Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00359)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Sufilight" <teosophy@m...> wrote:
> 
> Peter wrote:
> I very much endorse what you have said.

Which was what *Bart* said, that the list was becoming a hate list 
instead of a Theosophical list. Two people now have jumped on the 
bandwagon, without clarifying what Bart meant. Somehow I don't think 
he meant what Peter and Morten think he meant. Bart, will you 
explain?

My first reaction was to think of Frank and nos's anti-Semitic and 
anti-American rants. But those have actually diminished of late. 
When I looked through the last hundred posts to see activity levels, 
I found the top posters were Brigitte with 22 posts, Daniel with 18, 
Dallas with 13, Steve with 7, Frank with 6, Peter and Nos with 5 
each, everyone else with 3 or fewer. Now, of these 7, who are 
engaging in hate speech? What do they hate, how do they express it, 
and how can three people immediately jump into an attempt to "deal" 
with this having become a "hate list" without a syllable's worth of 
discussion of what they *mean* by that or who they hold responsible?

Dogmatic fundamentalist Theosophists will consider Brigitte to be 
hateful simply because she challenges their beliefs, which they 
consider "bothering" them. I find Daniel's posts hateful because he 
relentlessly interrogates (to the point of persecution) anyone who 
says anything that doesn't jive with his interpretation of HPB. 
Dallas hates any questions that don't lead to his particular set of 
answers, and opines that they oughtn't be asked. Steve doesn't seem 
to hate anyone, and is my favorite of the regular posters. Frank and 
nos hate America and Jews. But somehow I doubt very much that this 
latter is what Peter is "agreeing with" as the crucial problem even 
though it might be what Bart intended to say.

So when Morten jumps to offer his own suggestions for improving the 
list, I don't think they really reflect the nature of Bart's 
complaints or the actual, deepseated problems of Theosophical lists 
in general and this one in particular. He wrote:
> 
> I think, that we all are evolving - so to speak. So let us just 
keep up the - good -communication. 

What is "good" communication? What is good about people trying to 
stifle discourse about history because it doesn't suit them? We've 
seen lately Dorothy, Leon, Dallas, and now you and Peter making vague 
denunciations of unnamed people who are ruining the list. My answer 
to this: "Light a candle, or curse the darkness?" Brigitte and Steve 
and Daniel are doing *absolutely nothing* to interfere with y'all's 
ability to talk about *what* you want, *how* you want, and *when* you 
want. But it's much easier to say "the discourse around here stinks 
because it doesn't suit my personal tastes" than to *do* something 
constructive to express yourself positively. Same old story, I've 
seen the same fruitless complaints on many other lists, people 
talking about what *others* ought to be posting about instead of 
doing it themselves. That's just a waste of time and energy, and 
further pollutes the allegedly hateful atmosphere.

snip
> Let us help each other to reach a better communication. That is my 
view.

Suggestion number one: stop denouncing historical discussion as if it 
were inherently anti-spiritual. It's not. Particularly in the case 
of a movement that is founded on some very specific historical claims.
> 
> A view:
> 
> Think good, be good, do good.

History is good.

> Write good words. Think good words. Understand the importance of 
good words. 

Historical understanding is good. Historical debate is good.

> Don't think destruction. Don't think bad. Don't do bad. Don't write 
bad words. Don't think bad words. 

Don't think destructive thoughts about historical inquiry and 
discussion. Don't think bad thoughts about people who engage in 
them. Don't write bad words about them, or think bad words about 
them.

snip

> There has to be harmony between head, heart and hands - on 
communication. 
> To much heart without wisdom is no good. Too much wisdom without 
heart is either no good. And no use of hands (i.e. also no action), 
that is even worse.
> More heart please - and not all that academic analyzing - without 
compassion.
> 
Why not do what you think ought to be done rather than admonish 
others to be less analytical? Why, in general, on spiritual lists 
are there always a bunch of people telling other people not to 
discuss what they are discussing the way they are discussing it, 
because it's not spiritual enough? You want spiritual, BE spiritual 
and stop kvetching about other people's interests.
> 
> What do you really want ?

Dialogue with people who are sincerely seeking truth and interested 
in learning and sharing. Not bashing others who don't share their 
beliefs.

> What do you really seek ?

Spirituality that is not in conflict with clear awareness of history 
and all it reveals about human weakness and delusion. 

Paul