Theos-Talk Archives (August 2010 Message tt00001)

Hi Katinka,

First of all in reply to your question: "You did not address the main issue I 
raised: do you have a problem with theos-talk being moderated? "
I already expressed my point of view, which you can read in the following link: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/54526
I clearly addressed the question leaving no doubt, about my position, on the 
matter you raised.

Lately many things seems to puzzle you: the e-mails Doss have, his IP address, 
if he writes or not his e-mails, and now why I started talking about other 
subjects. The reply to the latter is simple: I wanna talk about it. You could 
just have ignored it, if you think it was out of context. But you were kind 
enough to address it.

Let me remind you that I mentioned the subject related to the election system of 
some Sections, after you mentioned the following: "As for any controversy about 
that section: there are serious doubts about how much influence the actual 
members have on the administration." 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/54540

All I said is: the same can be applied to the members of the American Section. 
Any non-democratic system reduces the influence of members.
I think there is no doubt about it. The system of the Brazilian Section, also 
was changed in a democratic way, with universal vote. Still seeing you targeting 
only the Brazilian Section in your posts, shows to me clearly that you embraced 
some unilateral views. If one is to talk about the amount of influence members 
have in a Section, one should not ignore other Sections which have also similar 
or even worst problems. That is to  fair in my opinion.

Now I am also puzzled about few things.  Again about the Brazilian Section, you 
posted on your blog,  that the Brazilian Section payed air-tickets for some 
members, and placed the following question: "Where does generosity end and 
paying for influence begin?"  So tell me, were   you never sponsored by the 
American-Section or Krotona to visit them?  Having all the Collected Writings on 
your web-site, also provided by the  American Section, is also something nice 
isn't it?  Here I place the same question for you: "Where does generosity end 
and paying for influence begin?" See I do not want to know details about all 
this. My point is that: the same logic you use when referring to the  "paying 
influence," can be applied to others as well, and to different situations.  


Though having followed your position during the controversy caused by the 
disfranchising proposal, and seeing you were against it. I think you stand on 
your own feet, and expresses your point of view independent of anything else, 
and I really hope you keep doing so. But I have been noticing that  clearly, you 
are embracing a tactic of attack to one Section in the case the Brazilian, of 
which you know but very little. 


In order not to leave place for more puzzles, the questions and points of views 
I am expressing, were raised by your blog-posts. I was planning to address it, 
eventually, and I am doing it now.


Erica



________________________________
From: Spirituality <mail@PigNDEaaGWuaMmW4Y11AO7TnTpKdHbYGrAKuyLI3K-Eoq4ae_5s1ldLXrev9S3HXFGmx88HWm8mFKCRKafm9nAB0pZ0.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 9:29:13 AM
Subject: Freedom and democracy in the US versus Brazil (and India) - & 
theos-talk policy

  
Hi Erica,

Since it seems you don't know the details of how the US section works, what you 
say about the subject is obviously speculation.

Let me speculate a bit as well. The US section is a society by the rules of such 
things in US law. This means it must be democratic in some sense at least.

I've been reading Joy Mills' account on the section history and it is clear that 
any moving away from direct vote was done on the members request and with their 
permission. There used to be a system of direct vote on electing the board 
members. Unfortunately, that system was let go. However, it was by democratic 
means that it was let go of. 


I don't know the details anymore than you do, but I do suspect that were people 
to get off their chairs and really become active, in the USA they could get 
people nominated who aren't pushed forward by the board. Generally speaking it's 
lack of nominations that makes it necessary for boards to nominate people. In 
the US, like in other Western countries. 


Of course whoever wanted to do that would have to really get people behind him 
or her. Which takes coordinated action and a spirit of cooperation. Simply the 
will to be in the board and work there won't be enough. 


In short: the rules in the USA are such that it is possible for members to get 
the section moving in a different direction, it's just that the management 
culture of late has been making it harder. There is still a difference though 
between making it harder, and having it be practically impossible. 


Joy Mills did a great thing when she became president of that section: she did a 
brain storming session of a week or something with lodge representatives and 
workers & took the results of that as the basis for her own policy. I would wish 
the American Section would get back to that kind of leadership. Actually - many 
sections could do with that kind of leadership.

If the brain storming session included people who had become disillusioned with 
the TS and left after a year, it would be even better. Generally though, in the 
TS, only people who stick to it longer than that are listened to at all. 


The malady that ails the American section, in my view, is lack of vision and 
people being so individualistic that working together becomes hard. There can't 
be leadership without some aspect of 'following'. 


I'm not saying 'following' should come first. I'm just saying that there seems 
to be very little social glue to keep the American section together. Lodges are 
hardly supported any more. Publishing books and correspondence courses: that's 
what the TS in the US seems to be best at. 


The real parallel to Brazil is India: there too it's the lodge representatives 
who elect national officials. I don't know if in India it's also the other way 
around: that in practice the national officials choose the lodge officials. If 
so, it's clear that in India, like in Brazil, the members don't really have much 
say. 


