From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: "AA-Theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE Theos-World General statment and opinion from Dallas
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:07:06 -0800
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cc: AA-Eldon
Subject: RE: Theos-World General statement and opinion from
Dallas
Dec 11 2002
Dear Eldon:
Re: Theos-World, and Theos-talk.
I do not think that opinions other than those that have some
modicum of Thoeopshical inquiry or
value ought to be allowed to inflict themselves on us.
We are not a contentious group. Nor are any of us, who have been
on the list for a while, derisive of
others views and queries. We respect them. And, we ask serious
questions. I trust this atmosphere can be restored and
maintained.
This list, to my mind, and after being on it for some years, is
not framed by you to be a common debating society, and the ruses
and ambushes of polemical debate are not really useful to deep
and serous spiritual research, though they may amuse those who
have psychic interests.
Theosophy stands for BROTHERHOOD.
It stands [ because of universal Spiritual Unity ] for the study
of, and detection of TRUTH. In this case it seems to largely
point to the rule of Law and laws in all aspects of nature.
Those who deal with Nature as Science does, know this. The whole
philosophy of Science and the “laws” of every country are based
on it. They exemplify, however poorly, the ideal of fairness to
all. So is Theosophy, although it includes a much wider, and
more ancient set of parameters for our consideration. In fact
the study of Nature -- as we are a part of It, and it surrounds
us all and supports our living -- is essential to our continued
well-being.
Humanity [I mean the Family of Man] is such an aspect, and in
fact, I think in fairness, it can be said: each human being, in
his or her way, epitomizes the whole of Nature. We draw, each
one of us, on every aspect of the Universe, and have the
capability (potential ?) of understanding those remote, as well
as the closest of relationships. In general we could also say we
are seeking ever more deeply to understand the majestic sweep of
sensitivity and gentle care, that Nature devotes to all beings,
ourselves included.
No one owns TRUTH.
So no one ought to seek to denigrate or defame another's honest
search, or expression, or inquiry into it.
If some standards of exchange and of language are not set at a
reasonable minimum, then the exchanges become very annoying. Do
we have to wade through acrimonious opinions ? -- and that is no
pleasure, at least, to me.
If there are to be challenges, then let them be impersonal and of
the philosophy or of the expressions of individual understanding
that are expressed concerning, it or aspects of it.
I think such personal acrimony is self-destructive to the value
of Theos-talk, and certainly of Theos-World.
This kind of contribution, has an additional impact (or shall I
say: a power of disruption) which deflects some participants or
newcomers from their attempt to understand what we are seeking
all together; or, to get at the truth, or inquire into details
and facts concerning others' possessing some experience,
something that has led to a perception of it in some way other
than theirs or ours. And, their willingness to share with us
their thoughts and memories.
Finally, it makes our "exchange group" a "laughing stock" for
those who have not even touched the shores of our island of
knowledge, nor touched the smallest of the waves of the Universe
of WISDOM. How can those who claim unity be so virulently
contentious?
I would also say that no personal attacks ought to be
countenanced. No one ought to be publicly derided or put down.
If the tone is to be that of learning together, then good. But
then, we can ask questions. In my opinion, no one ought to seek
to dominate others by the use of opprobrium.
A review of some recent exchanges indicates were a participant
"lives," and such ought to be first reproved and then, sadly,
eliminated from public contributions on these lists. I recognize
this may appear to be censorship, and yet it also demands the use
of some firm principles, such as you have already expressed. Let
them find some other more congenial list in which to operate,
why choose ours ?
I wonder if others on the list would care to join me in this
review of opinion. I may be wrong in expressing it in this way.
Perhaps others have better ways.
Freedom is freedom. Agreed. But to my mind it is no license to
disrupt, antagonize or deride.
To unite is to understand. To disparage is to refuse another, or
others, the right to unite.
Best wishes,
Dallas
=========================
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill M
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The movie COMA
< Let's face it, this is the age of "compassionate
conservatism," in which we invade oil producing countries to
seize the oil wells for private enrichment and in which the
Supreme Court elects presidents.>
Apparently, This must also be the age in which one is allowed to
throw out the grain of truth traditionally found in good comedy.
Which countries have we invaded?
Which oil wells have we seized?
Which private individuals have been enriched by these invasions
and
seizures?
Which presidents have been elected by the Supreme Court?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
