theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Sophistry

Oct 01, 2004 10:23 AM
by kpauljohnson


Dear Koshek,

When you wrote:
> > 
> > > I think that you both have proved without a doubt that Sophistry 
> > > rules political thinking. 
> > 
I called it "personal disparagement of listmembers" to which you replied

> Well Paul, I'm at a loss as to how my statement was a personal 
> disparagment of you, but if you felt that way, I apologise. 
> 
Accusing Pedro and me of Sophistry was disparaging and personal, but I
wasn't hurt by it in the least and doubt he was. My protest is due to
the fact that such remarks are harmful to the list atmosphere IMO. In
the USA there is a term "broken windows" which refers to the fact that
in a rundown neighborhood, once vandals have broken a few windows in
abandoned buildings, then others come along and soon there are broken
windows everywhere. Whereas if broken windows are immediately
repaired people don't get the idea that it's acceptable to throw bricks.

> Anyway, I'm just as much a victom of Sophistry as you are so don't 
> feel so hurt by what I said.
> 
Recently I called one listmember's remarks to another (condemning as
spiritually wrong his interest in criticizing CWL's teachings) as
"typical." I did not mean either typical of her (whom I don't know)
or of the Adyar TS (in which many people are quite open to this
conversation) but rather typical of online discussions about CWL. 
Which is absolutely true since I've seen it many, many times. But my
statement which appeared to be personally aggressive, but which was
not intended so, evoked some pointed remarks critical of me. At which
point I dropped the matter because there were broken windows all around.

> What it comes down to is not whether other people like the republican 
> party or the evangelists are doing, but what YOU are doing. Do you 
> (and I) stand for principle. Do you (and I ) stand for what's right. 
> 
> Is everything is permissable with regards to politics? Why? What
does this do to our thinking processes and our ability to percieve truth?

No one suggested praying for Bush to fail, only for Kerry to do well.
Wishing others well does not strike me as black magic and believing
it to be permissible does not mean "everything is permissible."
> 
> The more one spins the truth, the more one get's spinned on an 
> unconcious level. Our perceptions get layer and layer of spin and we 
> lose all objectivity. You can no longer look at the world with an 
> open mind but have a head full of preconceptions that filter and
spin the information as it comes in. 
> 
The information has already been filtered and spun before it gets to
us, if you refer to the news media. By juxtaposing multiple
information sources and learning how they decontruct one another's
spin, one can begin to approximate the truth. There is no such thing
as raw information in terms of political news.

snip
> 
> So let's see if we can just watch the debates in an impartial way
and may the best man win.
> 
but doesn't the very notion of a "best man winning" imply partiality?
I guess I fail to grasp your use of "sophistry" here. Back to the
model of the triune brain, the limbic system can never be turned off,
and it defines salience and valence for us towards any phenomenon. 
("Is it important? Do I feel good or bad about it?") The higher
brain or neocortex can attempt to neutralize valence, but it can never
transcend salience-- if we don't find something interesting or
relevant we have no motive to analyze it.

Pedro and I both appear to share the same orientation toward Bush and
Kerry in terms of valence and salience. Perhaps you do as well. But
sophistry only comes into the picture when our thought processes are
so dominated by feeling that we can't face unwelcome truths. Many and
perhaps most people are that way about political figures. But I don't
see how wishing one well in a debate is proof that one's thought
processes are distorted and subservient to emotion. 

Perhaps you could elaborate?

Paul




[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application