Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00053)

I'm impressed Steve
Cass

stevestubbs <stevestubbs@yahoo.com> wrote:



From: SionicDrip @... 
Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:39pm 
Subject: Re: Theos-World passing through student and seeker 
> There is another mode, where truth or not-truth are irrelevant.

That is half right. To a Leadbeaterian fundamentalist, truth is 
indeed irrelevant, but non-truth is very relevant.

> Leadbeaterian Theosophy ... may be very useful at one point
> in his life because that ... can be looked on in later years
> as utter nonsense.

I think I read that first in Alice in Wonderland. Are you Humpty 
Dumpty? Are you still sitting on that fence?

> And if anyone can make any sense out of what I just wrote,
> please tell me

After years of struggling I think I have figured it out. But I wish 
I hadn't.

From: "Eldon B Tucker" 
Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:09pm 
Subject: passing through student and seeker modes eldon_tucker 

> If I wanted to study Jungian Psychology, for instance, I'd
> want to hear what practitioners and advanced students say.
> I'd learn the terminology, hear the stories, and consider
> the ideas.

You might also want to know what researchers say about it and how 
much of it stands up to scrutiny. I used to admire Freud but did not 
refuse to read Salter's hilarious critique on his system.

> In a way, it's like with food. There may be a time to
> wonder about the relative merits of different things I might
> eat and when I might be thinking about what I'd like to eat
> at the next meal. Then comes the meal

You spend a LOT more time thinking about food than I do. Anyway, 
what does chowing down a veggie burger have to do with adamantly 
insisting that there are cities on Mars because Leadbeater said so? 
(And the Mars rovers be damned.) And while we are at it, how much do 
you weigh?

> Someone in student mode doesn't want to waste time on
> questioning basic assumptions that they've already made.

Someone like that is not a student but a catechumen. I would also 
question whether "questioning basic assumptions that they've already 
made" is really a waste of time as you categorically assert that it 
is.

> They do not have time to reconsider basic assumptions at the
> moment.

Not at the moment or for many many years thereafter based what I 
learned from this list.

> Intrusive distractions are seen as an annoyance.

Yes, the truth can be very annoying to some people.

> The study of different metaphysical systems of though may
> sometimes end up leaving people with a set of silly beliefs
> ... that aids the individual to think originally, enhance
> their intuition, and to cultivate symbolic thought.

The mind is not cultivated by assimilating silly beliefs and then 
defending them to the death. It can be improved by examining ideas 
and critically determining whether or not they make any sense.

> When someone is wanting to learn a new subject, they don't want
> the bandwidth choked with doubters and naysayers, they want to
> see materials related to their area of interest.

So cautiously examining Leadbeater's bona fides in an honest quest 
for the truth is getting "the bandwidth choked with doubters and 
naysayers," but praising him to the skies for writing a fraudulent 
book about clairvoyantly observed atoms is good?

> That doesn't make them sheep, subject to mind control, and unable
> to think differently.

If they are not sheep then why are they searching for a pastor?

> If we study only one area, or never take time to doubt and
> question and reconsider things, we can be students

Once again, that is not a student but a catechumen. At least you did 
not refer to critical thinking as a waste of time this time.

Let us suppose you wanted to start a home improvement business. 
Since the world tends to reward rational thinking and punish 
irrational thinking, I suspect you would have to run the business 
along rational lines or hit the bread line. So does it make sense to 
disdain rational thinking in some other context?

Many years ago I saw a British fellow whose name I do not remember on 
the Joe Pyne show. The British guy was there to enlighten us 
benighted yanks that the earth, contrary to commonly received 
opinion, is not round at all but flat. Joe Pyne pulled out a 
photograph and showed it to the guest. I remember the dialogue that 
ensued to this day:

Pyne: Do you know what this is, sir?

Guest: Why, yes. It is a picture of the earth taken from outer space.

Pyne: That it is. And would you tell the audience what shape the 
earth is in this picture?

Guest: Why, yes. It's round.

(Laughter from the audience.)

Pyne: So does that present a problem for your theory?

Guest: Why, no. If you look at anything from a distance it looks 
round.

Pyne: You mean if you looked at me from a distance I would look round?

Guest: If you were far enough away you would.

At this point there was a woman - she of little class - laughing 
hysterically.

As we say in this country, we love the British and citizens of other 
European countries but they are different.

I could not care less about the flat earth hypothesis at a content 
level, but I am most interested in how it is that people adamantly 
refuse to reconsider these kinds of ideas in the face of overwhelming 
proof that they are wrong.

It is not just limited to people with ideas outside the mainstream. 
I have heard several scientists recently who muse and commune over 
string theory raise arguments of the sort:

"I as a scientist can reverse engineer natural processes and that 
proves that there was no creator."

At a structural level this argument takes the form:

A and that proves B.

In this case A (that scientists can re-engineer nature) is 
unquestionably true, and the truth of that first statement sets up 
unsophisticated people to believe that the second statement must be 
true as well. Part of the setup is the proclamation that the speaker 
has a PhD in applied mathematics and is therefore some sort of pope 
whose logic cannot be questioned.

Now in fact, no one can prove that there either was or that there was 
not a creator. But one thing we can establish quite easily is that 
this argument is absurd if A and B are chosen such that the argument 
is a non sequitur. Consider the following argument which has the 
exact same structure:
"I like to eat corn bread and that proves that the White Sox will win 
the World Series every year for the next twelve years."

A in this case is true, and B is implausible but not impossible. 
However, A and B are chosen such that "A therefore B" is a non 
sequitur and therefore absurd.

Now let us take another instance. Suppose a scientist has never seen 
an automobile before and comes across one for the first time. The 
owner is nowhere to be seen and the scientist is therefore left to 
draw his own conclusions. He concludes:

"As a scientist I can reverse engineer this device and figure out how 
it works and therefore nobody made it or designed it."

Once again we have an absurd argument which can be reasonably be said 
to be untrue as well as absurd.

If the educational system served its prisoners better than it does 
only comedians would use this kind of dishonest pseudo-logic. As it 
is, specious reasoning is the tool of politicians, religionists, 
cranks, con artists, and theosophical fundamentalists. It is. 
however, never too late to learn to think clearly. I hope I have 
mane a small contribution to that end.







Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]