Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00126)

Cass, 

I see how honest you are in exchanging views. Really touching!

Carlos. 


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Wed, 2 Aug 2006 17:18:09 -0700 (PDT)

Assunto:Re: Theos-World CASS, THEOSOPHY & SCIENCE

> Ah but Carlos, you didn't tell us what you silenced. Behind a nod is a thousand words.
> Cass
> 
> carlosaveline wrote: Cass,
> 
> No silent editing, at least as I consider it. 
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> 1) I said I was updating the text. So, no silence. 
> 2) The text is mine (a central factor). 
> 3) The initial version of the text is available for comparison.
> 
> Take a look at the content, too! 
> 
> From one who has edited many books, and tries to do his best, 
> 
> Carlos. 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Assunto:Re: Theos-World THEOSOPHY & SCIENCE
> 
> > Don't tell me you are engaging in "silent editing" here?????
> > Cass
> > 
> > carlosaveline wrote: Friends, 
> > Take a look at this view of things, in February. My text is slightly edited for updating. 
> > Carlos
> > 
> > KPJ and Bruce: Science X Theosophy?
> > Theos-talk, Feb 11, 2006 06:04 AM
> > by carlos cardoso aveline
> > 
> > Friends,
> > 
> > Greetings and peace (...) from Brasília.
> > 
> > Some scholars can't imagine anything beyond the narrow limits of their logical, linear, one-plus-one-equals-two old conventional university approach. Their approach is pre-Fritjof Capra, pre-Rupert Sheldrake, etc. (...) approach.
> > 
> > Now, why are many Universities in crisis worldwide, and why a great amount of "scientists" in the rich countries anxiously research for new weapons and new ways to kill, hypnotized by the funding coming from governments? Not to mention Iran now advancing his search for the A-bomb, or Pakistan and India, which already have nuclear weapons, thanks to their excellent scientists.
> 
> 
> Cass: Your subjective inclusion of "rich countries" leaves one thinking that there is a discrimination here, viz. "poor countries -v- rich countries".
> 
> > The reason for this is that a great part of mainstream science today still cannot raise beyond selfish interests and motives. 
> > They do not go beyond the left-side of human brain, and can't understand (or live) at least two things deeply enough:
> > 
> > A) Ethics;
> > 
> > B) Philosophy.
> Cass: I agree with you that many scientific works are funded by organizations which require the data to fit the premise. However, for the most part I believe Scientists are honourable men/women and it may just be that those who are less than honourable cannot see that it is their blind belief in their theory that is clouding their judgement.
> 
> > The root-problem with Paul Johnson's work and text on HPB and the Masters is in his premises. It is useless to accuse him personally of this or that.
> Cass: And his premise is?
> > 
> >
> > 
> > Paul probably can only look at HPB and the Masters from the viewpoint of the three-dimensional reality or Maya. That's not a big problem once he is sincere in his motives. A Master wrote once that the Adepts don't want too many people to be too sure of their existence. That would create other problems. Many lay disciples have never heard of them or even are skeptics of their existence, as it was the case to D.M. Bennett in the 19 century.
> > Doubt leads to investigate, on of the Mahatmas wrote. And the Mahatmas prefer minds investigating than in blind belief.
> > 
> > Then, through dialogue, we can all learn one from another. In this sense, I see no problem in having a healthy discussion with Paul Johnson.
> > 
> > Such a dialogue can be honest and respectful. But an important premise for our debates is a certain amount of mutual trust.
> > 
> > Look, please, with care -- and respect for everyone -- at the question raised and the informations brought by Paul Johnson on Daniel Caldwell's work in recent years. According to Paul, Daniel uses a false name ("David Green") or perhaps more than one false name, in order to to attack theosophical groups and theosophists.
> > 
> > This should be clarified. Paul has just raised an important, useful issue. Who is David Green? I haven't had the time to look and see if Daniel has already clarified the issue, as I hope.
> > 
> > Generaly speaking, people with whom we may disagree in a lot of important issues will surprise us by showing courage, love for truth, ethics, etc. That's why we should try to look at people and at life as if it were always the first time we see them, while also having our memories active.
> Cass: To look at something with fresh eyes, requires that all previous memories are abandoned.
> 
> 
> > 
> > But we should work on and build a bridge between scientific thought and mystical and theosophical traditions/knowledge.
> Cass: Agreed, but jumping up and down, flaying the arms in disbelief will not achieve this end. A bridge means that people must meet halfway doesn't it?
> 
> Cass> 
> > Sincere regards to Paul Johnson, Bruce and you all. 
> > 
> > Peace to all beings, Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
> > 
> > From: "kpauljohnson" 
> > Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Theos-World History classroom vs. courtroom (to Bruce)
> > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:59:56 -0000
> > 
> > Dear Bruce,
