Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00343)

At 03:00 PM 2/5/02 +0000, you wrote:
> > > I have not been reading fully the posts by Brigitte or Paul
> > > Johnson -- they disgust me.
>
> The problem here is, IMO, twofold: absolute thinking and moral
> exclusion.
Paul:

I've seen examples of this in the other direction (but don't
recall any by you).

> First, absolute thinking means, as applied to writings
> about HPB, an extremist approach. For example, any author not
> seeking to present HPB as a saint must be out to destroy her
> reputation and thereby harm the Theosophical movement. There are no
> alternatives; there is no middle ground. You're either a Theosophist
> as defined by the absolutist, or you're undeserving of the name at
> all. HPB was either a spotless virgin, or a total fraud. All down
> the line, everything is black and white with no shades of gray.
> Relative thinking, the kind that sees nuances and ambiguities, is for
> sissies.
Absolute Thinking

Any author not seeking to present HPB as a clever imposter must
be a Fundamentalist out to defend her at all costs, however
irrational. There is no middle ground. You're either a Historian
as defined by the writer or a Fundamentalist. HPB was either a
total fraud or the historic research is a total waste of time.
There are no shades of grey.

> Second, this kind of thinking leads to moral exclusion. Certain
> persons, in other words, are totally excluded from moral
> consideration. The rules that apply when dealing with "one of us"
> are completely suspended when dealing with "them." "They" are fair
> game for relentless attack, for insults, sometimes for physical and
> not just psychological violence. And anything "they" say or do in
> response to abuse is taken as further proof of how much they deserved
> it.
Moral Exclusion

Certain persons are totally excluded from moral consideration.
The rules that apply when dealing with "one of us" historians
are completely suspended when dealing with "them" Fundamentalists.
"They" are fair game for relentless attack, for insults, sometimes
for physical and not just psychological violence. And anything
"they" say or do in response to abuse is taken as further proof of
how much they deserved it.

> Hence a person can spout the most wonderful moral principles because
> some source of absolute knowledge was alleged to have revealed them.
> But those principles only apply to those who have not strayed into
> moral exclusion. Once a person has crossed the line and become a
> moral nonperson, harming them is at least excusable and at worst
> praiseworthy.
Hence a person can spout the most wonderful scientific principles
because some university or academic methodology is said to be
behind them. But those principles only apply to those who have not
strayed into moral exclusion. Once a person's ideas have crossed the
line and they have become a scientific nonperson (Fundamentalist),
harming them is at least excusable and at worst praiseworthy.

----

Note, Paul, that I'm just turning the tables on what you've
written to show the same experience of Absolute Thinking and
Moral Exclusion as possibly seen from traditional theosophical
students. Anyone can fall into the trap of doing it, and we all
need to watch out for it. We can catch ourselves, hopefully,
before acting that way. And we can try to help others deal with
it when it happens, if it catches our attention and we have the
time and resources to do so.

(Keeping a score card on how often it happened, and to whom, in
the past, won't help. But increased mindfulness and kindliness
towards others can improve things for everyone. And this applies
not just to you and I, but to everyone on the list, historian,
philosopher, or jokester alike.)

-- Eldon