Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00116)

>As I surmise from what Kym posts there seems to be very little
>familiarity with Theosophical texts and expressions.  In this I
>may be wrong, but when I have attempted to convey ideas that to
>me are valid I have been met with contumely - which is hardly
>constructive.  Imagine trying to discuss Goethe, Plato or Kant or
>the Bible without using the written material as a common base.
>Theosophy has certain texts that are useful for all of us to be
>familiar with if we are going to discuss it.  Whatever we may
>feel about this or that, or someone, is irrelevant.

Dallas, that you so much for this crystal clear statement. I try to image
what would happen if would do what seems to be a common use in many
theosophical circles as on the theos lists as well: I go to the University,
asking for an expert on Kant, meet him and then begin to bark: Kant is
ignorant of this and that, he made false claims, the terms he used were
wrong, he was a liar and a sex pervert.  What would he reply? I sense he
would say something like: Boy, go home and read at first the works of Kant,
then came back and we can really discuss. Then of course I would slander him
that he has attacked me, I think for myself, the Kantists are dogmatic, not
allowing a new interpretation.
That is was happens in theos. circles. The lesser they know the more
aggressive they are.

Frank