Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00609)

>Alexis>Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.
>
>Alexis: it's quite possible. However, I don't equate criticism on
>        ideas and perceptions with flaming someone.
>	Besides all of this I would like to see people who are
> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>
>Martin
>
>
>Martin:

A>You don't seem to be listening to a word I'm saying. That is a surprise to
me, because you say you're a psychologist, and psychologists are supposed to
be professional "listeners". At least that was the very first thin I was
taught when I studied the subject a Columbia University.


Alexis: I posted this reply *before* I read your and Alan's comments
in the theos-l digest I received just after sending this reply.
There's a time-lag of approx. 24 hours (or more) between my response
and your original posting. During that time you have posted another
message which I haven't be able to read due to delay in reception
of the theos-l digest. This is an important factor to keep in mind.


A>The problem is that
we don't possess anywhere near the same definition of "criticism". I will
gladly accept "strong disagreement", but "criticism" is the wrong word to
use.

Alexis: as Alan suggested I have the old-fashioned connotation of the word
criticism in mind, also due to the fact that the almost similar Dutch
word for 'criticism' (kritiek, kritizeren) has not the same negative
connotation as it has in modern American English. I will use the word
'disagreement' to indicate differences of opinion from now on. That will
be helpful to avoid misunderstandings. Believe me, I've better things to do
than criticizing people (in the negative sense of that word).



A>Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
know.

Yes, I know that. And I would like to see you and others present
viable alternatives, a consistent set of ideas/experiences.
(maybe on alt.theosophy ?)


A><cut> In the interim I think it an ideal
place for small "t" theosophists and Orthodox Theosophists who are
literalists when it comes to the so called "Core Doctrines" to engage in
some actual theosophical work and compare their perceptions of theosophy.
But, you need to know that these discussions cannot be perceptive if
everything something like me says is met with "HPB says" or "The Masters
said". People like me regard theosophy as a process, Literalist Theosophists
appear to regard Theosophy as a "Religion".


Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.


A>For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?

Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.


A>This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
agnostic approach to theosophy.

With hand of friendship out:

alexis dolgorukii


Hand accepted and shaken ,

Martin



P.S. I will switch my attention to alt.theosophy from now on.
You can find me there, where I will occasionally drop by.
There are some matters I have to pay attention to and I have to
cut down on time spend on the electronic fora for this moment.
Suggestion: maybe you can attract some more subscribers to alt.theosophy
by posting a message to some newsgroups, together with the reading
and posting instructions for those who can't access this group locally
(or Chuck could do that?)