Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T15:36:50ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMeadhttps://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2985088729?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://theosophy.net/forum/topic/listForContributor?groupUrl=faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq&user=0bkawgns1sam8&feed=yes&xn_auth=noControversiestag:theosophy.net,2013-05-25:3055387:Topic:1255912013-05-25T05:26:12.145ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>Material has been moved from the discussion on "In my own words"</p>
<p>We ask that you respect the intent of discussions posted on this site. It is a failure in moderation that led us to allow a meta discussion where the intent of the posting was to get users to explain what Faivre's characteristics of Esotericism and Theosophy meant in their own words.</p>
<p><em>What is important for you to understand</em> is that we have decided on this course of action and have done so for the last…</p>
<p>Material has been moved from the discussion on "In my own words"</p>
<p>We ask that you respect the intent of discussions posted on this site. It is a failure in moderation that led us to allow a meta discussion where the intent of the posting was to get users to explain what Faivre's characteristics of Esotericism and Theosophy meant in their own words.</p>
<p><em>What is important for you to understand</em> is that we have decided on this course of action and have done so for the last year and a half. We're not backing away from our usage of Faivre, so whether or not this is the correct way for Theosophy.Net to proceed is not the question.</p>
<p>The affected parts of the discussion have been copied here. If you have questions or comments or want to continue the discussion, please do so in this forum.</p>
<p></p>
<p>===============================</p>
<p></p>
<p> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=2ntay1we5fwwe">Govert Schuller</a> yesterday</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?groupUrl=faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423&id=3055387%3ATopic%3A125428&page=1">Delete</a></p>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>This is an older e-mail with some thoughts I shared with some of you about half a year ago. I reread it and think it will contribute to the discussion. The pivotal concepts to make sense of the following is the difference between the etic and the emic as developed in anthropology. See wikipedia at<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic</a>.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>I have not followed the development of Theosophy.net in detail. I am aware of your recent stance of, let's say, activating a more academic position regarding Theosophy without really giving up on a belief in the truth and value of different esoteric practices. My concern here is that by doing so you are moving from an emic point of view to a somewhat muddled etic pov. That is, from a Theosophical view based on the teachings of HPB and others, to an academic view developed by Faivre, Hanegraaff and other scholars who do not necessarily belief in Theosophy, though you keep some belief intact. This is quite a shift, because you seem to go from a committed, subjective believing position into a seemingly neutral, objective, observing position, but then bring that back into an emic position. I'm not saying that that's impossible or wrong, but it looks to me like a complex hybrid to satisfy an overall non-dogmatic position. My own work on experiential theosophy falls in that category by taking theosophical concepts serious, but then use philosophical methods from the school of phenomenology to 'anchor' such concepts in one's own personal, reflective experience.</p>
<p>Anyway, just to be clear and by thinking aloud, I think that the (pure) etic position makes sense for a) Theosophists who just like to explore what academia has to say about Theosophy, b) Theosophists who like to incorporate the academic stance, as far as that might be possible (which is not a given), c) Theosophists with an understanding of science who like to check if their Theosophical worldview might survive academic standards (and if they see an incompatibility, they might have to make a choice), d) those who, for whatever reason, lost their faith in Theosophy, and like to figure out what Theosophy is from a more neutral etic viewpoint, e) persons interested in Theosophy for personal, spiritual reasons, but want a second opinion from academia, f) persons interested in Theosophy out of curiosity, g) critics who like to look deeper into Theosophy to be in a better position to deliver skeptical challenges to Theosophy and/or develop outright refutations of different positions within Theosophy, h) academics who are trained in the development of etic positions through an emphatic understanding of emic positions and last i) academics of a more skeptical stance who develop not merely etic positions, but also hypotheses to explain Theosophy from different angles like psychology, sociology and, now up and coming, evolutionary psychology.</p>
<p>The last two academic positions have to be well understood in their difference. The first one, h), concerns itself with the world view of the believer and how to best understand it from within the life world of the believer himself. Crucial to that investigation is the careful suspension, or bracketing, by the investigator of the truth and value of the investigated belief. It might not necessarily develop a skeptical position. Such methodology is grounded in phenomenology. The second, i), is equally legitimate, but concerns itself with scientific explanations of the production/construction of the beliefs investigated. This line of investigation also, and maybe only initially, suspends the truth and value of the beliefs investigated, but can, and often will, develop a position quite antithetical to the believer's emic pov. </p>
