Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00448)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> If I get the gist of what your saying its that we should be wary 
of not accepting pat explanations or presuming one particular 
historical perspective is correct.
> 
Hi Perry,

Glad you're taking the post in the spirit in which it was intended. 
Sometimes when people frame things in a "false dilemma" manner they 
do so deliberately, but usually it's unintentional and when you 
reply "but hey there are far more than two alternatives here" they 
get the point. Here's a link to a site explaining the fallacy:
http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html

I'll mention a few examples of this in Theosophical thinking:

1. Either the Adyar TS is the true legitimate heir of the original 
TS, or its not. Problem: Maybe it both is and is not depending on 
how you mean it.
2. Either HPB never told a lie in her life (in which case anyone 
concluding she did so must be punished for sacrilege) or Theosophy 
is a total fraud. Problem: telling some lies does not mean 
everything you say is fraudulent.
3. Either every single aspect of a proposed prototype for a 
fictionalized character corresponds precisely to that character, or 
there is no connection whatsoever between the two. Problem: 
fictionalization by definition means that the correspondence is not 
exact or complete.
4. Either Theosophy is still relevant today, or it's an outdated 
fossil best ignored. Problem: maybe some parts are still relevant 
and some parts are outdated.
5. Either we refrain from acknowledging CWL's crimes, or we're being 
unbrotherly. Problem: how brotherly is it to his victims to pretend 
they weren't abused?

one could go on...

Cheers,

Paul