[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World re Zakk's "Brotherhood & Truth"

Dec 30, 2004 05:17 PM
by Mauri

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),

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.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application