Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00063)

Annette:

 I am getting in my replies for the entire week this evening, I am
afraid. Thanks for the comments.

 I suspect that my point was that Mr. Johnson, like most of us, my
(little) Self included, cannot separate our personalities from our product.
 We humans are usually heavily ego-invested in our work, and more more
creative we may be, the more this may be true. I do admire Mr. Johnson for
his work and believe that it adds to our literature. My point is that, given
his subject and conclusions, he should have anticipated criticism and/or
silence from those whose duty it is to represent the commonly accepted
wisdom. Every writer faces opposition - but why has he taken the critiques
of his methods and conclusions so personally then? Did he not anticipate it?
 Does he not know how group dynamics work? Leaders must be above
factiousness lest they create it themselves.
 Your second point about groups not being harmed by divisiveness is not
historically supportable. Theosophy has suffered from many schisms, both
large and small - group and individual - in the past and at present. It is
my personal understanding that Thesophists do their best work only when
united in love and brotherhood - and that when divisiveness and personaly
animosity over who is "right" on an issue replace the awareness of our common
bonds and common purposes - then we are childishly distracting ourselves from
our objective of service to the Masters. (Of course, I guess that if you
don't believe that they exist, then this premise is not very important as
there is really no one for whom to do service anyway)
 The reality is that groups can be split, and effectively emasculated, by
internal bickerings and petulent personalities, thereby driving persons of
good will such (as yourself and many others I have known) away in disgust,
and ruining the mental atmosphere so necessary for the workings of a lodge or
a Society.
 Best wishes, Annette!

 Brant Jackson