Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00515)

Eldon and all:

Mel Gibson buried Jesus Christ in blood and violence and many of this list are buring many long dead theosophers in difamation and sometimes fithy languages.
The episode that followed here in this list, having members using extremelyaggressive, offensive and accusing words that I do not need to quote is indeed a good sample of how far from the models of the so much wanted brotherhood we are.
One may say that we wonīt find enlightentent in a e-group or the attacks were a crancky style or not personal, but where is the HEART? The sensibility of one who is studying Wisdom? 
No matter how much we " give away " our opinions, views, judgements we are all humans and subject to commit mistakes and the words I have heard about CWL and others made me feel like I was in the wrong list.
I am fond of peace.
Charles W L lived nearly a century ago, itīs impossible that he or whomever was involved with books and lecturers at that time did not produce anything positive!
Itīs impossible for him and others repply the accusations.
If the attacks were only towads a point of view , done with necessary "etiquete" , alright ...but they went beyond!
We must show respect: we donīt see eye to eye...donīt even know the true name or where the person lives and we are not taking anything of it in consideration.
I want respect and I respect. 
I may not have the best English and awareness in many fields but I understand that itīs not positive what is going on.
It is a warning.
A signal.
We cannot act like blinded beasts eager to give the last word.
Many of you are using your intellectual awareness and you colletions of read books to insult people who are seekers like you.
You should be proud of living in a country in which the great majotity of the best sources are accessible and even in your mother tongue, and not act like warriors and lords of the truth.
I have had a great deception because I am not filiated to any TS yet and Ifeel I must not use this level of relationship to build my idea about the todayīs theosophists.
Many are the anti-examples.
I am disappointed because two list-friends who had also something to share, are out.
Nothing of this post is personal, unless when the cap fits.
And that is what I wanted to say.

Krishtar

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Eldon B Tucker 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com ; kpauljohnson@yahoo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:23 AM
Subject: Theos-World hubris, ranges of views, and not judging others whomwe're talking to




-----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 




   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   



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