<p>And for clarity's sake, my own position is a combination now of c, d, g, h and i. And I started out in a, b and c. So, be careful if you start out on this road. 8^)</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?groupUrl=faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423&id=3055387%3ATopic%3A125428&page=1">▶ Reply</a></p>
<div><p align="center">Bottom of Form</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=2ntay1we5fwwe&target=http%3A%2F%2Ftheosnet.ning.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fin-my-own-words%3FgroupUrl%3Dfaivre-and-theosophy-net-faq%26groupId%3D3055387%253AGroup%253A125423%26id%3D3055387%253ATopic%253A125428%26page%3D1">Message</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?groupUrl=faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423&id=3055387%3ATopic%3A125428&page=1">Edit</a> </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profile/JoeFulton" title="Joe Fulton"></a><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125720" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=2kdn4l5hox664">Joe Fulton</a> yesterday</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?groupUrl=faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423&id=3055387%3ATopic%3A125428&page=1">Delete</a></p>
<p>So there is a coherent whole that isn't readily apparent at this point.</p>
<p>And sometimes we confuse the means with the end.</p>
<p>You are right where it comes from a shift in a belief system based on the writings of HPB and her followers to an academic view based primarily on the works of Faivre, Hanegraaff, etc.</p>
<p>However, please understand that what we are going for is a Theosophy that addresses the lives and the things that most people are concerned about, about living a happier, more fulfilled daily life. To understand how the work of Faivre, Hanegraaff and others fit into this schema we use the analogy of a car manufacturer. Think of the academic works as the high level engineering. This is the world of physics, CAD and engineering. It is a world of abstraction and complexity, as are Faivre's Characteristics of Esotericism and Theosophy. At the consumer end lies sales and marketing or the way we describe what the engineers and scientists have done in a way that people can relate to.</p>
<p>We clearly recognize at Theosophy.Net that Faivre's characteristics are at that level and that it is foolhardy to attempt to directly represent those to the public and expect someone with a high school education (whom we refer to as the "educated well-informed") to grasp these ideas at the level we are discussing. However the practical application must tie to the framework established, or as a certain person once said "Occultism does not depend upon one method, but employs both the deductive and the inductive. The student must first learn the general axioms." On Theosophy.Net Faivre's work is what constitutes the general axioms.</p>
<p>So the next step on our journey is to work on looking at the implications and uses for specific items within the framework we are using to see how these can be explained and applied to the lives of most people. These discussions are beginning to take place and will show up in initial forms within this group shortly. We're hoping that as you see the ideas flesh out from the abstract to the practical that you will start filling in the blanks with products from your own intuition. These will give way to specific projects and activities designed to give people tools for developing the connections in their own lives using Creative Imaginations, Correspondences, Mediations and other tools <i><u>implied</u></i> within Faivre's framework.</p>
<p>In addition to the ideas and projects generated by the core group on this site we hope that everyone who can understand the characteristics of Esotericism and Theosophy can reason from the known to the unknown and come up with some really, really neat stuff. We don't have any intent of being top-down about how and what we do here. However, leave no mistake in your minds, we do have a point of view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=06jlzxx09syz4">Dewald Bester</a> 21 hours ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>hi</p>
<p>i think i have most in common with Govert. my own experience of postgraduate religious studies at a university is that you cannot serve 2 masters - the academic and religious. you will inevitably fall one side or the other.</p>
<p>nor can this site serve 2 masters. Faivre's definitions are, and will be, rejected by academia, for the very reason they are appropriated on this site, because they smack of an 'insiders' bias. </p>
<p>the future of academic discourse appears to me to be 'empty/floating signifiers'. if one could define 'theosophy', you could define 'religion', but universities have not been able to successfully define even the topic they study, 'religion'. and i dont think this problem will be solved here.</p>
<p>on the whole, i too like the definitions of faivre, naturally so, i already hold those beliefs. From an academic side though i could only see the faivre parameters as serving a limited religious agenda.</p>
<p>if it were admitted that those Faivre parameters serve more a 'religious' agenda, and less an 'academic' one then that would make sense to me. at least to the academic side of me.</p>
<p>that is the true power of this site, it is opening up the concept ''theosophy' from a narrow Blavatsky definition. it does this through limited, uncritical, use of academic thought, and the purpose of the site is essentially a religious one.</p>
<p>i guess that is how i see it at the momentrgds, dewald</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">▶ Reply</a></p>
<div><p align="center">Bottom of Form</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=06jlzxx09syz4&target=http%3A%2F%2Ftheosnet.ning.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fin-my-own-words%3FgroupUrl%3Dfaivre-and-theosophy-net-faq%26commentId%3D3055387%253AComment%253A125590%26groupId%3D3055387%253AGroup%253A125423">Message</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Edit</a> </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profile/JohnEMead" title="John E. Mead"></a><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125588" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0bkawgns1sam8">John E. Mead</a> 1 hour ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>Dewald -</p>
<p>"my own experience of postgraduate religious studies at a university is that you cannot serve 2 masters"</p>
<p>The separation is not all that strong, and the trend is that academic arguements are arguing an approach that is a continuum. So, it is not a Black/White matter.</p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>"From an academic side though i could only see the faivre parameters as serving a limited religious agenda."</p>
<p>are you serious?? we have a religious conspiracy at hand?</p>
<p>A couple examples where the emic-etic is viewed as complimentary:</p>
<p>== == ==</p>
<p>(note: emic=inside; etic = outside)</p>
<p><a href="http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln101/McCutcheon%20-%20emic-etic.htm" target="_blank">http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln101/McCutcheon%...</a></p>
<p><b>"Or is it All Just a Question of Degree?</b> <br/> But is this divide between insider and outsider as great as MacIntyre presumes? Instead of being limited only to either the insider's or the outsider's viewpoint, we might ask whether there is a mediating position in this debate. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz might provide just such a position. Geertz argues that, instead of seeing the insider and outsider positions as polar opposites, involving an either/or from the researcher, perhaps it is all a question of degree. Using a terminology capable of suggesting the relative, more-or-less nature of one's viewpoint (that of experience-near and experience-distant perspectives), Geertz suggests that we have misunderstood the work of studying other people if we think our only options are either an "ethnography of witchcraft as written by a witch" or "an ethnography of witchcraft as written by a geometer." The challenge--or, as Geertz puts it, the trick--is to take the experience-near concepts of our informants and to place them "in illuminating connection with experience-distant concepts theorists have fashioned to capture the general features of social life." Where an informant might talk of "fear," the psychologist might talk of "phobia"--but just what are the relations between these two concepts? Surely fear does not exhaust the notion of phobia, demonstrating that the usefulness of such scholarly categories as "phobia" is, at least in part, to be judged by the degree to which they can be used to distinguish and compare, on one level, the similarities and differences in the reports and behaviors of the people we study. Therefore, where the scholar strives to compare, interpret, and explain what they think the insider is experiencing, the informant is most often involved simply in experiencing it."</p>
<p>== == ==</p>
<p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=PaO3jsaGkeYC&q=Emic-Etic+distinction#v=snippet&q=Emic-Etic%20distinction&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=PaO3jsaGkeYC&q=Emic-Etic+disti...</a></p>
<p>P 422 Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology (Springer 2010)</p>
<p></p>
<p>== == ==</p>
<p>It is not hard to find more examples of viewpoints that are examining what is the emic-etic continuum.</p>
<p>John</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0bkawgns1sam8">John E. Mead</a> 11 hours ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>Possibly this way of looking at it helps:</p>
<p>One can define mammals by their characteristics.</p>
<p>One can define rodents by their characteristics,</p>
<p>One can also define Primates by their characteristics,</p>
<p>Does that limit, or define, or create in any way, what a specific Rodent, or what a specific Primate will look like, think like? How about the habitat and diet, mental capability/capacity of rodents, primates? No it does not.</p>
<p>But one can determine a mammal, rodent, and primate when you stumble into one.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125583" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=2ntay1we5fwwe">Govert Schuller</a> 11 hours ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>Joe,</p>
<p>Thanks for the further clarification. It therefore looks like that that the way you want to use academia puts you in the camp of b): "Theosophists who like to incorporate the academic stance, as far as that might be possible (which is not a given)."</p>
<p>The "not a given" caveat refers to the idea that not all academic stances are equally useful for Theosophists. Hanegraaff differentiates between three of them:</p>
<p>1) religionists, who use academic means to defend their religion. The philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga" target="_blank">Alvin Plantinga</a> would be a good example;</p>
<p>2) reductionists, who try to explain religion as a natural phenomenon. For example see Pascal Boyer's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained" target="_blank">Religion Explained</a>" and, for Theosophists very important, Olaf Hammer who wrote "<a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/001Corrywright.pdf" target="_blank">Claiming Knowledge</a>"; </p>
<p>3) phenomenological empiricists, who carefully suspend the truth and value claims of the religious worldviews they investigate. The pioneer in this methodology as applied to Theosophy and New Age thinking is Hanegraaff, whose "<a href="http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Hanegraaff1.htm" target="_blank">Empirical method in the study of esotericism</a>" is the basic paper defending that methodology.</p>
<p>So, to even further refine the classification of the stance you are taking, it looks like that Hanegraaff would classify you with the religionists, because you use some of the etic constructs by academics to further an emic esotericist position. I'm not stating this to just put you in a pigeonhole or problematize that position. It's just the outcome of legitimate etic procedures, which, once embraced, will have to be respected. Of course, as any science, it is in principle open to corrections based on further empirical considerations.</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">▶ Reply</a></p>
<div><p align="center">Bottom of Form</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=2ntay1we5fwwe&target=http%3A%2F%2Ftheosnet.ning.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fin-my-own-words%3FgroupUrl%3Dfaivre-and-theosophy-net-faq%26commentId%3D3055387%253AComment%253A125590%26groupId%3D3055387%253AGroup%253A125423">Message</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Edit</a> </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profile/JohnEMead" title="John E. Mead"></a><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125640" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0bkawgns1sam8">John E. Mead</a> yesterday</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>"lost their faith in Theosophy"</p>
<p>(etic or emic)</p>
<p>To talk about "Faith" in theosophy is weird. There is no one/unique/perennial theosophy.</p>
<p>I have my personal experiences and interactions with the External world, Divinity within myself, and Insights/intellectus which forms a set of emic data comprising my theosophy.</p>
<p>Joe has his personal experiences and interactions with the External world, Divinity within himself, and Insights/intellectus which forms a set of emic data comprising his theosophy.</p>
<p>You have your experiences and interactions with the External world, Divinity within yourself, and Insights/intellectus which forms a set of emic data comprising your theosophy.</p>
<p>There is no "Faith" to hold or deny.</p>
<p>A categorization allows one to track the constellations over time, and to recognize an esotericism and theosophy.</p>
<p>These have a complimentary connection</p>
<p>One cannot get trapped in the fallacy of an excluded-middle.</p>
<p>Without the categorization, there is no definition of what you are studying.</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">▶ Reply</a></p>
<div><p align="center">Bottom of Form</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=0bkawgns1sam8&target=http%3A%2F%2Ftheosnet.ning.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fin-my-own-words%3FgroupUrl%3Dfaivre-and-theosophy-net-faq%26commentId%3D3055387%253AComment%253A125590%26groupId%3D3055387%253AGroup%253A125423">Message</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Edit</a> </li>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profile/GovertSchuller" title="Govert Schuller"></a><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125490" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=2ntay1we5fwwe">Govert Schuller</a> 10 hours ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>Dear John,</p>
<p>I think that if a definition is based on a categorization then, of course, without categorization there is no definition.</p>
<p>I do not think the emic-etic differentiation has an excluded middle and would therefore be somehow fallacious. I think that what Joe is trying to pull off, and what I tried before, is something of a hybrid construction using both. Dewald thinks this is impossible, because you cannot serve two masters, the religious and the academic. I think it is possible, but then you have to make clear choices in case of conflict, for example between the scientific theory of plate tectonics and the alleged existence of Atlantis (I know that the excluded middle between the two is represented by David Pratt).</p>
<p>I agree that there is no one unique western esotericism, but that there is one and unique Blavatskyan Theosophy.</p>
<p>I agree we all have our own unique history, interpretative schemata and personal experiences, but Blavatskyan Theosophy claims to transcend such situated, historical peculiarities and presents a solid product of long ages of scientific experimentation and inter-subjective double-checking.</p>
<p>Because the bulk of Blavatskyan Theosophy is beyond our capacity to verify, once one is engaged in studying it, there will be a point, or a sequence of points, at which certain claims are experienced as believable or not. The cumulative effect of such experiences might be conversion. Maybe the best one could do is to relate to Theosophy as if it were a plausible hypothesis, but that is hard to maintain without some psychological and rational training. Most Theosophists I know are true believers, even if they would deny it.</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">▶ Reply</a></p>
<div><p align="center">Bottom of Form</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=2ntay1we5fwwe&target=http%3A%2F%2Ftheosnet.ning.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fin-my-own-words%3FgroupUrl%3Dfaivre-and-theosophy-net-faq%26commentId%3D3055387%253AComment%253A125590%26groupId%3D3055387%253AGroup%253A125423">Message</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Edit</a> </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/profile/JoeFulton" title="Joe Fulton"></a><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/xn/detail/3055387:Comment:125739" title="Permalink to this Reply">Permalink</a> Reply by <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=2kdn4l5hox664">Joe Fulton</a> 6 hours ago</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/forum/topics/in-my-own-words?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A125590&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A125423">Delete</a></p>
<p>I'm glad you didn't design my car, computer or any other device that required an engineer or some other person with a level of knowledge far beyond mine in order to deal with the theory. Following this either/or logic the architect or engineer is an infidel and I should not trust anything they say or do because they don't use the same words. <i>You must grasp this point if you are to have any idea of what we are out to do.</i> We have multiple audiences and we cannot possibly speak to all of them in exactly the same way. We do our best to address each in accordance to what the situation requires.</p>
<p>I buy a product for what it can do for me and because there was someone around to communicate the benefit in terms I can understand.</p>