What really puzzles me though is this. In response to my complaint that 
Theos-Talk has been moderated while it was claimed that it was unmoderated - you 
start talking about what ails other aspects of theosophical work. 


You did not address the main issue I raised: do you have a problem with 
theos-talk being moderated? Do you mind that Govert and Preethi were censored? 
Do you want MKR to do that the next time there's a theosophical controversy, or 
do you want all sides of the argument to be seen on here? 


Katinka

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Erica L. Georgiades" <eletzerich@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Katinka,
> 
> The same problem might be pointed out to the American Section as well. 
> 
> Both the Brazilian and the American section do not a democratic electoral 
> process.  Though it seems the system implemented in the Brazilian Section 
>(which 
>
> I am personally against) is even more open than the one of the American Section 
>
> which  members may join the board ( or be a candidate to the board) only if 
>they 
>
> are indicated by members of the board, this seems to be the election system in 

> the T.S. in USA. I know not details. 
> 
> 
> The Brazilian Section has a similar system, but it seems the Presidents of the 

> Lodge in every region elect one regional member to represent them and and these 
>
> representants elect the members of the council. Something like a pyramidal 
> system.  Both electoral system (in my opinion) are not good, as reduces the 
> influence of the members. But both members of American and Brazilian Section, 
>if 
>
> they want to change the system they can simply unite in their countries and try 
>
> to achieve it. 
> 
> 
> I know some members of the American Section which are very unhappy with the 
> election system there.  If I was a member of the Brazilian Section or American 

> Section, certainly I would be working to change the election system. 
> 
> 
> Well yeah about representation maybe you are right, there were two speakers of 

> the Brazilian Section. But if you consider that the American Section got two or 
>
> three days workshops directed by BB., so there was also an over-representation 

> of the American Section as well. 
> 
> 
> Erica
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Spirituality <mail@...>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 11:50:37 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Comments on Independence and impartiality
> 
> 
> HI Erica,
> 
> I certainly did not mean to suggest the Brazilian section should not be 
>welcome. 
>
> I just thought they were over represented: that is, more speakers from that 
> section than was to be expected based on membership numbers etc. 
> 
> 
> As for any controversy about that section: there are serious doubts about how 
> much influence the actual members have on the administration. 
> 
> 
> Katinka
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Erica L. Georgiades" <eletzerich@> wrote:
> >
> > I am surprised to know the list is censored. As member of theos-talk for many 
>
> > years, the element of freedom was always present and everyone could post.
> > 
> > I think that Eldon and Ramadoss should discuss about the current policy of 
> > censoring posts, and restore the list to its normal activities. 
> > 
> > 
> > Those persons who were censored, should have send their post to  theos-net 
> >along 
> >
> > with a protest for censoring. 
> > 
> > 
> > Ramadoss many members have been complaining about the secrecy which pervades 

> > the moves of some leaders and sections. All the conflict that happened in the 
>
> > last elections, was mainly because of the proposal to remove the rights of 
> > members to vote for International President. And you are one of the persons 
>who 
>
> >
> > most complained about such tactics. 
> > 
> > 
> > So if we want a T.S. more democratic and open, we should settle the example. 

> >The 
> >
> > price paid for a democratic system, is that not always pleasant things are 
>said 
>
> >
> > or stated. But people have freedom to express themselves. 
> > 
> > 
> > About the speculation Katinka mentioned, this do not surprise me at all. 
>After 
>
> 
> > all there is group in the T.S. sustaining and promoting a theory of 
>conspiracy 
>
> 
> > and specially attacking the Brazilian Section. There was a post even 
> >considering 
> >
> > the invitation of Ricardo Lindemann a controversial choice, because he 
>belongs 
>
> 
> > to the Brazilian Section. If I am not wrong Katinka made such a comment. 
>Maybe 
>
> 
> > in the mind of some people, every Brazilian should be excluded from 
>activities, 
>
> >
> > as the Section is the target for different accusations. 
> > 
> > 
> > My personal opinion on this matter is that: if there is a problem with the 
> > Brazilian Section, the members of the Section should deal with it, and solve 

> >the 
> >
> > problem. Furthermore we should be careful before considering excluding 
>someone 
>
> 
> > because of accusations without substantial proofs. Because exclusions are 
>made 
>
> 
> > not only in online forums, but also in activities organized by the T.S.. So 
>or 
>
> 
> > we are against this kind of policy in every area, or we are hypocrites. 
> > 
> > 
> > As far as I know the people who are using many e-mails and sending anonymous 

> > messages with threats, is the side "against Radha." Actually they went as far 
>
> >as 
> >
> > to create an e-mail address in hushmail, to send their anonymous messages so 

