Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00138)

Dear Cass,

I'll respond to all your points seriatim but start with the issue 
that is important to me. When you say all personalities have 
agendas, that can be read in several ways. Of course everything we 
do has motives that are often/usually unknown to others and 
ourselves. But asking someone about his or her motives is not 
likely to produce useful results because we know so little about 
ourselves. An "agenda" rooted in unconscious motives will be at 
best semi-conscious-- things like wanting attention or to avoid 
focusing on an unpleasant work task. But agendas in the normal 
sense of the term are conscious *intentions*-- things we want to 
*accomplish* by a course of action.

For me and I suspect for most of us here, there is no such intention 
for participation beyond the obvious: wanting to share our ideas and 
learn those of others. Those participants who obviously have 
agendas here are out to persuade/convince/argue for/proselytize/ 
enforce a specific set of ideas or attitudes. (And attack anything 
seen as conflicting with them.) That kind of dogmatic consistency 
is only apparent in a handful of cases. Most everyone else who 
participates here IMO wants to express him or herself (about 
subjects we perhaps find it hard to discuss in "real life" for lack 
of interest by those in our environment.) Also to find out what 
others think. 

You wrote:
> CASS: Sorry, maybe I can rephrase it by saying, "get to the 
point?" You may take it as an insult, but that doesnt mean the 
person saying it meant it as an insult, but rather, I"m missing your 
point, can you please get to it?"
> 
That is certainly rude but not necessarily insulting. The 
implication is that the point isn't already apparent, or that there 
is some point beyond what is apparent. I find that usually when 
people ask this way they're asking for something that isn't there-- 
some intention to convey a particular canned message to the entire 
group, as opposed to the intention to express one's spontaneous 
response to a particular comment made by an individual. I can 
assure you that I am addressing you, not 270 theos-talkers, at the 
moment. 

>> CASS: I believe all "personalities" have agenda's, whether 
disingenuousness, or not. If we are arguing for internet 
intellectual freedom, then why so defensive of the language? If I 
thought you were beating your wife, I would ask you if you had 
stopped doing it. The short answer is "yes" or "no", the long 
answer is "mind your own business". 

All of those answers are incriminating because the question is 
a "gotcha" question. The right answer, if one has never done so, 
would be to say "I never did, so I could never have stopped."

>If we are searching for answers to truths but cannot do it because 
some people do not like to be intellectually challenged we won't get 
passed the agenda's of the personalities concerned, e.g. Don't talk 
to me like that.....
> 
It is not an *intellectual* challenge to accuse someone of acting on 
a hidden agenda. One can love to be intellectually challenged and 
balk at responding to personal accusations.
> 
snip

CASS: My mind is boggling over this one, "played various roles to 
stimulate students in particular ways", do you have any evidence or 
facts that you are basing your opinion on, as I would love to hear 
them.
> 
Yes, but haven't time to get into it in detail. Are you asking 
about HPB specifically, or about Gurdjieff too? Re: HPB I'd refer 
you to Old Diary Leaves in which Olcott portrays his dealings with 
her.

snip
> CASS: I sympathise with the poor soul that is under the control 
of an abuser and incapable of thinking or acting independently, but 
that abuser is an adult and has made choices that put them into that 
situation. To turn your head, knowing your children are being abused 
is not only selfish, but weakness and monstrous and usually breeds 
more monsters. If we stop feeling sorry for these people we may be 
able to end the cycle in one or two generations.
> 
Can't say I feel sorry for Besant in this situation-- just had a 
dream about her last night that presumably expresses my real 
perception of her. It was a series of vignettes in which she was 
parading around in various ceremonial regalia, basking in the 
adulation of disciples, looking like a complete and utter 
egomaniacal fool. But there are mitigating factors in her case that 
I don't see in CWL's.

> CASS: As a teacher of a new world order, being under complete 
control of anyone is a definite no no, especially when the teaching 
themselves state that control of self is the first step to spirtual 
liberation.
> 
What I have never been able to comprehend is the way she could think 
and act independently of CWL in matters of Indian politics, and yet 
be totally subservient to him in spiritual matters.
> 
> CASS: I thought she was one of the London subferjets (forgive the 
incorrect spelling) and therefore one imagines reasonably liberated 
from manipulation. 

She was almost always at the right hand of some man or other-- Shaw, 
Aveling, others.
snip

>> That bafflement would seem to rest on a premise of perfect 
foresight 
> on the part of her Masters.
> 
> CASS: Exactly my point, aren't they meant to have perfect 
foresight?
>
Here we are running into the usual problem I have in discussing the 
Masters with Theosophists. They usually mean the term in a 
deductive way-- the hypothetical beings whose characteristics can be 
deduced from theoretical descriptions of what such beings *ought* to 
be. I mean it inductively, in terms of the actual human mentors and 
sponsors who were guiding HPB; there is no evidence that they had 
perfect foresight and considerable evidence to the contrary. Nor 
has anyone else in history ever been found to have such perfect 
foresight.

Cheers,

Paul