Re: Theos-World Re:Those who study Blavatsky's writing become fundamentalists
Jun 05, 2005 05:04 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Anand, friends,
Anand, you wrote:
Whatever America may say publicly, American policy makers want India to be
powerful country and they have little problem with India having nuclear capability.
I see that you have fallen for the American myths. I wonder if you also
believe other popular American myths, like: "Anyone can become
President" or, "There are no poor people in America" or, "In American,
anyone can get rich." Occasionally someone in power makes an honest
statement to the American people. But, most people prefer to believe the
fantasies with makes them feel good to the realities, which makes them
think. I recall an honest US Senator once saying: "If you think that
the United States Senate cares about the welfare of the common person,
you are sadly mistaken." I would add that: If you think that American
policy makers cares about the welfare of India, you are also sadly
mistaken. Policies which allow American jobs to go to India is solely
done to serve the interests of American corporations which are seeking
cheap labor to manufacture, and provides services for their products,
and to avoid paying taxes. They (the corporations and the American
government) could not care less about India, except when it affects
corporate profits or the wealth of those in power.
Blavatsky in Preface to SD admitted that her English was not good
being foreigner. So defending her about English is not right.
I'm afraid that you misunderstood her meaning. Blavatsky's actual
statement from the Preface was:
The author does not feel it necessary to ask the indulgence of her
readers and critics for the many defects of literary style, and the
imperfect English which may be found in these pages. She is a
foreigner, and her knowledge of the language was acquired late in life.
As you can see above, she did not write that her English "was not
good." Rather, she is saying that she makes no apologies (i.e. "...does
not feel it necessary to ask the indulgence...") for the "imperfect
English which *may* be found..." In truth, her written English (i.e.
spelling, grammar, vocabulary) is excellent. It is not her English,
which readers find difficult. Rather, it is the level of sophistication
of her writing. As I wrote before, most people today lack the necessary
reading skills to follow with understanding her prose, not because it is
poorly written, but because they are too lazy to make the necessary
effort. This is a fault of the reader, not the writer.
As for her literary style, which she also mentions: First of all,
"literary style" is a manner of linguistic expression which the writer
employs in his/her prose. The elements of literary style are, among
other things: Diction (choice of words), sentence structure (simple and
complex) syntax (word order), frequency and manner of use of figurative
language etc. These elements are not issues of good or bad English.
Blavatsky's written English, as I already stated, is excellent. Rather,
literary style concerns the issue of audience. For instance, what is the
social class and education level of the people to whom she wished to
write? You might think about this in terms of your own experience with
spoken language. For instance, a teenager, speaking informally to his
peers might use a lot of slang, and loose language which would not be
appropriate to use when addressing your parents or teachers. Do you
follow what I am saying? It is the same thing in writing. The
formulations of the literary style must take into consideration the
audience.
There are three main registers of style: High (scholarly), Middle (for
the average) and Low (for the under-educated and for children). In the
eighteenth century, these styles originally concerned the social class
of the reading audience. That is: those of a higher social class were
more educated than one of the lower classes, and expected the literature
they were to read to be of a more sophisticated and formal style. In the
nineteenth century, the higher classes were still more educated, and
still expected to be addressed at that higher register, but there were
also many people from the lower classes who had managed to educate
themselves. Therefore, Blavatsky wrote at a high literary style in
order to communicate both to her educated and the self-educated English
reading audience, whether they were British, American, Indian etc. She
did not write to the under-educated and uneducated masses, most of whom,
would have no interest in what she had to say anyway. Notice that the
people who were attracted to her were either from the upper, more
educated classes, or were self-educated people. That was also her
reading audience.
With the above in mind, we can better understand what she means when she
says that she "...does not feel it necessary to ask the indulgence of
her readers and critics for the many defects of literary style,..."
What she is saying, is that she came from a different culture and grew
up with a different language. Therefore she is staying that her
knowledge of the British and American cultures--the knowledge of which
is influential of style, may be open to criticism to those who are
native to the culture. However, since she is "a foreigner," she is
saying that anyone with certain expectations concerning her literary
style (which she may have not fulfilled), should understand that since
she is not a native speaker. Therefore, she is not to be held to those
expectations in the first place. This was very cleaver, because she was
then free to write in a literary style to did not have to cater
exclusively to the British or American cultures.
In conclusion: what Blavatsky is trying to say in a nice way is *not*
that she does not write English well. Rather, she is saying that, as a
foreigner (one of those Russians which the Brits don't like in the first
place), her use of the English language, and her literary style may be
different from what the reader is used to. Some readers (especially the
spoiled snobs) may want to fault her for not conforming to their
literary preferences. That's their problem, and she is not going to
humor them by playing that game. Because, any reasonable person would
allow for the differences of literary style stemming from the cultural
differences of the writer, who is not a member of their culture in the
first place.
However in newspapers I find that there are articles on large number of topics including
spirituality.
Only a small minority of Americans subscribe to or read newspapers.
Other media also expose people to many other subjects which are not covered in schools and
universities.
You mean oft repeated pseudo-documentaries on the cable channels about
the search for "Big Foot", "U.F.O's", "Alien Abductions" etc? However,
occasionally there is a worthwhile and informative program on cable TV.
