Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00523)

Having that phrase repeated in several contexts caused me to think of 
it in several others. What am I "trying to prove" with what I'm 
writing now and what does that even mean? Essentially the point that 
seems to be provable in the documents I'm studying has to do with the 
interaction of three races in one small swampy area of a county in 
the coastal plain of northeastern North Carolina. Which is that the 
historical memories in oral and written traditions of the white, 
black, and Native American families in the county are fragmentary and 
distorted, but if you weigh the three different versions and 
perspectives and pay careful attentions to the documents, you end up 
with an understanding that embraces and reconciles all three. I'm 
driven to understand the genetic triraciality of one small part of 
the South, and its causes and consequences and the way it has been 
mythologized in different communities and traditions. The motive is 
personal and the approach narrative, about meeting lots of new 
kinfolks via genealogical research and travel and piecing together 
clues.

So any reference in the present tense to what I am trying to prove 
would really have to be about that. I am way past trying to prove 
anything to anyone about HPB or Cayce, since whatever the books do or 
don't accomplish in that dimension overshadows anything I might say 
now. What the books prove is in the minds of the readers. And out 
of my hands entirely.

But the whole notion of trying to prove, rather than trying to 
understand and share your understanding, rubs me the wrong way. It's 
partisan and dogmatic neither of which has any place in the kind of 
writing I want to do.

People who live in a mental universe of constantly trying to prove 
the same things are inevitably going to perceive someone on a very 
different wavelength as if he were on their own. That is, someone 
trying to understand and share that understanding will be perceived 
as trying to prove something. (And something of tremendous relevance 
to the perceiver.)

Which leads to Vladimir's question I failed to answer, which was 
about trying to prove something about the "stature" of HPB's 
Masters. Meaning presumably their spiritual evolution and paranormal 
powers. That's something I explicitly disavow and have no interest 
in because it seems fruitless to approach them as historical 
questions. There are so many fascinating historical questions that 
historical methods and sources can help answer-- let the metaphysical 
and parapsychological be answered by the metaphysicians and 
parapsychologists. I don't want to *read* history books contaminated 
by their authors' desire to prove anything metaphysical or 
parapsychological, let alone write one. (Will read them of course as 
necessary but only for the information content not the propaganda 
agenda.)


Cheers,

Paul