Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00070)

Hallo Paul and all of you,

My views are:


Firstly. I do not think you understood my latest email.
You didn't even answer on the last part of it.
And the questions I put, you didn't answer on either as far as I read you.

Secondly.
What kind of evidence ? What "strong evidence" are you talking about ?

a) If you do reread my previous email. You would possibly come across two
questions,
which you didn't answer in your below formulations.

b) In my first email on this issue, I was only referring to the false claims
and not the true ones.
To me it is for instance allright that Idries Shah so to speak died
physically year 1996.
The fact that I didn't mention the false claims at a place like Theos-Talk -
aught not - result
in a heated exchange on how to create scientific and scholary evidence on
what is false. Do you not agree ?
But if that is what newcomers need - I will have to answer them like this:

* If you trace the links between Mir Harven, Arvan Harvat, Alan Kazlev to
"Convert to islam.org",
Disinfopedia (cousin to Wikipedia?), and the Center for Media
Democracy - what do you then have ?

* Certain people - often scholars - invariably cite numerous "sources" in
convoluted
ways to set themselves up as experts or gain attention. It is a
tendency that is always alive and well. To refute such
people "working in this industry" (by pointing out inconsistencies in
their arguments, or questioning sources) only gives them more
material to manipulate for their purposes.
Do you disagree ?

* What good does it do to contrast a page by Arvan Harvat, for
example on the lataif, that states "there is no unanimity regarding
the lataif" (its patterns/ordering) in authentic sources but then on
another dismisses Idries Shah's info on the subject to be "the fictions of
Idries Shah"?
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Islamic_esotericism/Sufism/lataif.html (Arvan
Harvat)
Do you disagree on this ?

* Not that I know that much or care to
about "Wikopedia"-- being registered in the state of Florida (for
purposes of donations), is in my view roughly about the opposite of
what some would call the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
What are the readers view ? And your view Paul ?




from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:09 PM
Subject: Theos-World Imposture (to Sufilight)


> Hi Sufilight,
>
> > The truth about it all seems on one level to be floating along the
> levels of Floodlights and Science.
>
> The truth of what Shah claimed about himself and Sufism and its
> variance with known facts? That variance can be dismissed as
> unimportant, but not as "clearly false" without evidence.
>
> > On another level we are talking about reading the Akasha or the
> non-physical libraries.
> >
>
> You could certainly argue that Shah was genuine in important ways
> even if guilty of imposture in other ways. But to deny that
> imposture occurred, in the face of strong evidence, is to make a
> *historical* claim and not just one about metaphysical or ethical
> values. So the nature of your labelling the information about
> Shah's imposture as "clearly false" brings you into the realm of
> historical evidence.
>
> > I admit, that it is maybe not good enough as what you would call a
> required refutation.
>
> Far be it from me to require anything, but a certain kind of
> statement inherently requires appropriate evidence for anyone not
> ready to take it on faith.
> >
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>