Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00712)

Dear Eldon and all,

The alternation between two modes can be a moment by moment process, 
rather than one involving weeks/months/years in one or another 
mode. You wrote in response to Steve: 

> > That explains why theosophists are careful to read only
> > theosophically correct points of view, preferably the same books 
over and over and over.
> 
> This is not particular to Theosophists, but applies to anyone 
following a particular subject. People become interested in a 
particular topic and want to learn about it. They want to see what 
it says, rather than spend their time in questioning basic premises.
> 
PJ--I disagree on several counts. The closed mindedness Steve 
describes is not limited to Theosophists, but neither does it apply 
to all people learning about any topic. A topic, after all, 
doesn't "say" anything. *People* say things about a topic, and 
anyone who refuses to question basic premises is thereby refusing to 
question *someone else's* premises, not premises that are somehow 
inherent in the subject matter.

Any subject matter that involves emotional identification can evoke 
the willful ignorance Steve describes (that is, refusing to 
assimilate new information that might expand one's horizons.) 
Politics and religion are notorious in this regard. As I've 
mentioned before, with genealogy and local history I have found 
relatively little resistance to new information that challenges 
existing structures of interpretation.

> In student mode, I'd want to enjoy the experience of study and 
emersion in that particular school of psychology. That is different 
than what I'd do in seeker or doubter mode. As a seeker or doubter, 
I'd be questioning basic assumptions of everything and be looking 
for something new that draws my interest.
> 
PJ-- That almost sounds like the difference between reading fiction 
and nonfiction. Very few fiction readers care to analyze and 
criticize while reading; they want to be swept into a fictional 
reality and suspend disbelief in it. But to read serious nonfiction 
while totally suspending critical judgment is IMO a waste of time 
and probably more harmful than helpful.
snip
> 
> It depends upon the person and what they're busy doing. Someone in 
student mode doesn't want to waste time on questioning basic 
assumptions that they've already made.

PJ-- I would not call that student mode but dogmatic mode. 

They do not have time to reconsider basic assumptions
> at the moment since they're busy learning and studying. Intrusive
> distractions are seen as an annoyance rather that as being helpful.
> 
PJ-- That is not responsive to Steve's point, which is the furious 
anger that certain "intrusive distractions" evoke from those you 
regard as "busy learning." They are not in fact busy learning, but 
busy preaching and advocating what they believe they have learned. 
Hence ideas that clash with what they believe they know are seen not 
merely as distractions or annoyances but as threats and attacks.
snip

>For someone in that phase, any learning and study of a particular 
set of theosophical or metaphysical doctrines is a waste of time, 
since they don't see the point in learning something when they're 
not sure how real its foundations are.
> 

PJ-- That just doesn't ring true to my experience. Many recent 
books show plenty of evidence of their authors having learned and 
studied theosophical doctrines, without accepting its "foundations" 
as "real" (meaning, its truth claims as valid.)
snip
> 
> When someone is wanting to learn a new subject, they don't want the
> bandwidth choked with doubters and naysayers, they want to see 
materials related to their area of interest. 

PJ-- As this applies to theos-talk, it doesn't ring true. The 
people who rant and object to "irrelevant" discussions aren't those 
learning a new subject and complaining about distractions. They are 
longtime Theosophists who presume to dictate what others *ought* to 
discuss.

That doesn't make them sheep, subject to
> mind control, and unable to think differently.
> 
PJ-- No, it makes them aggressive dogmatists attempting to stamp out 
diversity of thought.

> On the other hand, when someone is questioning everything, in 
seeker mode, they don't want the bandwidth choked with repetitive 
restatements of a narrow set of dogmatic beliefs. 
> 
PJ-- No one is choking any bandwidth for those of us who subscribe 
with the no mail option. The repetitive restatements are easy 
enough to ignore. 

> Both modes represent honest searches for truth. If we never take 
the time to study and really learn something, we can be doubters, 
but only have a superficial learning of things to share. If we study 
only one area, or never take time to doubt and question and 
reconsider things, we can be students, but become locked into an 
increasingly rigid viewpoint that misses much of
> what is going on in life.
> 
PJ-- The first sentence of the above para conflicts with the rest. 
I would change "both" to "neither." Neither someone who is 
willfully ignorant about a belief system yet presumes to debunk it, 
nor someone who is willfully ignorant about criticisms thereof yet 
presumes to attack them is pursuing an honest search for truth.

> Over the years, I'd expect that most people would alternate 
between these two approaches, sometimes being a student and other 
times being a seeker.

PJ-- Ideally, from moment to moment or at least day to day. Staying 
focused in one or the other mode for much longer than that means 
depriving oneself of one brain hemisphere.

Cheers,

Paul