Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00079)

Jerry HE writes to Alexis,

>>JHE
>>      Hi Alexis.  It seems that Liesel is not the only one who
>>objects to anything being said about CWL that might be taken in a
>>negative light.  In the past, two or three theos-l members
>>protested when I and others have discussed forbidden subjects.
>>There were still others who did not like us having these
>>discussions, and in some cases informed me privately of this.
>>Then there were others, who just quietly disapproved. In my
>>opinion however, I much prefer Liesel's expression of hostility
>>(though it be passive aggressive) over the political black-
>>balling games played by the powerful few in Adyar and Wheaton.
>>But it is not theosophical ideals that get in the way, but their
>>institutional application.  The ideals of the TS concerning the
>>freedom of members are:
>>
>>1. The freedom of opinion.  Members are allowed to express
>>whatever opinion they wish, as long as they do not limit the
>>rights of other members to also express their opinions.
>>
>>2. Members cannot have their rights and privileges as a member
>>abridged for simply expressing minority opinions.
>>
>>3. Members are not bound to accept the teachings or opinions of
>>any theosophical leaders, from HPB downwards.
>>
>
>>      So, Alexis, if you don't fear the consequences of having
>>complete freedom to speak according to your own conscience, then
>jump in--the water is fine.


Daniel comments:

So Alexis has jumped in the pool!  Good for you.

I agree with all three propositions listed by Jerry HE.  And I believe that
everyone on theos-l should have the freedom to state their  opinion of Theos-l.

But having said that, I believe*there is another separate issue involved*.
And that
is whether the statement or opinion made is true, false or whatever. In
other words,how does one determine the validity or factuality of the
opinion, etc.?

 For example, if Person B
believes that HPB produced fraudulent psychic phenomena, or that Alice
Bailey was
a deluded psychic, then Person B, from the above perspective, has the right
to state
those opinions on Theos-l.  But Person D who may not agree with those
opinions should
be also entitled to state that he/she does not agree with Person B.

Now in the marketplace of ideas, in the arena of competing "truths", the
exchange of ideas
and of differing opionions is very important.  And since Theos-l is, from my
perspective,
a forum for such discussion and exchange of ideas and views,  then Person B
and Person
D should agree not to attack each other personally just because they don't
agree on, for
example, whether H.P.B. produced genuine or fraudulent psychic phenomena.
For the
purposes of Theos-l discusssion, both parties should be willing to admit (at
least to
themselves!!) that maybe, just maybe,  they don't have an absolute monopoly
on the truth and that they are willing to challenge THEIR OWN OPINION as
well as the other person's opinion in the collective pursuit of truth.

So then this is where reasonable discussion should come into play.  *Of
course, both
parties have the right to their differing opinions on HPB.  That is not the
issue.*  The
issue for discussion is the search for the truth, reality, knowledge, etc.
Therefore, both
parties hopefully should be willing to explore the issues involved.  How do
I know that
HPB produced fake phenomena?  How do I know that HPB could produce real occult
phenomena such as the cup and saucer at the Simla picnic, etc.?  What are
the criteria by which
I have come  to my current opinion?  Did I have any criteria?  Have I really
studied the primary sources, etc. on this subject of HPB's phenomena?  Do I
believe in psychic
phenomena in general? Is my reasoning faulty?  etc. etc.

If there is to be fruitful discussion and possibly a greater
knowledge and understanding as a result of the discussion, the two parties
involved must
be willing to listen to each other and focus on the issues involved and not
resort to
personal attacks and name calling.  Personal attacks and name calling does
NOT help to
resolve the major issue of discussion (whatever it may be).  Such personal
attacks only obscure the main issue under discussion.

Another issue. If ( for example) Rich Taylor makes a certain statement
concerning HPB and then someone else interjects that Rich's statement is
wrong because he is so young, etc. , then as far as I
can see, this has taken the focus off the issue and sidelined it to a
totally irrelevent personal
issue (the age and maturity of the other party in the discussion.)  If a
third party on Theos-l
holds the same opinion as Rich on the issue under discussion and it turns
out that the
third party is 65 years old, then the irrelevancy of Rich's age to the
discussion of  Rich's statement concerning HPB should become obvious.

Focus on the statement, not the person who said it.

Another example.  Alexis D. made the statement that what HPB wrote on
Anthropogenesis
in the S.D. is simply not true in light of modern knowledge on the subject.
Now Alexis has
a perfect right to hold that opinion and also a perfect right to state that
on Theos-l.  And
if someone else on Theos-l disagrees with Alexis's statement, then that
person has the
perfect right to post his differing opinion.

But beyond the bare *statement* of agreement or disagreement, can we (the
collective
we on Theos-l) discuss and debate the merits, etc. of the statement that
"what HPB
wrote on Anthopognesis in the S.D. is simply not true in light of modern
knowledge on the
subject"?  I would hope that "we" could!  If Rich or Eldon or whoever might
disagree with
Alexis' statement, then the focus should be on the ideas, facts, reasoning,
etc behind the
bare statement.  The focus should not be on Alexis.  To focus on Alexis is
to digress into
a totally irrelevant personal issue.  Who really cares who made the
statement?  The issue
for discussion is:  Is the statement true or false?  What is the statement
based upon?  Are there good reasons that support the statement?  Is there
evidence to show that the statement
is invalid, inaccurate, etc.?  What are the assumptions behind the
statement?  Those are the kind of questions that need to be asked and
answered?   And this can lead to a fruitful discussion and a beneficial
exchange of ideas.

I have belabored the point!  Also this is a rough first draft so bear with me.