Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01144)

JHE
>>1. That we abandon this new direction of debate and return to
>>our original discussion.  Until we come to an agreement
>>regarding terminology involving such concepts as "solar
>>planes," communication is not possible on this subject anyway.
>>I have mentioned this before.

Kim
>As I see it Jerry, it is crucial to the debate. Else we could
>just publish 2 papers on the subject - yours and my view on the
>subject.

JHE
A DISCUSSION requires the participants to explore the subject in
question and their points of view concerning it.  The goal of a
discussion (as I understand the term) is for the participants to
interact in order to gain a deeper insight into the subject.

A DEBATE is a formal process that requires the participants to
use strategies in order to make one point of view prevail over
the other.  The goal is to win.  Winning a debate does not
require the opponent to have a more correct point of view.  An
opponent can win by numerous strategies such as doing a better
job of representing his arguments (regardless of their actual
merits), or by putting the other's argument in the worst
plausible light in order to make the opponent's position look
ridiculous in comparison.

I have tried to make it clear from the beginning that I'm not
willing to debate this subject.  As a matter of fact, I'm not
willing to debate any subject with anybody on theos-l.  A debate
only proves who is the most skilled debater.  It is not a matter
of ability on my part either.  Trust me, as a graduate student
with a minor concentration in rhetoric, I understand quite a lot
about the subject.  Rather, the reason for my unwillingness to
debate the is because when the goal of a discourse is to win, the
subject matter becomes of secondary importance and instrumental
to that goal.  My interest is the subject matter.  Therefore, IMO
discussion is the more appropriate mode of discourse here--not a
debate.

Kim
>What you perceive as "my third system" is simply the fact that
>HPB, TSR and a great many others are completely consistent when
>properly understood (there is much evidence to this claim in
>theosophical writings).

JHE
I understand very well what you mean by your "third system."  I
was taught a version of it for my first ten years in the TS under
the tutorage of an old ES member.  That you believe the validity
of your third system to be a "fact" leaves no room for discussion
on the matter.  This is one of the two reasons why I suggested
that we leave it out.  The other reason is because it is off the
subject anyway.

As I said, I will be back with you in about ten days.

Best
Jerry HE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------