Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00542)

Hi Morten,
My feelings are that Theos-Talk has been hijacked by the incessant challenges of the past.  What, if anything, is anyone going to learn about Theosophy from these postings?  Is it not possible that those interested in continuing this argument correspond privately with each other?

I personally would like to hear your views on Channelling.  Whether in theosophical terms this is explainable phenomena as we were told that the only communication we have with the dead is through their shells.  However, in these times, there seems to be more and more evidence that channelling is a phenomena that exists.  How does one know the accuracy or authenticity of a channelled being?

Cass

"M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> wrote: Hallo Eldon and all,

My views are:

If you are serious with the below email, then I am dead serious with mine.
I disagree with your below email. And disagreeing with a moderator, is not 
an easy thing.

I will tell you Eldon and all members, that I am very close at reaching a 
decision to leave Theos-talk.
I have to draw the line somewhere. Eldon, I write this email, because I 
might have misunderstood your below email.

If you, Eldon and friends, want scholary exchanges and emotional tea and 
talk as the most important
to take place at Theos-talk, it is your choice, but I will protest if this 
is, what you are driving at.
If people at Theos-talk - only - are allowed free debates when the number of 
members at Theos-talk
are climbing, I will disagree. It is quality and not quantity in teaching 
(and not moderation), which are important.

We might some of us lose our heads in debates, - and as moderators. And some 
of us are not very well versed in the english language.
If our knowledge of scholary english is an excuse to close our threads, I 
disagree.


Eldon wrote:
"A second thread is about there being plots to subvert Theosophy and
the suggestion that some participants on the list might be somehow
involved."
---
"It is time that we move on, so I am stating that as of Monday morning,
the two threads be closed. That gives everyone about a day to write
any final thoughts on the subject. I am also stating that the ad
hominem attacks must stop. Granted, someone might lose his or her
temper and have a one-time outburst, and then express sorrow about the
mistake. But a persistent pattern of lashing out at people must not
continue."

Sufilight comments and asks:
You did not explain why you closed the second thread.
So I will ask:
-Why close it?
-What thread are you in fact referring to?
-What is wrong with this suggestion or claim you talk about?

- Did Blavatsky's article "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?" show the Jesuits their 
motives?
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm
- Are we allowed to exchange views upon this topic?
- And there was never written by Blavatsky anything in Lucifer about the 
dangers some persons posed to Theosophy?
- So Blavatsky was wrong and created plots and conspiracies against the 
Jesuits?


- How do you define an "attack"?
- Mass-emailing to promote ones own website is that an attack?
- The question is whether, there always really is an Ad hominem attack 
taking place,
or it is just an email seeking to provoke a theosophical experience? Who is 
to judge?
- And is the provoking of a theosophical experience allowed at Theos-talk 
anymore?
- Was Blavatsky's article on "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?" an Ad hominem attack 
on the Jesuitis?

These questions aught to be answered.
I have to ask a lot, because your below email makes me uncertain about your 
moderation level.

Eldon wrote:
"The list is independent. It is not subject to the
particular agenda and politics of any theosophical organization."

Not anymore it seems.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eldon B Tucker" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World IMPORTANT THEOS-TALK ANNOUNCEMENT (read this carefully)


> [Read this carefully if you are actively participating in the mailing
> list or are considering doing so.]
>
> The past few months have been a wild time at theos-talk, but now it is
> time for things to return to the type of discussion for which
> theos-talk was intended.
>
> The purpose of the list is to allow people of all backgrounds to share
> their interests as seekers and as students of the theosophical
> philosophy. The list is independent. It is not subject to the
> particular agenda and politics of any theosophical organization.
>
> The list does not have any special people that are entitled to write
> on behalf of Theosophy, correcting others and telling them they are
> wrong when they disagree. People can think differently and do not have
> to adhere to the outlook of anyone's favorite theosophical organization.
>
> It is a place for learning and sharing ideas. With people from all the
> different theosophical traditions welcome, there will be differing
> views on things. Disagreement is fine, although we can learn new
> things from one another.
>
> The hope is that people will come to respect others of different
> backgrounds, form a growing brotherhood, broaden their thinking,
> clarify their ideas, and learn from the experience.
>
> The first important rule of behavior is being respectful of others.
> Remember that you are talking to people. It is not any different than
> if you had a theosophical meeting in your living room and you are
> conversing face to face with them. Watch how you express yourself.
> Stop and listen to how you are putting your ideas into words.
>
> We should tolerate differing views. We are all entitled to write and
> have our own views. We should not find ourselves attacked when we
> disagree with someone else's favorite author.
>
> Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. This is when we reply in a
> discussion with an attack on the other person or the person's motives.
> This is a discussion list, not a fighting club. Everyone, try to stick
> to the points under discussion without name calling or saying others
> are acting with bad motives.
>
> What does this mean? You do not tell everyone what someone else's
> agenda is, nor call someone else a liar or slanderer, nor judge and
> tell everyone if he or she is a Theosophist or not, nor speak for him
> or her about what his or her motives may be. Stick to positions and
> premises rather than attack personalities.
>
> If you are unclear about what someone said, ask them. Each person is
> entitled to speak for himself or herself about what is meant. You are
> not entitled to tell them and everyone else what they actually mean.
>
> An additional rule of good behavior is that you do not hound someone
> about things they have not been discussing and do not want to talk
> about. If, say, Paul Johnson were to be on the list again and write
> about an interesting book he had read, he would be within his rights
> as a theosophical seeker to want to talk about it without being called
> to task by sharp critics of books he wrote many years earlier.
>
> This is not a historical research list nor is it a mouthpiece for the
> United Lodge of Theosophists, the Theosophical Society [Adyar], the
> Theosophical Society [Pasadena], nor any other particular group.
> Long-running fights between groups should not be bitterly fought out
> here between hard-line supporters.
>
> Right now, there are some active threads of discussion that are
> getting tiresome. They are getting nowhere and have had the effect of
> driving people away. In the past week, three people have unsubscribed,
> including one that lasted less than a day, someone that initially
> indicated great interest in learning about Theosophy and that was
> likely gravely disappointed in what she read.
>
> One thread is about there being two editorial styles of gathering and
> offering historic information on Blavatsky. We have repeatedly read of
> the merits of each approach and been exposed to far too much name-calling.
>
> A second thread is about there being plots to subvert Theosophy and
> the suggestion that some participants on the list might be somehow
> involved.
>
> We are here on the list to learn about Theosophy and consider a broad
> spectrum of emerging ideas that might broaden our thinking on life. We
> are not here to squabble over styles of historic books nor are we here
> to play a game of "Who is the real Dugpa?"
>
> It is time that we move on, so I am stating that as of Monday morning,
> the two threads be closed. That gives everyone about a day to write
> any final thoughts on the subject. I am also stating that the ad
> hominem attacks must stop. Granted, someone might lose his or her
> temper and have a one-time outburst, and then express sorrow about the
> mistake. But a persistent pattern of lashing out at people must not
> continue.
>
> This is an unmoderated list and I would like it to remain that way.
> But if any individual cannot behave, he or she might face personal
> moderation (or expulsion in extreme cases). Each person has the right
> to express himself or herself, but not to deny others their equal
> rights of expression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

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