Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00075)

Kym wrote:
Dallas and Katinka wrote:

 >>[Dallas] As I see it, Theosophy is anything but
sentimental.
  >[Katinka] I agree, all I am trying to say is that to
reach someone,

Kym:
 Why is it so important, especially for those in the
Western world, for doctrines to be void of sentimentality
and emotion in order for them to be taken seriously?  Why
do many theosophists (some on this list and many who
 write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that
doctrines, and opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible,
focus primarily on logical and objective theory.  I can't
think of one "enlightened" being, including HPB,
 who wasn't jammed full of emotion and sentimentality -
both in person and in their doctrines.  The emotions
displayed by the "enlightened" ones tend
 to be glossed over, or named "something else," made
excuses for, or ignored altogether.

Katinka (now):
The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for
understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them. But
sentimentalism is something other than emotions.
Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some things
bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort of
*funny mirror* (if that is how those country-fair-mirrors
are called). Emotions in themselves are important to know
and examine in getting to know yourself (myself), and also
in trying to find truth it is important to know where
emotions are probably interfering, but you are right, I do
view them mainly as an interference, even the positive
ones.

Kym:
 Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make
something less valid or truthful?  Does the presence of
emotion or sentimentality make something
 more dangerous?  Is emotion or sentimentality a sign of
weakness or ignorance?

Katinka:
Not in my point of view.

Kym:
 On the other hand, does objectivity make something more
valid or truthful? Does objectivity make something less
dangerous?  Is an objective person stronger or more
knowledgeable?
Katinka:
Well, any point of view is subjective, even the seemingly
objective, so I understand your difficulty here.

Kym:
 Main point: Is the objective, or scientific (logical),
path more conducive to Truth and Compassion than
subjective, or emotional, path?

Katinka:
To truth - emotions seem to me to be a hurdle (that keeps
coming back), whereas for compassion emotion is probably
essential. Where would compassion come from if not from the
knowledge that other people have the same kind of emotional
problems as I do? Sorrow is clearly an emotion and being
compassionate clearly includes dealing as well as possible
with other peoples sorrows (and their causes).

Katinka
----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl