A clarification of
the open source theosophy idea
Based on my experience
with some of our readers, there seems to be a need for a little
clarification of the idea behind "open source theosophy".
There
have been written some forum
postings on Theosophy.net (see Service Projects) by me, giving
the general idea. To summarize and expand:
1. The idea is to
take the three objects of the TS seriously. In our terminology:
Embrace, Compare, Explore (Community, Research, Self-knowledge). We
want to engage in research on as many areas as possible and feasible.
This can include studying and researching Oriental manuscripts, such
as David Reigle is doing. It can also include studying and
researching modern developments of theosophy inspired movements, such
as Vitvan's School of the Natural Order, Sufi and Fourth Way inspired
work from J.G.Bennett, Arthur Young's theosophy inspired work, etc.
Those movements have understood the need to build bridges with the
academic world and integrate current scientific understanding better
than the older Theosophical Societies. It's time we catch up and look
for cooperation with some of these movements, or at least consider
the corpus of ideas they have to offer. The same goes for the work of
outstanding thinkers such as Alfred North Whitehead (a process
philosopher), C.S. Peirce, and Stafford Beer (a cybernetic management
scientist, who has developed a theory of viable systems). A serious
theosopher cannot disregard developmental work done by modern
thinkers such as the above ones.
2. The term “theosophical”
is to be interpreted as generic theosophy. This term refers to
spiritual inspiration, not to a specific branch of belief that is
called “Theosophy as formulated by H.P. Blavatsky”. I do not deny
that latter person has written some very good material, which we can
use, but rather say that all material has to be scrutinized for the
modern era we live in. In this connection, an especially important
framework of ideas can be found in Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, as
these ideas have found their way into the Western world, into
religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), philosophy and a diversity
of Schools and movements. They, the Philalethians - the Ammonius
Saccas School - the lovers of Truth, were synthesizers of knowledge.
They brought the ideas of Plato and Aristotle into one framework.
That's the spirit we're after. In
addition, we must tie these, and
later developments, to
current thinking.
We have a massive corpus of
writings as our source material (see, for example, all the magazines
now available at Theosopher.net!). That is the gauge we can use to
safeguard us from jumping to wild speculations. This should not
prevent us, however, from engaging in creative work!
I have
formulated a new framework (set
of axiomas, see Philosophy forum on Theosophy.net) that can be
used as working hypotheses on which to build a modern philosophy of
life and which takes some fundamental research facts into
consideration. This framework is only in its beginning stages and
needs a lot of groundwork and elaboration. Good philosophers of
process will be needed to accomplish that. Are we ready to do our
share of the work? The effectiveness of our work may also involve
studying a bit of motivation theory (behavior psychology, incentives)
to grasp what it is that moves people.
3. The old theosophies were very
much oriented towards the “vertical” dimension of life: the
connection of the individual with the Spirit. Of course, there was
Lodge work and the atmosphere of the Lodge that was (and is) supposed
to further the development of the human spirit and the group
consciousness. Whether this has been very effective is subject to
considerable debate. My point is: the horizontal dimension of the
work to be done has perhaps been neglected too much. There is a need
to reach out to a larger audience and cater to the needs of the
present, if a movement wants to remain viable. What was good practice
a hundred years ago, may not be good practice now. Reflection on our
role is necessary! Historic research may help us understand how
things have come about; a vision of the future will help us make the
necessary adaptations a.k.a. a paradigm shift where a fundamental
view on matters is concerned. This might also be a good place to say,
that our intent is not “to rescue” the T.S., but rather to make a
fresh start, without carrying with us the baggage of the past. Our
frame of reference has rather to do with establishing common core
principles and ideas found in religion, philosophy and science. This
could be called an “integral-gnostic” framework. The exact name
for this can be decided upon later. It is a huge project, demanding
great skills of abstraction and synthesis, and a good working
knowledge of the diverse subject matter. An important part of all
this is the formulation of some basic principles for living together
in a society, some self-help notions, and using modern means to
present ideas, such as graphics, diagrams, and other audio-visual
means. In this connection: we are not intending to formulate a new
grand scheme how to reach Enlightenment. Understanding how spiritual
principles work out in daily life will do good enough.
4.
The term “open source” indicates the way we operate. Our
efforts are organized very similar to software projects in that we
adopt
flat structures (very
little hierarchical lines, enabling quick decision making and
creativity) and
use small teams in order to accomplish our goals. These teams should
arise in an ad
hoc
fashion and disband when their need is fulfilled.
In our context we can also say that the corpus of
ideas we use is “open source”: essentially all inspired
philosophical teaching, especially that known to be associated with
the theosophical impulses throughout the Ages. It also indicates that
we are open to ideas from modern developments such as mentioned in
points one and two, and that we can use ideas from modern thinkers to
establish an up to date systemic synthesis of ideas. Research is an
essential part of this whole enterprise, and contacting other groups
and individuals will be essential.
Lastly, this whole enterprise makes
use of modern technology, such as a Wiki, blogs, forums, video/audio,
graphic methods, links to Facebook, etc. This information is easily
reproducible by others, who may make use of it, and modify/expand it
under an open source Creative Commons license, and the other way
around: we can use material developed by others, and informed people
can contribute material to our wiki, which is of course moderated by
our admins. IMO, the time is long passed that anyone can claim ideas
exclusively for him- or herself. Ideas are free and want to be
free. They are inevitably subject to modification. None can stop
that. This is called evolution of ideas.
Particular formats of
implementation can change, as the need arises, or as vision matures.
A Wikiversity kind of implementation might be an option in the
future, who knows!