Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01414)

At 11:29 AM 5/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>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.

Alexis comments:

The problem with this approach Eldon, is that "The Mahatma Letters" are
meaningless to anyone but theosophists/Theosophists, and are, moreover, of
questionable validity even to some of them. To the greatest part by far of
the General Public the "Mahatma Letters", and the attitude toward them of
some Theosophists, is just plain "silly". Many books, articles, etc. have
been written contending that the "Mahatma Letters" are entirely fraudulent.
Quoting, say, "The Chohan's Letter" to people who do not believe the Chohan
is anything but a figment of someone's imagination, and who may, moreover,
believe that the letter in question is a fraud, is hardly productive. It is
my opinion that in dealing with the general public we try to allow the basic
philosophy to speak for us, and avoid as much as possible the more
Disneyland aspects of theosophy.
>
>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.

Alexis comments: It would, in my estimation, be very much more likely to
"obscure the theosophical ideas" if we get off basic philosophy and onto the
more flamboyant aspects of Theosophy such as "Mahatma's" and "Chelas" and
the personal status of various members of the Theosophical Hierarchy.We are
only a very few years away from the 21st century, most young people today
are entirely repelled by hierarchial ideas and attitudes.
>
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<
>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.

Eldon: It is important that you begin to comprehend that in today's world,
quotations are almost entirely counter-productive. They "turn people off".
People today are interested in ideas, not because of their sources, but
because of the validity or non-validity of the ideas THEMSELVES. Very few
people out in the world care about an ideas "consistency" with century old
"source material", and no 19th century person (HPB) or early 20th century
person, can ever have "better words" than a contemporary person using
contemporary language. You are perfectly right that most people "recognize
no occult authority in HPB at all". in fact, most people have never even
HEARD of HPB, and the idea of "occult authority" they find either noxious or
hilarious as the case may be. Theosophists have to stop "preaching to the
choir"!
>
>>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.

Alexis comments:

Most people today, and particularly the young, recognize no "authority" in
spiritual or philosophical matters at all EXCEPT THEIR OWN. That is what we
are dealing with, and it is within their paradigm we must operate, not our
own. You bring up the word "authority" and they'll be off without so much as
a goodbye. I fully empathize with them because I, for one, have never
recognized any authority but my own and I never will.
As a personal aside, I would certainly hesitate trying to defend your
comparison of Plato and HPB as either equals or near-equals. That's the kind
of statement that has always gotten theosophists in trouble. With all due
respect to HPB she is nowhere nearly in Plato's "League".

>
>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.

Alexis comments:

The moment one refers to something called "Source Theosophy" one is
appealing to "authority". I submit that one can make a scholarly or
intellectual case for theosophy WITHOUT appealing to any "authority" other
than logic and reason. And those are the ONLY "authorities" which people
today respect.
>
>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.

Alexis comments: But is it really "intellectual honesty"? Actually it seems
to me that it would be infinitely more "honest" to simply state "this is
what theosophy means to me, personally". I say that because actually there
are too many different "core theosophies" for anyone to claim possession of
THE "core philosophy". The ideal method to use in dealing with our fellow
humans today is to say: "This is what theosophy means to me, I have found it
useful in my life, and I think and hope that you might find it useful too".

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.
>
Alexis comments: In the first place Eldon, people signing on to
Alt.Theosophy (and probably some who've signed on to Theos-List as well)
don't want to "study" anything, they merely want to "find out about" the
thing. And here is one place I have to say: "Excuse me Eldon, but you are
completely wrong". People today DO want your opinion, they are tired and
sick of "authorities". They want to know what you think, why you think so,
and what good has it done you. They are far more pragmatic and reality
centered than the people who helped found the theosophical movement who were
largely idealists.

>>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.)

Alexis notes:

Actually from what I understand from various net addicted friends and
associates, we have never actually had a "flame war" on Theos-List, we're
all far too polite and careful for it to have happened. In fact I wonder if
many of the people so horrified by the so-called "flaming" on this list
could stand the rough and tumble of the net at large?
>
>>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.

Alexis comments: I really wonder how "busy" one can get running an
organization as tiny as this one. I know they don't tend to their
correspondence, both Ramadoss and I have ample proof they don't answer mail.
That, to me, is simply evidence of incompetence, or rudeness, or both.
>
>>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.

Alexis comments: The big danger Eldon, is to avoid that "intelligent
content" and that "strong theosophical presence" from being soporific! The
other danger is that the moment the public at large realizes that there is
not just one monolithic theosophy they will lose interest entirely. The
thing that will "run them off" the fastest is a person who claims to possess
the "true theosophy" and who insinuates that much of it is denied to most
people.
>
>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
>
>