> > 
> > I wrote this offline to post later, so am paraphrasing your remarks
> > from memory rather than quoting, hoping to get the gist. You wrote
> > about HPB that she is innocent until proven guilty and that anyone
> > who believes (or even entertains the possibility?) that she is guilty
> > of anything is unfit to be called a Theosophist. This
> > guilt/innocence approach frames historical discussion as if it were
> > identical to criminal trials, which I suggest leads in unfortunate
> > directions.
> > 
> > One problem with this approach is that it is logically self-
> > defeating. In a courtroom, only one person is on trial, to be
> > judged either guilty or not guilty of a particular offence in
> > isolation from any other individuals. In a courtroom there's no such
> > thing as a little bit guilty; you either are or aren't. In
> > historical interpretation or reconstruction, anyone being appraised
> > is studied in a network of other persons whose points of view are
> > considered equally relevant. Testimonies always conflict and
> > evidence has to be weighed. Everyone is a mixture of light and
> > shadow, and no one is exempt from scrutiny based on supposed
> > spiritual status.
> > 
> > In the case of HPB you would have to rely on special pleading saying
> > she and only she is to be handled with kid gloves like this. Because
> > the same courtesy is not extended to all the people whose testimony
> > conflicts with hers, it is clearly not a workable *general* principle
> > you are advocating, but rather a special exemption from normal
> > historical scrutiny. Religions frequently promote such special
> > exemptions for their founders, but Theosophy was not intended to be
> > another religion or to promote the kind of special pleading religion
> > encourages. The list of people who accused HPB of deception in one
> > situation or another during her life is quite long. Not just the
> > Coulombs and Hodgson, but (to name a few) Emma Hardinge-Britten,
> > C.C. Massey, Swami Dayananda, Mabel Collins, A.P. Sinnett, A.O. Hume,
> > Solovyoff, many of the SPR founders, Babaji Nath, on and on. In
> > every case where someone else's testimony conflicts with hers, your
> > position implies HPB is entitled to the presumption not only that she
> > is innocent until proven guilty, but the other person is guilty until
> > proven innocent. What about their rights to a fair hearing? What
> > we owe these people, IMO, is not any a priori presumption of guilt or
> > innocence but rather the attempt to understand their relationships
> > with one another in all their complexity, ambiguity, and subtlety.
> > No easy task! (I note that you and Carlos assert that certain things
> > are "proven lies" but that sounds like wishful thinking to me-- few
> > historical questions are resolved with absolute finality and
> > certainly not about HPB.)
> > 
> > The second problem with the frame of guilt/innocence as applied to
> > history is that it makes every biographer or historian a sinner or
> > criminal, unless s/he writes totally fawning hagiography. There is
> > almost always reasonable doubt about any historical question. Should
> > that silence authors and prevent them from presenting their best
> > guess as to the answer? To say "my reading of the evidence is that
> > Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings's children" becomes, in your frame,
> > a terrible crime against his memory. The DNA evidence only shows
> > that *some* Jefferson was the father, and it *might* have been one
> > other than Thomas—although circumstantial evidence makes it clear who
> > is the most likely candidate. (Some of the outraged white Jefferson
> > hagiographers treated Barbara Chase-Riboud like a heretic and
> > criminal when she first proposed the Hemings theory years ago. TJ
> > couldn't *possibly* have done such a thing.) This makes a courtroom-
> > like two dimensional dichotomy out of the multidimensional continua
> > of real life.
> > 
> > I certainly would't want to belong to any movement in which daring to
> > doubt or criticize the founder is a one-way ticket to permanent
> > exile. Your suggestion that anyone who doesn't give HPB the benefit
> > of every doubt can't be a Theosophist implies that attitude. It
> > really doesn't seem to fit the values suggsted in the three objects
> > or much of HPB's writings. I think an educational model, rather than
> > a legal one, fits the Theosophical movement better. And in an
> > educational setting there is nothing wrong with entertaining many
> > different POVs about historical figures, without regarding criticism
> > as sacrilege.
> > 
> > Glad to see you here,
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> > Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> > http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1154480906.770218.9080.arrino.hst.terra.com.br,11693,Des15,Des15
> > 
> > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 01/08/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4819
> > Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1154564406.421521.24171.ambrose.hst.terra.com.br,14073,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 02/08/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4820
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> 


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