Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00568)

====
> "What are the limits to discussion?"
> Ennui
>
> Cass
====

Here's a clue for them:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33393

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> 
> "What are the limits to discussion?"  
> Ennui
> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> 
> carlosaveline <carlosaveline@...> wrote: 
> Sufilight,  Eldon and Friends,  
> 
> I agree with both Eldon and Sufilight.  
> 
> I agree with Sufilight in many of his points, including in these 
words addressed to Eldon:  
> 
> "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?"
> 
> And Sufilight proceeeds: 
> 
> "- 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? "
> 
> I agree with many other things Sufilight had to say, too. Yet I 
also agree with Eldon Tucker. Eldon is thinking of the group.  That 
is good. There is one question  I would pose, though: 
> 
> "What are the limits to discussion?"  
> 
> To establish precise limits could be a messy subject, as we saw 
during the years of  military dictatorship in Brazil,  when there was 
previous censorship to journalistical texts.  It was in the 1970s and 
early 1980s. 
> 
> Every newspaper  text had to be seen by some military "expert" and 
then approved or not.  Criterias were subjective and varied.  In 
those times, one the most traditional  newspapers here published  
long kitchen recipes or classical Portuguese Poetry, in its pages 
dedicated to political and social issues! So that the readers could 
know what as going on. 
> 
> No amount of regulations can work, unless there is some unspoken 
agreement  -- and a mutual  sincere respect for the common ground 
which is Theos-talk. 
> 
> So my reading of Eldon's message is that it is above all a calm, 
moderate, impersonal call to calming down. Not a censorship.  Thus, I 
agree with Eldon. 
> 
> I do not see that Eldon  is  literally "forbidding" people from 
discussing Jesuitism, for instance, a theme on which, as we have 
seen, HPB wrote a lot. 
> 
> As an example, she described with some degree of detail the 
Jesuitic infiltration in Masonry (in "Isis Unveiled").  It is clear 
that the theosophical movement has had to face,  and will have to 
face in the future,  the danger of infiltrated Jesuits, call them 
what we want.  Yet I agree with Eldon that things should quiet down.
> 
> Of course, if Eldon  does go  into details about what can and 
cannot be said, which I think would be a difficult terrain, it could 
change the whole conception of theos-talk as a free-discussion 
place.  
> 
> 
> On the other hand, as I see it, Sufilight has always been an 
impersonal, respectful and thoughtful participant in the discussions. 
Along with many others.  
> 
> Perhaps Eldon kindly  clarify on  the prohibition (or not) to 
discuss Jesuitism and other topics which are polemical  for the 
movement today. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline, from Brazil.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> C�pia:
> 
> Data:Sun, 14 May 2006 01:02:17 +0200
> 
> Assunto:Re: Theos-World IMPORTANT THEOS-TALK ANNOUNCEMENT (read 
this carefully)
> 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> > Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> > http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?
+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1147561090.220980.23984.mindelo.hst.terra.com.b
r,11733,Des15,Des15
> > 
> > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 12/05/2006 / 
Vers�o: 4.4.00/4761
> > Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
rates.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>