "lies" like he does against all
of the Pasadedna Leadership. This is because I realize that lying
is a deliberate twisting of the truth. I do believe that Frank is sincere
and honestly beleives in the outrageous events that he claims
took place. But I still have to try to tell the other side, which is
that Conger and Long and Knoche never lied about anything and
that Frank is plain wrong. This is hard to do without sounding
personal and emotional myself, but I am trying...
>>Requiring a person to be an "adult" all the time is not the sign of a
healthy society. Too much of our time is spent being "grown-up" and not
feeling free enough to say what we feel.>>
I agree with you here, and I have to admit that I am having a great
deal of fun with Frank on this.
Have a good day, Kym.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application