Theos-Talk Archives (September 2010 Message tt00076)

Thanks.  I enjoyed your comments as well.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
>
> Your points are well taken.
> 
> 
> All technologies do co-exist and for everything there is a time a place. For
> example, when appropriate we use a cell phone and at other times only face
> to face interaction is efficient and effective.
> 
> 
> 
> When TS was launched, Theosophical doctrines was far ahead of the times.
> Since the improvement of conditions in the Humanity is the key objective of
> theosophy and theosophists, any literature and knowledge must be broadcast
> in the most efficient and speediest manner to reach as many interested
> persons all over the world as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened in the case of unpublished material from the London Lodge
> meetings HPB had, is beyond any one can imagine. Not only for more than a
> century they were lying in someoneâ??s book shelf, but when they were
> discovered, no one seems to have understood how it can possibly help
> theosophical students in their onward progress, but also the custodians
> simply sat on it without seeing the urgency of making them available to the
> theosophical community.
> 
> 
> Todayâ??s scanning technology is capable of scanning the documents and making
> them available on Internet very quickly. No one is going to be the loser in
> doing it.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, it took 12 to 13 years to publish it in a book form,
> which ultimately ended up being too pricey for the average theosophist
> around the world. From every angle, all it shows is the missed opportunity
> in making the original material available quickly and each one of us could
> have read them and possibly digested them and come up with our own views and
> interpretations. There was a great value in it because I am sure there are
> many intelligent and intuitional unknown theosophists around the world who
> may be able to better explain many of the statements HPB made in the
> meetings.
> 
> 
> 
> Just looking at the above tale from a purely business standpoint is simply
> wrong for any theosophist whose motivation is the betterment of the
> conditions of Humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> MKR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, esapress@... <esapress@...>wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Advertisers were, of course, mostly quick to research and acquire working
> > methods for the Internet. However many print (book/mag/so on) publishers are
> > still working on developing/adapting their industry standards and
> > media/business methods/models for operating on the Internet. A great
> > percentage of them will I think in due course, and the industry certainly
> > will; but I don't think the computer is the only reason print media took a
> > dive; truth is the Internet has been proved to be, often times,
> > intellectually and creatively appealing and cutting edge - a little wild
> > west at times a/b all in all that's probably expectable in or with such a
> > new technology/industry - so, it's not only the fact that Internet exists
> > but the quantity and qualities (which advertisers follow) that print has a
> > hard time competeing with.
> >
> > In abstract I kind of look at it like this; cars haven't closed down the
> > market on bicycles, television didn't replace photographs/drawings;
> > electricity hasn't killed off the candle.
> >
> > Many of the institutions, I hope they do adapt/survive a/b I also hope
> > they'll remember there's a reason people reached (and stopped reaching) for
> > their book/mags/so on - it didn't matter what it was/wasn't written on, what
> > it did/didn't cost, what always matters is what's inside, what's new and
> > that feeling or confidence one has when you just know there'll be something
> > you'd really want to see/read. Great books, great novels, great news and
> > articles, that's what made that industry great.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>