Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00603)

On Mon, 20 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote:

>Tom Robertson writes--> 
>I neither knew about any of this [that J.S. has written books and might have
>more secrets] nor do I see its relevance.
>
>RI-->
>The relevance is that this is the good kind of person to kiss-up to if you
>are ever inclined to kiss-up.

I don't have that problem.  In the early days of my involvement in the TS,
I considered what I would do if a Master materialized during one of our
meetings.  I may have "kissed-up" to him, then, but now, I believe that's
the last thing any kind of superior being would respect.  If anyone needs
falsehood from me in order to gain my friendship, I wouldn't want theirs.


>Perhaps logic is just the slow vapor trail which forms after the
>flawless/flawed jet of intuition, perception, or apprehension has flown over.
> Perhaps logic is even worthless unless it initially has something valid to
>manipulate.  Perhaps the better class of both magicians and theosophists
>strive first to become ~seers~ rather than expert logicians.  Perhaps the
>~abandonment~ of overly strict logical thinking is the sine qua non of >magic.

You seem to be implying that logic limits something.  I do not see how it
does that, although I can see how believing that nothing transcends logic
would be limiting.  But believing that there are truths which transcend
logic hardly justifies illogic.  Illogic is the sure road to superstition.


>TS-->
>If Jerry would not tell me other things he knows that I don't know just
>because I pointed out how he was illogical in one case, I would consider >him to be responsible for that.
>
>RI-->
>Perhaps if Jerry does not agree that he was illogical, he then might be
>tempted to start regarding you as someone who basically ~sees~ things
>differently than he does.  

The laws of logic are quite clear and objective.  They aren't very
debatable or a matter of opinion.  He was clearly illogical.


>Perhaps he might tell you some other things;
>however, why would he tell you his most ~precious~ things when the >chances are good that you would not be able to see what he means again >and probably end up by calling them illogical too?  

Logic is not a matter of opinion.  It is not subject to whim.  It is simple
to show who is being logical and who isn't.


>(Also, I didn't quite get how you were
>using ~responsible~ in the above context.  Did you mean ~reprehensible~?)   

No, I meant responsible.  In any conflict between one who is being truthful
and one who is not, I consider the one who is not being truthful to be
responsible for the conflict.


>TR-->    
>I would rather be able to speak the truth and not learn what anyone has to
>say than to have to sell out the truth and charm people into telling me
>things.
>
>RI-->
>Easy for you to say.  When it comes to "truth," I wish I could be as cocksure
>of anything as you may be of everything 

We are probably talking about two different things when we are using the
word "truth" in the contexts in which we are using them.  I am using it in
the context of logical truth.  There is no great mystery about that.  If I
said that women are more compassionate than men, meaning that the average
woman is more compassionate than the average man, and if someone else
concludes from that that I mean that I believe that no man has any
compassion, that is straightforwardly and easily demonstrably illogical.
Other "truths," such as perhaps the way in which individuality is an
illusion, are not so clear to me, as they are more intuitive.  I am
probably no more "cocksure" about such truths than you are.


> Anyway, perhaps we "sell out" truth to some extent every time we try to put
>it into words, so what's the big sacrifice in being charming or silent?    

Blatantly selling out the truth by being illogical costs one the right to
claim to be a seeker of truth.


>. . . rightly or wrongly, I sometimes just get the feeling I could take the
>lunch money of any guy who can only syllogize his way around the ring 

Correct intuition will trump correct logic any time.  But incorrect logic
makes correct intuition impossible.