> > they cannot be traced.  So a person, who does this kind of things, naturally 

> > will think that others can do it also. 
> > 
> > 
> > Either way the point of this post is that censoring posts or excluding people 
>
> >is 
> >
> > not right.
> > 
> > 
> > Erica
> > 
> > ps. Someone may say that messages had to be pre-approved in the blog I 
>created, 
>
> >
> > during the controversy of the disfranchising proposal, so there was not 
> >freedom. 
> >
> > This is the way I prefer to work with blogs, even my personal blog has the 
>same 
>
> >
> > policy.  But nobody can ever say that a comment sent to that blog was 
>censored. 
>
> >
> > Such a thing never happened.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Spirituality <mail@>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 3:00:38 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Comments on Independence and impartiality
> > 
> > 
> > Hi MKR,
> > 
> > That's great to hear, but not really what people are concerned about I 
think.
> > 
> > Let's go back a bit. At the Theosophical World Congress, and through email in 
>
> > the days after it, several people expressed their concern to me that your 
> > management of theos-talk was not impartial. That is: you have sensored people 
>
> > who had perfectly decent contributions to make (Preetthi and Govert and 
>perhaps 
>
> >
> > more) and seemed informed extraordinarily quickly of any movement on the part 
>
> >of 
> >
> > Radha/Pedro etc. 
> > 
> > 
> > Hearing that, and thinking that Eldon was still ultimately in charge of this 

> > list, I asked him to use his authority to get the list back on track, or 
>close 
>
> 
> > it. Whichever he preferred. He probably contacted you - and the below is your 
>
> > response. 
> > 
> > 
> > Personally I don't give a darn whether you make money on theosophy or not. 
> > Obviously it is easier to be critical for those who aren't in the employ of 
>the 
>
> >
> > TS, but that doesn't mean that those who aren't - are necessarily impartial. 

> > They're just financially independent of the TS - which is the situation for 
> >most 
> >
> > of us here. 
> > 
> > 
> > For me, and several of my correspondents - the question is: why has 
>theos-talk 
>
> 
> > stopped being the open forum it used to be? 
> > 
> > 
> > And more specifically: how come you use several email addresses to post on 
> >here? 
> >
> > What are you trying to hide? In fact, the speculation has come up that MKR 
> >hides 
> >
> > several people on several continents. 
> > 
> > 
> > Now I'm all for freedom and would have preferred for theosophical.ning.com to 
>
> > stay open for everybody and the search engines. Glad some of us set up 
> > theosophy.net last year: it IS open (just checked). 
> > 
> > 
> > However, I'm also all for accountability. The internet gives us all the 
> > opportunity to hide behind screen names and loose all fairness in the 
>process. 
>
> 
> > No need to be polite or just when nobody knows who you are. 
> > 
> > 
> > Now - in case this gets censored - I will be saving the text of this on my 
>pc. 
>
> >I 
> >
> > don't really want to post it elsewhere, but I do think the below has made a 
> > response necessary. 
> > 
> > 
> > I will also be deleting any links to theos-talk on my own sites BTW as it 
> > doesn't seem like this forum serves any purpose to the theosophical movement 

> >any 
> >
> > more. 
> > 
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > Katinka Hesselink
> > 
> > Disclosure: The Dutch TS paid me for their recent redesign, so I guess I'm 
>not 
>
> 
> > independent by your definition. That hasn't stopped me from speaking out 
>where 
>
> >I 
> >
> > see fit though.
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> > >
> > > All organized entities such as governments, business corporations, 
>spiritual
> > > organizations, and even individual leaders and politicians are always on 
>the
> > > look out for opportunities to influence the individuals such as membership
> > > and even media people to either keep them in line or influence them to act
> > > or write in ways supporting the activities and action of the organizations
> > > and its leaders or even act as catÃÆÃÂÃÂÃâÅÃÂÃÂÃâÅÃÂs paws to handle touchy 
>issues. 
>
> >Many
> > > times, clever individuals and leaders will stay back in the background and
> > > let others do their dirty work.
> > > 
> > > In organizations, range of techniques used may be outright giving money
> > > grants, reimbursing the travel expenses, offer platforms to lecture or 
>write
> > > or even help them to move up in the leadership ladder. In theosophical
> > > circles, due to the common membership in other officially unconnected
> > > organizations, the fear of paying a price will keep writers and lecturers 
>in
> > > line with official wishes.
> > > 
> > > The reason why I bring this up is because it is necessary to clarify my
> > > personal position in all activities and writings related to theosophical 
>and
> > > other issues. Firstly, as I have mentioned several times before, I 
maintain
> > > my independence because of several reasons. I am not looking forward to 
>hold
> > > any elected office in future and I have an independent lively hood which
> > > does not depend on TS or any of its members. Also in the past I have never
> > > received any manner of financial support from TS or any of its members.
> > > 
> > > I am reiterating the above so that the newbees are very clear as to where 
I
> > > come from and the independence gives some credibility to what I write on
> > > this and other theosophical forums. In todayÃÆÃÂÃÂÃâÅÃÂÃÂÃâÅÃÂs Internet 
>environment,
> > > transparent and open clarification of the independence issue is good for
> > > anyone in the cyberspace - writers, participants, website owners, website
> > > operators etc. I hope the above clarification helps.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > MKR
> > > 
> > > There is No Religion Higher Than Truth
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


 

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