Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00504)

Lmhemlll wrote:

>As was pointed out, "every science, philosophy, etc. has its own jargon". Why
>do we have to "dummy down" Theosophy to the lowest common denominator? I
>realize, of course, that this is the national trend - we don't want to lower
>anybody's self-esteem, do we?

Ok, let's apply your reasoning to an everyday situation:  Medicine is a
science, right?  You visit your doctor and she tells you that you have
ureterohydronephrosis and that a ureterolithotomy may be necessary due to
complications of prerenal uremia, but in the meantime you must stay away
from oxalates and take spironolactone and if that doesn't work she'll try
triamterene.

Now, according to your reasoning, for this learned doctor of science to be
required to "dummy down" the vocabulary of medicine is unnecessary.  As you
say, she wouldn't "want to lower anybody's self-esteem."

Would you REALLY let her get away with that???  Saying that your life is in
danger here thereby making this analogy false won't work - as this diagnosis
is not necessarily fatal.

What is the difference between theosophy (therapy for the 'soul') and
medicine (therapy for the body)?

Perhaps we need to look deep within ourselves to find out why some of us are
so against putting Theosophy in the vernacular (ordinary language).

>However, from a personal point of view, I don't feel "inadequate" when I come
>across a word I don't know. I just look it up in a dictionary. Isn't that what
>we all used to do at one time?

Ok, well you go do that - if you can stand the pain of your ailment long
enough to do so.  Sure, we can "just look it up in a dictionary."  As you
say, "Isn't that what we all used to do that all the time?"  I don't know -
maybe.  And surgeries were performed without anesthesia. . .ah, the good
ole' days. . .eh, Lmhemlll?


Kym