Unfortunately, the Majority of Americans do not have cable access (which
is too expensive for most people) and, therefore, never see those rare
quality programs, let alone the awful ones. Rather, they are left to
watch the free public access stations where they can view things like
situation comedies about dysfunctional families, or watch the "reality
shows" where they can see people making fools of themselves and being
humiliated by others.
Regarding those quality programs: We record, or order copies of those
very occasional appropriate quality programs which do appear on cable
TV. My wife sometimes takes them to the University and shows portions
of them to her classes. So, ironically, the students never see them on
television, but at the university! Also, I occasionally show them at our
study groups when the subject matter happens to fit in with we are
studying at the time. When I taught English composition at the
university, I used to open the class by having them fill out a
questionnaire. One of the questions I asked was what was their favorite
program. The most popular program at the time was a series called
"Beverly Hills 90210." It was a fictional series about the sex lives of
teenage kids growing up in Beverly Hills. I suspect that it was popular
to these young students because they liked to fantasize that they would
someday become rich, move to Beverly Hills and live a selfish and self
absorbed kind of life like the characters in the sitcom.
It is only in Theosophy related things that America
disappointed me. I hope they will improve.
You might take that issue up with TSA and tell me how far you get with
them. I tried to work with them for about thirty years and gave up.
Perhaps you will succeed where all others have failed.
Best wishes,
Jerry
Anand Gholap wrote:
Jerry,
It is true that courses are made which would get students good job.
And these jobs are generally of accountants, engineers, doctors etc.
Subjects like Philosophy, literature, History, Geography are not
taught and even if taught, students don't enroll themselves for these
as these subjects don't get them good jobs. However in newspapers I
find that there are articles on large number of topics including
spirituality. That partly compensates even if student does not take
formal education in other areas. Other media also expose people to
many other subjects which are not covered in schools and
universities.
Blavatsky in Preface to SD admitted that her English was not good
being foreigner. So defending her about English is not right.
India is a peace loving, democratic, secular country. Whatever
America may say publicly, American policy makers want India to be
powerful country and they have little problem with India having
nuclear capability.
I appreciate America's policies and work in political, economic and
many other areas. It is only in Theosophy related things that America
disappointed me. I hope they will improve.
May Charles Leadbeater bless America and make it see light of
Theosophy.
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...>
wrote:
Dear Anand, friends,
Anand, are you aware that you are arguing with me about statements
I did
not make? I wrote about reading skills among Americans and you
negate
my statement by answering about reading skills world wide. I
submit
that this is not a very effective way to communicate.
Regarding my statement about students being more motivated to make
money
than learn, your replied:
Although it is true. This ambition makes them study, read and
solve
complex problems in science etc. So it is good for them and good
for
society.
This is a very idealistic view. I wish it were true. It is not
generally so. Our experience in the university system has been
that
most students try to do whatever needs to be done to get by. When
we
find students who give 100% effort we are very delighted. They are
the
minority. Nevertheless, the subject of the American educational
system
is a very complex one, and too off subject for this discussion
board.
The point I was trying to make was not about the American Education
system anyway. It is about the declining ability of people to read
literature, which has effected their ability to read Blavatsky.
Nineteenth century American and European education focused upon
being
learned in the classics. Education was about understanding
culture,
history, language, philosophy, the arts and humanities. Today's
universities focus upon specialized training in order to serve
corporate
interests. They learn the skills necessary to become good
accountants,
or dentists, or administrators etc. But they no longer learn the
skills
necessary to read at a sophisticated level.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of this country;
author of
the Declaration of Independence; the Statute of Virginia for
Religious
Freedom; and third President of the United Sates, once wrote to the
effect that a man is not educated unless he has read the classics
in
their original Greek and Latin. Today, it is very rare to find an
American (whether or not he/she has been to a university) who has
read
the classics in English translation, let alone in their original
languages. Today, we call one with a university diploma who has a
specialized knowledge in a small area and generally ignorant about
everything else, an "educated" man or woman. In Blavatsky's day,
and in
Jefferson's day, an educated person was one who had a general
knowledge
in all areas: sciences, humanities, mathematics etc.
Let me put it this way: If you were to show a world map to the
Average
American, they would be unable to find India on it.
Another example: There is a very popular television personality
who
discusses world issues from "a Christian point of view." His views
are
representative of about half of this country. In discussing the
issue
about India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, he pointed out
that the
governments of India and Pakistan "are too ignorant to understand
that
those weapons are dangerous."
Best wishes,
Jerry.
Anand Gholap wrote:
Jerry,
What I wrote was that most Americans lack the skills needed to
read
with
much understanding anything written above a fifteen year old
level.
They are unable to read with much understanding anything but the
simplest writing. What I would suggest is that people would be
generally better off if they were to work on improving their
reading and
thinking skills.
It is not so. Literacy in world is much more than any time before.
Also much advanced skills in every area are being acquired by
people
My experience has been that most young people who go to
the universities resist learning to read, write or think. They
tell me
that they are there to get their diploma and get a job that pays
a
lot
of money.
Although it is true. This ambition makes them study, read and
solve
complex problems in science etc. So it is good for them and good
for
society.
Blavatsky failed to write in such manner and she admitted it.
I agree, she did not write in such a manner. But how is this a
failure?
Anand Gholap
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
