Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00434)

Sorry, did I give the impression that I 
was being antagonistic? I tried not to 
create that impression. I was offering, 
I thought, objective, unemotional 
speculations on the topic of 
"brotherhood" and the word "brotherhood" 
as it's used on these lists, eg. No, I 
wasn't suggesting that the English 
language could do with some sort of 
overhaul. In any case, Zakk, I tend 
agree with your comments up to a point: 
though I don't see myself very often 
using the word "brotherhood" in its 
classic sense (as it was generally used 
in the 19th century) on these lists. I 
think I'd prefer some way around that 
word, however that detour may work out 
in practice by way of my speculative 
tangents. Which is to say, as I tend to 
see it, that I seem to have certain 
written mannerisms, for better or worse. 
What can I say ... Not to say that my 
mind is closed (I like to think) where 
different forms of expression are used.
Which brings me to my recent "forms of 
expression in Theosophy" post (if one 
might see a connection there ...).

Speculatively and even keeledly, I like 
to think, (rather than antagonistically, 
I'm hoping),
Mauri

PS I seem to think that it might be 
possible for one to be interpreted on 
these lists as both speculative and even 
keeled enough so that one generally 
would tend not to arouse too many 
antagonistic reactions. Not that I 
interpreted your reaction, Zakk, as 
antagonistic, exactly, (not that I 
haven't wondered about a few things), 
but I was wondering about how one might 
interpret (and how I might interpret) 
your tone in that post. Just wondering, 
mind you, rather than judging 
particularly.

PPS Incidentally, Whitley Strieber 
wrote a book entitled "Communion." Not 
that I'm suggesting anything 
particularly. After all ...

Zakk Duffany wrote:

> > Zakk wrote, in part: 
> The term brother can be taken as a male. It can also
> be defined as a fellow member of a race, profession, org.,
> etc. Brotherly can be defined as friendly versus a depicting
> of a male. The intent from it's usage usually assists in the
> defining. Although I do not have any issue with using another
> term instead of brotherhood, I simply do not know of any 
> that is used. I think it may be a mind that is biased-based 
> that would take the term in a bias manner, no matter what 
> century one may be experiencing. In the past I have used
> the term siblings versus brothers on many ocassions. To
> incorporate that into the term siblinghood may appease
> the sexually or gender orientated. I do not know. Until
> another term is accepted and utilized in replacement of 
> brotherhood, how is one to refer to it? I would be quite
> open to suggestions. I do not think that the students of
> Theosophy would prefer eliminating the term brotherhood
> from written material and replacing it with another. What
> the term entails, and what is meant by it, is clearly expressed
> in the writings. There may exist many terms in which an
> individual may find biased or improper or something
> similar. How many terms should be replaced or redefined
> to satisfy all persons? Is it even possible? It would seem
> easier to accept the meaning of the term in which it is 
> presented. It is not that I do not understand that in which
> you saying, but if one word is justified in changing, why not
> two? Or three? Or a hundred? I personally have no
> preference to terms as long as the meaning is clear so 
> communication can be also. I am only looking at the 
> possible complications that can arise.