Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00086)

Hi Louis,

No need to apologies for ruffling my feathers.  I probably need it.  And no
offence taken.  Being a participant in the dialogue one doesn't have the
privilege of seeing it from the observer position, so it is helpful when
someone else speaks up.  Looking at my words again, as you have quoted them
below, I think it was a mistake to use that phrase.  I think it reflected
the irritation I felt having just gone back and read those posts again, as
David requested.  Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

I also appreciate you are commenting on a more general process.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis about the status qou.  It could
become a little bit like sitting on the fence, or waiting to see if the
horse bolts and then locking the stable door when he's gone.  I think it is
a balance isn't it, when and when not to challenge, when and when not to
stand one's ground?  And being human, we are bound to err in whatever
direction we go.  It is relatively easy to stay poised and balanced on even
the thinnest fence if we don't get involved.  I've already given my reasons
for getting involved so I won't repeat them here.

One definition of 'status qou'  = "the existing state of affairs".   How we
see "the existing state of affairs" will influence who we think has
challenged it.

Thanks again for you comments.

Best wishes

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
> [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Teos9@aol.com
> Sent: 11 March 1999 13:54
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TO---Dallas TenBroeck SUBJECT---ULT'S
> ESOTERIC GROUP
>
>
> In a message dated 3/11/99 7:23:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> caduceus@dial.pipex.com writes:
>
> << Your replies contain the kind of mocking and
>  taunting one normally finds in the school playground.>>
>
> As does this endless back and forth between any number of people on these
> lists. I do not mean any further injury with this observation. But, this
> pervasive "I'm right You're wrong" underpinning does not do any
> one any good.
> Please do not take offense Peter or David, I am simply using this specific
> group of communications to point to a much more generalized observation of
> past personality conflicts.
>
> In my opinion, these lists contain the creme' de la creme' of modern day
> Theosophists. There is no lack of power or focus to perceive the
> real value
> underlying any Theosophical theme. So I would like to offer this
> possibility.
>
> Whenever our status quo appears challenged, let the investigator
> go where he
> is going. Let us wait until he has concluded his findings. His
> real motives
> and intents will be reflected therein, not in his investigatory
> personality.
> If he has uncovered a thing of value, we are all benefited by it.
> If not, is
> there anyone here who doubts the capacity of certain members to show the
> investigator the error of his ways?
>
> We get to the conclusions and their resolutions, when necessary,
> quicker, when
> we do not complicate things by overstating the details of the journey.
>
> I apologize in advance for any ruffled feathers. This is just one person's
> opinion.
>
> Louis
>
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.