A clarification of the open source theosophy idea

Based on my experience with some of our readers, there seems to be a need for a little clarification of the idea behind "open source theosophy".
There have been written some forum postings on Theosophy.net (see Service Projects) by me, giving the general idea. To summarize and expand:

1. The idea is to take the three objects of the TS seriously. In our terminology: Embrace, Compare, Explore (Community, Research, Self-knowledge). We want to engage in research on as many areas as possible and feasible. This can include studying and researching Oriental manuscripts, such as David Reigle is doing. It can also include studying and researching modern developments of theosophy inspired movements, such as Vitvan's School of the Natural Order, Sufi and Fourth Way inspired work from J.G.Bennett, Arthur Young's theosophy inspired work, etc. Those movements have understood the need to build bridges with the academic world and integrate current scientific understanding better than the older Theosophical Societies. It's time we catch up and look for cooperation with some of these movements, or at least consider the corpus of ideas they have to offer. The same goes for the work of outstanding thinkers such as Alfred North Whitehead (a process philosopher), C.S. Peirce, and Stafford Beer (a cybernetic management scientist, who has developed a theory of viable systems). A serious theosopher cannot disregard developmental work done by modern thinkers such as the above ones.

2. The term “theosophical” is to be interpreted as generic theosophy. This term refers to spiritual inspiration, not to a specific branch of belief that is called “Theosophy as formulated by H.P. Blavatsky”. I do not deny that latter person has written some very good material, which we can use, but rather say that all material has to be scrutinized for the modern era we live in. In this connection, an especially important framework of ideas can be found in Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, as these ideas have found their way into the Western world, into religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), philosophy and a diversity of Schools and movements. They, the Philalethians - the Ammonius Saccas School - the lovers of Truth, were synthesizers of knowledge. They brought the ideas of Plato and Aristotle into one framework. That's the spirit we're after. In addition, we must tie these, and later developments, to current thinking.
We have a massive corpus of writings as our source material (see, for example, all the magazines now available at Theosopher.net!). That is the gauge we can use to safeguard us from jumping to wild speculations. This should not prevent us, however, from engaging in creative work!
I have formulated a new framework (set of axiomas, see Philosophy forum on Theosophy.net) that can be used as working hypotheses on which to build a modern philosophy of life and which takes some fundamental research facts into consideration. This framework is only in its beginning stages and needs a lot of groundwork and elaboration. Good philosophers of process will be needed to accomplish that. Are we ready to do our share of the work? The effectiveness of our work may also involve studying a bit of motivation theory (behavior psychology, incentives) to grasp what it is that moves people.

3. The old theosophies were very much oriented towards the “vertical” dimension of life: the connection of the individual with the Spirit. Of course, there was Lodge work and the atmosphere of the Lodge that was (and is) supposed to further the development of the human spirit and the group consciousness. Whether this has been very effective is subject to considerable debate. My point is: the horizontal dimension of the work to be done has perhaps been neglected too much. There is a need to reach out to a larger audience and cater to the needs of the present, if a movement wants to remain viable. What was good practice a hundred years ago, may not be good practice now. Reflection on our role is necessary! Historic research may help us understand how things have come about; a vision of the future will help us make the necessary adaptations a.k.a. a paradigm shift where a fundamental view on matters is concerned. This might also be a good place to say, that our intent is not “to rescue” the T.S., but rather to make a fresh start, without carrying with us the baggage of the past. Our frame of reference has rather to do with establishing common core principles and ideas found in religion, philosophy and science. This could be called an “integral-gnostic” framework. The exact name for this can be decided upon later. It is a huge project, demanding great skills of abstraction and synthesis, and a good working knowledge of the diverse subject matter. An important part of all this is the formulation of some basic principles for living together in a society, some self-help notions, and using modern means to present ideas, such as graphics, diagrams, and other audio-visual means. In this connection: we are not intending to formulate a new grand scheme how to reach Enlightenment. Understanding how spiritual principles work out in daily life will do good enough.

4. The term “open source” indicates the way we operate. Our efforts are organized very similar to software projects in that we adopt flat structures (very little hierarchical lines, enabling quick decision making and creativity) and use small teams in order to accomplish our goals. These teams should arise in an ad hoc fashion and disband when their need is fulfilled.

In our context we can also say that the corpus of ideas we use is “open source”: essentially all inspired philosophical teaching, especially that known to be associated with the theosophical impulses throughout the Ages. It also indicates that we are open to ideas from modern developments such as mentioned in points one and two, and that we can use ideas from modern thinkers to establish an up to date systemic synthesis of ideas. Research is an essential part of this whole enterprise, and contacting other groups and individuals will be essential.

Lastly, this whole enterprise makes use of modern technology, such as a Wiki, blogs, forums, video/audio, graphic methods, links to Facebook, etc. This information is easily reproducible by others, who may make use of it, and modify/expand it under an open source Creative Commons license, and the other way around: we can use material developed by others, and informed people can contribute material to our wiki, which is of course moderated by our admins. IMO, the time is long passed that anyone can claim ideas exclusively for him- or herself. Ideas are free and want to be free. They are inevitably subject to modification. None can stop that. This is called evolution of ideas.
Particular formats of implementation can change, as the need arises, or as vision matures. A Wikiversity kind of implementation might be an option in the future, who knows!