Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01410)

Chuck:

>You're right about the fact that many of the people reading and posting to
>the newsgroup will have relatively little direct knowledge of theosophy.
> That means that we will not be able to engage in highly technical
>discussions with lots of sanskrit babble because no one will have the faintest
>idea what the hell we are talking about.

We can get technical at times, just not too much. And we have to
explain whatever we say, and not assume that anyone has background
knowledge.

This does not mean though, that when someone asks an intelligent
question, with an obvious background of study,that we cannot
respond to the question. It's just that we have to keep in mind
that others will be reading the discussion too.

>It also means that quotations will have no weight whatsoever because the
>people reading the group will often never have heard of the works being
>quoted and attach no sense of authority to them.

The quotations don't carry weight in "proof" or in "authority", but
they still are useful in any discussion that wants to study Theosophy
from the standpoint of the specific core concepts. That is, if someone
wants to show if a particular idea is in accord with, or in disagreement
with something written in "The Mahatma Letters", for instance.

We all are free to have our own views, but it would totally obscure
the theosophical ideas if we never refer back to the actual body
of ideas that the whole thing is based upon.

>In other words, we are going to have to be able to state the ideas in as
>plain American (modern English, as opposed to proto-American, otherwise known
>as British English) as possible and appeal to reason and sense rather than
>authority.

But we also can use quotes to show that a particular idea is consistent
with the source literature, or is expressed in better words than we can
come up with. This does not *require* someone to believe the ideas, and
I agree that only an appeal to reason will work, since most won't
recognize any occult authority in HPB et al.

>Now this is a situation which appeals greatly to me and Alex because as you
>know we recognize no authority, but there are others on this list whose
>opinions I respect even though I usually disagree with them who may have to
>do a little work on their style.

We individually pick our authorities or respected sources of information.
Some may be living people, spirits, types of experience like meditation;
others may be the remainders of great people of the past, like the writings
of Plato or HPB. I'd submit that you do recognize authority, but perhaps
difference authorities, and that you may have sufficient dislike of the
word "authority" itself that you prefer to call it something different,
although I see it as the same thing.

Without an appeal to authority, though, someone can make a scholarly
case for a particular idea being consistent with the body of doctrines
called "source Theosophy". If someone wants to additionally put it into
a historic context, like Jerry Hejka-Ekins, they could also associate
an idea with a particular individual and time period of the writer's life.

Showing something as consistent with, or in disagreement with, source
Theosophy, does not "prove" or "disprove" it, but is simply an exercise
in intellectual honesty. When someone wants to study the body of ideas
presented under "Theosophy", they don't particularly want your or my
personal opinion, masquerading under the words "this is Theosophy", even
if we believe those opinions as strongly as anything else we believe in.

>But the level of intelligence of our
>sibling posters being what it is I'm sure they will rise to the occasion and
>we will, once we are actually able to post on the damned thing, carry on our
>debates with the same enthusiasm we have on the list.

We will, but don't dismiss the quotes too lightly. A consideration of the
source literature, and how we relate to it, is important. You may, for instance,
want to air on alt.theosophy your ideas on how we should relate to quotes
from the literature, or on how we should, if you believe, leave the quotes
behind. (I'd disagree, but others might want to see our discussion on the matter.)

>And as people read newsgroups out of curiosity, a good flame war may
>actually attract attention and the more people who read the list the better.

It might, but it's not something that I look forward to with eager ears.
(My ears are still sunburned from previous solar flares.)

>I have also sent a private e-mail to John Algeo inviting him and the board
>members to post to the newsgroup.  I am hoping they will as they have a
>unique position in the TS and the newsgroup as well as theosophy in general
>will benefit from their presence.

I think that the administrative staff, including T.S. officers, are likely
too busy with the tasks that they've already undertaken. The more likely
participants will be isolated members-at-large in areas where theosophical
groups are hard to form. Being an officer of the T.S. does not give special
authority to someone's philosophical ideas, it just means one is probably
too busy to write about one's ideas.

>I am actually very excited about this.  Maybe I have finally been able to
>give back something to theosophy in return for all it has given me.

You've done good to get us off our buts and into the public eye. But the
real work is providing *intelligent content* to the newsgroup, keeping a
strong theosophical presence on it.

Why don't you write something on it? How about some idea about why you
think Theosophy (or theosophy) is useful to people, and what there is to
it that would make people want to look into it?

-- Eldon