Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00363)

My last posting was garbled due to my email program
crashing. Somehow, it sent an copy directly to
Dallas and posted another garbled one to the list.
I'm reposting the message in its original form below.

-- Eldon

---- original message ----

At 01:05 PM 7/29/01 -0700, you wrote:

> Sunday, July 29, 2001
>
> Dear Daniel:
>
> If Rich has a question why does he not write it to the U.L.T.
>
> Seems obvious to me: If you want to know something then write to
> the U.L.T.
Dallas:

I think that this topic is starting to wind down, and other
things of interest are coming forth. But in reading your
interchange with Daniel, I have a few comments I'd like to make.

Daniel may be making his point by getting this answer from you.
When someone wants to write to the ULT, to *whom* do they write?
If they already are in accord with the common purpose, they
presumably would be equally qualified to answer questions as to
ask them. Someone deciding to answer the mail at an established
ULT Lodge has no special standing to represent the organization.

> From what I've been hearing, there is no person to write to.
Each associate is equally qualified to say what he or she thinks
the ULT stands for. Apart from that, any common statement could
only come from a consensus arrived at in come large convention of
ULT students -- say at Cambria -- and what they arrived at would
only apply to them as a group, and not to the wider body of
associates.

Correct me if I'm wrong in this. But if it there are a few
associates recognized better qualified to answer questions and
make statements about the ULT than the common associate is, those
members would be self-appointed guardians, and might be operating
in violation of the stated spirit of the organization. (The
recognition of certain students as guardians of the purpose of
the organization creates a leadership or governing body of
students, which is what we see happening at times in the other
theosophical societies.)

If the ULT wants to try the experiment of being an organization
without leadership, it should really try to do so, and not fool
itself when it falls short of the objective. Otherwise, it's
equally fine to be a more conventional organization, with an
openly recognized organizational structure and leadership, since
the important thing is promoting the philosophy and doing the
spiritual work in the world, not the arbitrary means chosen to
achieve those ends.

-- Eldon