Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00288)

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/04 1:21:22 PM, AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org writes:
> > I fully agree with this paragraph from the Master. This phase of 
> > giving Truth in paradoxical language continued till 1890. Later 
> > principles were given in clear language. That is why I don't read 
> > much what was written before 1890.
> Unfortunately, we can't be sure that the so called "clear language Truth" 
> given out after 1890 (as supposedly "theosophical TRUTH") wasn't colored 
> (distorted) by the inherent biases and prejudices of those later authors who professed 
> to interpret the earlier, so called "paradoxical (more like *metaphorical* 
> and *symbolical*) language" used prior to that time. 
There is also the problem that "clear language" is an oxymoron. While I 
would not necessarily go as far as Jacques Derrida went with his 
philosophy of "deconstruction", he did have a point that language is 
ambiguous. There are always unspoken assumptions, and, if the reader has 
different assumptions than the author, then the meaning is altered, as 
well. Add onto this the factor of language drift; words change meaning 
all the time (to give a strong example, call someone "gay" in the 
1960's, then call them "gay" today, and you will get two very different 
reactions. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, a man is called a "naughty 
knave"; today we would think that the second word was the insult, but, 
when it was written, "naughty" was a strong insult, and "knave" was not 
at all insulting. I am currently researching my contention that when 
Blavatsky and the Mahatmas were discussing "root races", the term was 
unrelated to what we currently and laughingly call "races", although 
later writers assumed they were, and a major link has to do with the 
fact that certain vocabulary only entered the English language around 
the time of Blavatsky's death.

Most people think that the primary use of language is communication. It 
is not. The primary use of language is thought; it is said that we can 
only think in symbols. If we do not have the language for a concept, we 
cannot have the thought (although we CAN get around that problem by 
creating new language). Blavatsky and the Mahatmas were trying to 
explain concepts for which most languages were inadequate. I've 
illustrated this in a short story I wrote when proposing to put humor 
pieces in Theosophical publications:

The Light Blocking the Path

A decade or so from now, a worker who accidentally will wander into a 
time travel experiment will go back into the past, to the days of the 
Roman Republic. Once he learns Latin, he will try to explain the 
technology of the 21st Century, but, being the product of typical 
American schools, will not be able to physically reproduce more than a 
few simple items. But he will impress the populace sufficiently that his 
words will be written down, and eventually become official doctrine. 
Let’s go forward a bit, when Thomas Edison (or any reasonable 
equivalent) invents the practical electric light bulb. The Bureau of 
Technology sends a representative to examine whether or not this 
invention is valid.

Edison: Look! It lights up the room, and can go for days and days 
without burning out!

Representative: I’m afraid, sir, that while that’s an interesting 
diversion, it cannot be accepted as an electric lightbulb.

E: Why not?

R: Well, first of all, note that in the Book Of The Future, it states 
that the electric light will be a form of continuous fire in a globe. 
Now, as you well know, we have discovered, as the Book Of The Future 
predicted, that fire is a result of a rapid combination of materials 
with oxygen.

E: So, what’s your point?

R: My POINT, you heretic, is that your so-called “lightbulb” has a globe 
with a VACUUM inside!!!! There CANNOT be a fire in a VACUUM. So that 
CANNOT be an electric lightbulb!

E: But, note that we have discovered the reason that fire gives off 
light is by heating up the molecules of the material so rapidly, that 
they give off their excess energy in the form of light. My lightbulb is 
doing that.

R: It does not matter. The Book Of The Future SAYS “fire”, and therefore 
it must BE “fire”. Besides, even if there WAS a fire in the globe, there 
are more problems!

E: MORE problems?

R: Of course there are more problems. I see that you are using metal 
strings to bring the electricity to the lightbulb.

E: You mean the wires. And that’s a problem?

R: Very much so, I’m afraid. After all, the Book Of The Future said that 
wires would be used to bring the electricity to the lightbulb. And those 
are NOT wires.

E: NOT wires? Why not?

R: You should read the Official Books more often. For does it not say, 
in Electricity IV:3-4, “And, like, thou knowest, electricity doth flow 
through wires the way water doth flow through pipes. Yea, verily, that 
is it, it is like water through pipes.”

E: And the problem with that?

R: Everybody KNOWS that pipes are HOLLOW inside. Those so-called “wires” 
you are using are SOLID. They cannot possibly be carrying the electricity.

E: But sir! They ARE like pipes. The INSULATION is the outside of the 
pipe, while the metal is like the air!

R: Ah, you fall victim to the Franklin Fallacy. For, whatever is being 
carried through what you are calling “wires” will flow through WITHOUT 
insulation. You take the outside out of the pipes, and the water will 
flow all over the place! Those are NOT wires!

E: But…but…but…

R: I’m sorry. Invention denied. Better luck next time, and do try to 
read up on the Book Of The Future.