Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00517)

In a message dated 1/19/2003 6:18:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:


> Hi Louis and all of you,
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> 
> To me an "attack" most often has bad intentions behind it.
> Whereas a "debate" just as often can have good and honest motives as bad
> ones.
> But as I said, I am not up to anything negative, I just want peace on this
> Planet. Peace between the west and the Midlle East. And that is that.
> If my non-violent movement is a verbal attack or just an attack - well then
> it is just that persons view, which claims it, - and not mine...
> Sometimes people feel, that their egotism are being attacked - and/or they
> feel, that their cultural bias towards people and cultures they do not know
> anything of - are being attacked.
> Other times people just talk a lot, because they want attention...>:-)
> But I am not from USA or any english speaking country, and that maybe
> explains this view.
> >:-)
> Else I agree a lot with you.
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight..with ehmm...some rugrats doing verbal exercises

Hello Mortem,

Here is the way I see it.

Attacks, or debates when such debates ARE, verbal attacks, have open or 
hidden agendas. These agendas are identified by the TONE AND INTENT of the 
message. Civil discussion for the purpose of illumined discovery, on the 
other hand, are comprised a mutual exchange of information without aggressive 
judgmental factors. The continual back and forth exchange, long after all 
opinions have been stated and heard, implies an underlying will to mount 
defenses or offenses. The universal language for any contest of offense and 
defense is WAR, A BATTLE, A FIGHT. I ask, What peaceful solution or 
resolution can possibly come out of such activity. Indeed, it seems that only 
SURRENDER is being called for, or will be accepted, in such exchanges.

Just my viewpoint. 

Be well,

Louis


> In a message dated 1/18/2003 10:14:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:
>
>
> > You say that I am attacking Bailey. That is to me a lie.
> > I am not up to any negative agenda. I just want peace on this Planet !
Is
> > that wrong ?
> > My agenda is to help humanity - including the Middle East - to get
peace.
> > Rethink your statement please, I urge you to do that.
> > The truth is, I believe, that you - feel - attacked your self. And why ?
> > I don't really know, so I ask, so you, I and others might learn.
> > Honestly: I am just debating and putting forward my views (i.e. they are
> > only views - being emailed) on theosophy as such and Bailey, and stating
> > where I think the books are wrong -
> > AND especially where I think - the pro-Bailey groups are wrong.
> > There is no attack. There is a debate !
> > If debating and exchanging of views are viewed as an attack, well when
is
> > debating then possible - at Theos-Talk ?
>
>
> Louis: Is there room for one more opinion?:
>
> Interesting response here Mortem. The word "attack" seems to bother you
but
> the word "debate" does not. But what is a "debate" if not, a verbal
attack?
> Especially as the "debate" format is be being used on this list lately. It
is
> the TONE of the verbal exchanges that determine whether a conversation is
an
> "attack," a "debate" (verbal attack) OR, a word you seem to have
overlooked
> here, a "discussion."
>
> It seems to me, that there are those, who HAVE been participating in these
> conversations within the spirit of "open discussion." And then, there are
> others whose verbal posture infer attack or "debate." It is the ongoing
> agenda that emerges in these exchanges, which help the readers identify,
who
> is who. It seems to me, that where the central theme of a message thread,
> revolves around issues of "Wrong" and "Right," there can be no hope of,
civil
> discussion. Only contentious debate seems to be forthcoming. Only when the
> parties can agree to go BEYOND the issues of who is right and who is
wrong,
> will there be any resolution of conflict.
>
> That said I eagerly await the resolution of this "debate."
>
> Best,
>
> Louis



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]