Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00495)

-----Original Message-----
>From: stevestubbs [mailto:stevestubbs@yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:09 PM
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Theos-World Re: Whoa, Dennis!
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
>wrote:
>> Now the focus has managed to shift from whether CWL in fact 
>> was a pedophile who abused a large number of victims, to whether 
>> Paul is too thin-skinned, or guilty of hubris, or needs a lesson 
>> in netiquette.
>
>Thin skinned, yes, but I thought Eldon was a little off in bringing 
>up hubris in connection wirh you.

Steve, Paul, and Everybody:

I haven't had time to follow the discussions too closely. My
reference to "hubris" wasn't directed at anything Paul or anyone
has recently said. The first thing that comes to mind when I read
about the word is how when we over-extend ourselves spiritually
something comes to bring us down and face our own mortality. I
haven't been getting involved in pro- or anti-Leadbeater discussions
since it's a topic that easily polarizes people (like partisan
politics). The idea to post the dictionary entry was spontaneous;
I saw it in my too-full inbox and decided it might be worth sharing.
Sometimes I delete stuff like it; other times, I pass on and share
items of interest that I get in the mail. When I have time and 
interest to get involved in a particular thread of discussion, I'll
reply to what is being said. If I have something to quote that ties
into the discussion, I'll try to say why I see a connection and what
I think it means. 

In a discussion, various ideas are shared. One can disagree and
counter with other ideas. That's fine. But it's not a good idea to
psychoanalyze other people, to tell them how their ideas are bad
because they're messed up in such-and-such a way. That only provokes
a fight. Stating that someone is guilty of hubris, one does the same
thing. Bringing up hubris is best done in the context of describing
one's own experiences in life, how they humble one and lead to deeper
insight. It's best used as a tool for self-reflection, not as a
weapon to bring down someone else. 

The other aspect of discussions that's important is that each person
is the best one to ask what they mean when they say something. If
someone says something that we don't like or that sounds funny, perhaps
they did not mean it the way that we read it. It's best to ask them
"did you mean to say ...?" It's not legitimate to force an interpretation
on someone's words that they clearly did not mean (ever though in politics
and the legal system this is down regularly, where the desired goal is
considered more important than the truth). This guesswork may be all one
has in doing history, where the person that wrote something is long dead,
but it's out-of-place when we're in regular communication with the person
and they can easily reply to a query regarding what they're trying to say.

If I had written a few words about hubris when posting the dictionary
entry, I would have said something like the above, mentioning that it's
best done in self-reflection or in looking at others to personally learn
from their experience. I would not have used it to describe anyone's
behavior; that would be belittling them (saying they're "flying too high")
and wishing them ill (saying I "hope you'll get your well-deserved fall").

I tend to see the mailing list as being more successful when there's a
wide range of views expressed and people are continuing to talk to each
other. It starts to fail when all but one viewpoint are silenced or when
everyone's at war with everyone else. Can we stop much of our bickering,
judging, and name-calling of each other? (That's different that having
differing views on a historic character; it's talking about real, living
people we're in communication with.) Here where I'm saying this, I'm
talking about all of us; I'm not referring to anyone that may have been
critical or criticized by others recently.

-- Eldon