Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00363)

Eldon wrote:

<<One book I enjoyed reading was ON WRITING: A
MEMOIR OF THE CRAFT by Stephen King. It's 
partly autobiographical and partly on writing 
clearly.>>

In my case, as far as I can see, "writing clearly" 
(rather than "clearly enough") about Theosophic 
things would often involve watering down my intended meaning to the
extent that what's left, (after 
catering to umpteen perceived needs, definitions, 
fashions, biases, current topics, etc, etc), might hardly even resemble
my original thoughts. Sorry, I prefer not to write that "clearly." 
I see writing for these lists as an opportunity to explore/express
meaning, primarily: If I feel that I have explored and 
expressed meaning well enough from MY point of view, and expressed
myself in keeping with MY standards, then, IMO, I have at least made a
"meaningfull enough" dent in something, as far as I can see, even if my
posts are totally ignored in turn.

Eldon: <<Writing clearly is important. But with
Theosophy, there is a counterbalancing
aspect to presenting materials. Because of the 
complexity of the philosophy and how everything is 
interrelated to everything else, Theosophy is best 
taught in an iterative manner. Different aspects are 
presented each time, with additional details given.
Not everything is directly stated, giving the reader 
opportunity to bridge the gaps in their own thinking 
and learn the art of symbolic/metaphysical 
thought.>>>>>>

Well, maybe you have some relevant points there, 
Eldon, in a way . . . maybe . . . But I don't see how I 
can please everybody and myself as well---in the 
kind of basic terms that I see as relevant 
here---without turning into some kind of less-meaningful politician or
caricature of myself, in 
some way. I feel that these discussion lists ought to be viewed as
offering us all FREEDOM to express ourselves in whatever way that's most
MEANINGFUL to each of us in terms of genuineness as per our
"Theosophically related" interpetive tendencies, basically.

If the cost of pursuing our free thoughts is that we get ignored and
complained about, does that mean that 
we should water down our thoughts into something 
that's "more generally understandable" and/or "more 
generally acceptable and fashionable" even if that 
kind of "understadable/acceptable" is much too 
drivelish from our own perspective? In my case, 
since I'm not pretending to be any kind of sage or 
teacher, here, that kind of cost is too high for me.

My willingness and interest in participating on these 
lists seems to be directly proportional to whatever 
intuitive freedoms I might detect/suspect from 
moment to moment. Stulfity those freedoms, add too 
many rules, and I'm out. You 
"understandable/acceptable" sages can stay, 
(whoever you are), and sage to each other to your 
hearts content . . . but I don't see that kind of boxed-in and stylized
saging as particularly relevant or interesting, on the whole, though I
know of lots of 
exceptions that MIGHT not be interepreted, in a sense,
as too boxed-in and stylized.

Besides, it's easy enough to ignore/delete posts that 
don't interest us. 

One of the things I like about Brigitte's posts is the 
various spellink and grammatikal errors combined 
wiz the varioous qoutes/comments in such a way that 
I find myself needing to figure out various possiible 
meanings in her posts "for myself." (Thank God that I 
often make plenty of spelling, grammatical, and 
meaning-related errors myself! Besides God, I guess 
I have my karma to thank for that! Why "thank God"? 
Well, isn't that part of how we all sort of naturally concede to basic
rules and fashions?)

In other words, I suspect that one ought to be able to read anything at
all, (tabloids, propaganda, lies, fiction, disinformation, disruption
tactics, etc, etc) and be able to extract various wisdoms from it. And,
having had to learn English as a second language, myself, I know what
that's like, and so I'm not really making fun of Brigitte's language
problems (except as the fun-making might out, naturally, or MIGHT show,
somewhat inadvertently, maybe, in some minor ways . . . ?). And I'm
sorry if I have created too much of a fun-making impression in some
apparently less qualified manner.

In a sense, I find in Brigitte's posts breaths of fresh 
air. Whatever else her posts might be, in whatever 
interpretive terms, they are, after all, products of . . . at least one
human being . . . ? At least? That is, in my interpretive way, I
tend to find the creative products of humans somewhat more interesting, 
generally speaking, than the creative products of, say, 
some "doggy" house guests, for example . . . but only 
generally speaking! On the other hand, there would 
seem to be, as I see it, SOME "doggy" house guests 
that have been known to exhibit some rather remarkable traits of
intelligence and sensitivity, as in the case of our Sally, here, at our
home. (Sally and I, incidentally, have fairly frequent conversations of
a highly sensitive and philosphical nature!)

Eldon: <<<The goal is to bring someone to have an
exploring mind that thinks for itself and is capable of sustained
original insights. The effort is not simply to indoctrinate someone into
a collection of rigid metaphysical dogma. The difficult balancing act
is between writing clearly and not saying everything at once. It
involves progressively explaining things over a period of time rather
than trying to cram everything into a single essay. When we acquire this
skill, we
become teachers to some small degree.>>>

Nice trick if you can pull it off!

Eldon: << The haggling over half-a-dozen conflicting
theories over what a scrap of paper says about what someone thought
about someone else a century ago seems far removed from real life. 
(Note that I got carried away with that last sentence. 31 words! That's
far too
long? Perhaps I should rewrite it?)>>

You go on as if you're afraid that we might all have a 
mental age of about three. Would you believe five? 
Six? Maybe higher, in some cases? 

Speculatively,
Mauri