Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00575)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Alan Williams <alwilli@i...> wrote:

quoting me:

Our primary objective is to maintain the 
> > position that everything HPB said was true, and if we start 
asking the wrong questions, delving into the wrong sources, then we 
might be led astray into doubt."

> Are the above the words you wish to put in my mouth?

Not knowing you, I have no reason to wish to put anything in your 
mouth. Just trying to determine what it is you were trying to say. 
What about the above misses the mark?
> 
> I do not know what you mean by "wrong questions/sources"
> 
> But HPB herself maintained their is only one truth.

One Truth, many truths.

Whenever you have
> a situation as in many areas of science today where different 
factions draw different conclusions from the same premises, there is 
no truth.

How can that be? People disagreeing about what is true cannot 
possibly mean that nothing is true, at least I can't see how that 
could be. But at any rate, to focus exclusively on the areas of 
disagreement among scientists, historians, etc. and ignore the areas 
of widespread consensus, and then to use that to conclude that "there 
is no truth" is unwise. Seems to me like unfocused anti-
intellectualism. If you look at the cup as half full rather than 
half empty, you will see that the sciences and humanities have made 
tremendous advances in determining the truth about a great many 
things. And therefore deserve a lot more respect that you seem to 
grant them.

snip
> 
> > As if to say "doubt is bad, avoid it at all costs?"
> As far as I recall I never said anything about doubt is bad, more
> false imputations. Nor did I say inquiry was bad.

You didn't say those things but you sure appeared to imply them. The 
problem with posts that express attitudes rather than come right out 
and say what the writer means in detail is that readers then have to 
figure out the implications. And the writers can always disdainfully 
say they didn't intent to imply such-and-so, when the implications 
are revealed to be problematic.

What *did* you mean to say about the value of doubt and inquiry 
concerning HPB's Masters and her Theosophy? I am *surely* not the 
only reader who took your remarks to be quite negative towards such 
inquiry and doubt. (E.g., Bart.)
> 
> What I wrote was probably quite wishy washy to all the high-falutin
> inquiring minds that hang out here and who like to wrap themselves 
in double-helix spirals - towering intellectualizations - huge 
apartment blocks of compartmentalizations. Infinite complexities, 
staggering logic and petty nitpicking. Actually they love the 
argument more than anything else. They live for
> the intellectual battle, the ripping down of lesser edifices.
> 
> Fine by me, whatever floats their boat.

It's not just these people, it's virtually every online Theosophical 
venue I've seen. They are all dominated by nitpicking about matters 
of little to no interest to outsiders.
> 
> But in my humble opinion they contribute very little, if anything, 
to the spirit of Theosophy, they're all too busy fighting over its
> corpse.
> 
Well, if it really is a corpse, there's no point in trying to 
contribute to a spirit that has fled the body. Perhaps the spirit of 
Theosophy can only be found outside the contemporary Theosophical 
movement?

But I do get your point. However, I find that people who post to 
decry historical and intellectual debates on various lists usually 
offer no alternative. Baha'is denounce historical and intellectual 
debate about Baha'i, but don't post spiritually uplifting stuff 
to "counter" it. Ditto with ARE folks, some Theosophists, Eckists, 
among the groups I've hung out with on the Net. It's a case 
of "Light a candle, or curse the darkness?" If you don't like the 
other participants and the kind of discourse they engage in, isn't it 
more constructive to provide an example of an alternative approach, 
rather than just put people down?

Cheers,

Paul