Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00062)

Dear Sufilight,

You wrote:
> 
> My views are:
> 
> I just came across the following.
> I think the following - clearly false claims 

Clearly? That's one of those words like `obvious' and `self-
evident' that people use as if they were objective perceptions but 
often/usually are really descriptive of subjective judgments.

- about Idries Shah shows all of us, why Wikipedia is not a valid 
tool to use.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah
> 
I've read all of Shah's works and met his most eminent critic James 
Moore. The fact that the article shows `clearly' *to you* that 
Wikipedia is "not a valid" tool hardly implies that "all of us" are 
convinced by *your* certainty and clarity that Shah was not an 
impostor.

> If Theosophy should be examined by the same superficial method - 
it wouldn't look good.
> 
> Madame Blavatsky can be compared here:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Blavatsky
> 
> I think you have gotten the culturally colored picture by now.
> 
One thing I notice among religious believers as well as political 
partisans, but never cease to be amazed by it. Somehow, people 
imagine that calling a book or article or author "culturally 
colored" or "biased" etc. refutes their facts and interpretations 
thereof. But there are no books, authors, or articles which are 
*not* culturally colored, biased, etc. So it would serve just as 
well as a one-size-fits-all refutation if we were to say "this was 
written by a human being." 

It would be interesting to see a correction of any of the facts 
about Shah presented in the article. No matter how biased the 
source and how culturally colored, the facts remain and it would be 
preferable (to me at least) to see the facts corrected and explained 
rather than see the source smeared without any evidence.

(Lest you assume otherwise, I actually like many of Shah's books.)

Cheers,

Paul

Paul