Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00028)

Hi Paul,

You said:

"I think it would be more effective to actually start new discussion
threads on topics one considers preferable, as opposed to telling
others their interests are inappropriate or unworthy of discussion.
The latter course only adds fuel to the fire, because people don't
like attempts to stifle them."

I wasn't trying to stifle anything, I was presenting my point of 
view on the subject, that by the way you reach to the conclusion 
that was a cognitive dissonance, without even knowing me or knowing 
the beliefs I may hold.

If you think your ten years experience of cyber discussions (on a 
group with around 200 members) it's a logical evidence to categorize 
and condemned thousands members of the T.S., there is no base for 
discussion.

I am aware of your writings and all the critics you had. Your 
attempt in trying to hold an academic and apparently open minded 
position fall a part when your statements demonstrate great rigidity.

Historical studies and researches are relevant, may clarify and 
bring light upon many issues, but endless insistence into 
criticizing so much the Theosophical Society it's something else.

Erica Letzerich



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" 
<kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Erica Letzerich" 
<eletzerich@y...>
> wrote:
> This is a hasty generalization a deductive fallacy. 
> > 
> Hi again Erica,
> 
> My first experience of Theosophical cyberspace was more than ten 
years
> ago. Participants were criticizing CWL's doctrines and behavior on
> theos-l in 1993-94, and other participants (invariably Adyar 
members)
> were attacking them as spiritually wrong for doing so. The same 
thing
> has occurred regularly ever since. So when I see it today and say
> it's a typical reaction based on 10 years of observation of
> Theosophical cyberspace, that's "hasty" only if one takes the 
larger
> manvantaric picture. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
> > 
> > You do not provide a good argument in your call for discussing 
the 
> > founders, in your analogy of sexual abuse in the family.
> 
> I wasn't calling for it but trying to explain why attempts are
> invariably made to shut down such discussions.
> 
> > Nobody is discussing about hiding information, denying it or 
keeping
> it veiled. 
> > 
> That seems to be precisely what Perry, Steve, Daniel, Gregory, and 
I
> have been discussing.
> 
> > My call was direct and simple a call to the ideals that the T.S. 
> > represent in the world. 
> > 
> > Or when you, Dr. Tillet (or whoever else you mentioned in your 
> > previous e-mail) joined the T.S. it was with the aim to study 
and 
> > discuss the personal life of T.S. fellows? 
> > 
> No, but neither was it with the aim of belonging to a group that is
> pathologically avoidant of basic facts about its own history.
> I must take issue with your relegation of CWL's behavior to the 
realm
> of "personal life." What HPB did or didn't do in her youth does
> indeed fall into that category; while the parentage of Yuri is an
> interesting puzzle it's not relevant to her role as a Theosophical
> teacher. But CWL's sexual proclivities weren't simply "his private
> life;" he repeatedly used his role as a Theosophical leader to 
obtain
> access to victims and threw the TS into uproars caused by his 
> behavior. Moreover, his long shadow still has a profound effect on
> the life of the TS. Any effort to understand why things are the 
way
> they are in the Adyar TS leads right back to CWL and his "personal
> life." Hence, it's a Theosophical issue.
> 
> > The T.S. hold three very clear objects and in none is stated to 
> > investigate the personal lives of theosophists or to confirm if 
> > Blavatsky was wearing a pink or red underwear.
> > 
> The Adyar TS may claim to the right to stifle allegedly 
inappropriate
> historical discussions among its members-- hence to declare certain
> topics off limits in its publications or any online discussion 
fora it
> controls. In a mixed group including non-Theosophists and non-
Adyar
> Theosophists, the Adyar TS members cannot *control* historical
> discussion-- but sure can *disrupt* it with personal condemnation 
of
> those trying to carry on such discussion. 
> 
> I think it would be more effective to actually start new discussion
> threads on topics one considers preferable, as opposed to telling
> others their interests are inappropriate or unworthy of 
discussion. 
> The latter course only adds fuel to the fire, because people don't
> like attempts to stifle them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul