Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00093)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" 
Good morning,

The post quoted below uses some tactics that I've seen repeatedly on various fora, used by Baha'is, Cayceites, Theosophists, Fourth Way disciples. Sometimes I've been the target, more often the observer of its use on others. In every case the dynamic is this: one person is a true believer, the other a dissident or skeptic. The former expresses disdain for the latter, not by saying outright "you, X, are beneath me so I look down on you and denounce you" but rather by making sneering, dismissive comments to others *about* the skeptic or dissident without naming him or her. Such comments offer a tiny fig leaf of plausible deniability-- if the target objects, their authors can turn around and say "I wasn't referring to you and the fact that you imagine I was just proves you're paranoid." I will never forget one Baha'i who made a point by point attack on a post I made and then furiously insisted that he had never read it or anything else I ever wrote!
(And never would lower himself to do so.)

Having seen "the treatment" from several folks here, I would guess that the message is "I'm so disdainful of you that I refuse to address you or refer to you by name, yet my disdain requires expression via indirect sneering comments." But hereby welcome and invite explanations from anyone about why people do that. Seems like passive aggressive stuff to me; throw a rock, hide your hand.

Tony (whom I know only from this post) wrote:

<alpha@d...> wrote:

> Hi Terrie
> 
> Your e-mails! Rather like the sun peeping out from behind they dark black
> clouds. 

What dark clouds?

> You initially wrote:
> <<<I think/feel that HPB's materials are
> a worldly, enlightening and unbias resourse AND that what she has
> written is in fact a tremendous accumulation of reason and wisdom AND
> quite a respectable gift to have accomplished/offered on up - it's an
> inspiration, even today.>>>
> 
> Alas, what seemed a reasonable statement, 

"Seemed" is not absolute but relative. So it seemed to *you*, Tony, but not to me.

has turned into a rather tacky
> conversation about bias. 

Tacky meaning in poor taste? Why is it tacky to discuss bias? Rather than sneering at the conversation, perhaps you might enlighten us with non-tacky comments about bias?

Like you, biased is not something I would use
> about or attribute to H.P.B. 

Why not? She was a vigorous polemicist with a very definite agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's not the case.

We do know she had tremendous powers of
> discrimination:), and where you might well use discrimination, another might
> use bias. The books you read may be to do with your discriminatory powers,
> rather than with bias. The sun view is different to the black clouds view.

That sort of comment is summarized by a very simple phrase, "holier than thou." Why not get down off your high horse and engage the topic as an equal among equals? The Theosophical movement is very poorly served IMO by the tactics its adherents use, congratulating one another with their superiority to benighted skeptics. I'd advise saving that for private email because it makes a bad appearance for your "side."


> Bias is below the belt, discrimination above the head. Roget is not law.

Descriptive, not prescriptive. Terrie doesn't have to use the word the way it is generally used, but will be better understood if she does so.

> I have read some Olcott, and been to several talks given by Krishnamurti.
> It is nice to dip into lots of different things, but there is no particular
> reason why anyone should feel the need to read Krishnamurti from the
> Theosophical point of view. 

No particular reason? That's rather sweeping. How about the fact that the maximum membership of the TS was during its promotion of him as the World Teacher? And that his profile is now much higher than the Society that nurtured him and which he then rejected?


Olcott did a wonderful job as an
> administrator, and also did mesmeric healing and other great things.
> But H.P.B. was the Occultist, was of the inner side, so to put it. Here in
> London it is warm, and the happy waitress serving the coffees to us outside
> in Soho was from Mauritius, and was demanding to see some snow. It is always
> supposed to snow at Christmas here, but rarely does. There is something
> magical about snow. Is it something to do with the fact that every
> snowflake is a geometrical shape. It is very like H.P.B's writings. They
> are full of symbols and geometrical shapes, sounds and colours, pictures,
> and so on. As snow flakes are so beautiful, think by how much more so are
> the thought flakes in "The Secret Doctrine" and "The Voice of the Silence,"
> and All works of That occult or hidden Nature.
> 
> Keep shining
> Tony
>
Shiny New Year to you!

Paul, no dark cloud 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thalprin <thalprin@y...> [mailto:thalprin@y...]
> Sent: 30 December 2002 11:13 pm
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Unbiased
> 
> 
> Hi again