<p>What we are doing here is no different than what anyone else who deals with complicated ideas and has to bring them to the level of understanding of a normal human being.</p>
<p>So, from that point of view, honestly Govert, we are only serving one master and that is truth. We use the tools at hand to accomplish our work. If it's engineering we use a computer. If it's changing oil we use a funnel and a pan.</p>
<p>Where it comes to choices we are not afraid, not one bit. Where it comes to these choices, sometimes the answer is clear and sometimes it's not. In many cases the facts are clear and the arguments one way or another don't leave much room for doubt. In other cases, it's a muddle and no matter what point of view you take, half of the people (and usually more) will believe you wrong to the bottom of their hearts. Are we so afraid to make a mistake that we become paralyzed? No. We learn and become better for it.</p>
<p>Thanks for coming along and keep questioning.</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
</ul>
<div><p align="center">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<p> </p> Ideas in our Framework - Part 1tag:theosophy.net,2013-05-24:3055387:Topic:1255752013-05-24T10:29:57.730ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino; color: #3366ff;">The goal of this exercise is to go through each of the parts of Esotericism and Theosophy and see what ideas we can pull out of them.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino; color: #3366ff;">One of the primary goals at Theosophy.Net is to bring all of these concepts and ideas into the lives of ordinary people. Therefore we must find ways to take the design and engineering…</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino; color: #3366ff;">The goal of this exercise is to go through each of the parts of Esotericism and Theosophy and see what ideas we can pull out of them.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino; color: #3366ff;">One of the primary goals at Theosophy.Net is to bring all of these concepts and ideas into the lives of ordinary people. Therefore we must find ways to take the design and engineering of Faivre, Hanegraaff and others and make it into something that just about any reasonably intelligent person can use in their daily life.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">This deals with Part I: </span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Correspondence: Everything in Nature is a sign. The signs of Nature can be read. The microcosm, mesocosm, and macrocosm interplay. Synchronicity exists. Understanding of signs and synchronicities may lead to the understanding of the Divine.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">What do we mean by ideas? Well, they could be the basis for books, papers, projects, classes, workshops, training nuggets, <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2867571520?profile=original" target="_self">infographics</a> and any number of blogs, forums, etc.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">We'll start off here with a few...</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Nature as sign and symbol.</span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">This is a very media rich category. You can do visuals, guided visualizations, books, papers and an endless variety of other materials that help people see the richness of symbol and meaning in their lives. In Esotericism these are all tools to help one achieve Gnosis and are present in many paths.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Reading the signs and symbols.</span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">This seems to be even more fascinating than the abstract idea of Nature as sign and symbol. This is actually the how-to portion. It's openness leaves a lot of room for creativity. How do we recognize symbols and how do we bring them into our consciousness in meaningful ways. Reading is not just about the written word. It is about recognizing something in consciousness with meaning.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">These two topics could start a cottage industry all by themselves! Have I even begun to scratch the surface? Nope. Not by a longshot. But let's get into a bit more here?</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">What could we do with the ideas of how we relate the microcosm and macrocosm together. After all, as above, so below, as the inner, so the outer, etc. Mesocosm adds yet more layers.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Synchronicity has been addressed in numerous places, most notably by C.G. Jung, but it is still an area that can yield further insights.</span></p>
<p><em><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Lastly, how do we tie these together, make combinations, compare and contrast, etc. This is important, because we know that none of this exists in isolation.</span></em></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">There is a lot of stuff here to ponder, and to be just crazy creative with. We have given a few examples of things that can be done with the first portion. If anything that you can take away from this, perhaps it's the idea of the nature of a framework and its flexibility. </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">It is our view, which may or may not be agreed with by some academics is that Esotericism is not solely the property of Western thought processes or traditions. We believe that the landscape is broad enough to accommodate a broad scope of Eastern and Western thought. The world is getting much smaller and some distinctions which may have been relevant only a few decades ago may have outlived their usefulness, and may, in fact become a detriment to us all.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: georgia,palatino;">Please, we would love to hear from you on this and please feel free to offer constructive comments.</span></p>
<p></p> Questions about the 9 (6+3) Characteristicstag:theosophy.net,2013-05-23:3055387:Topic:1254632013-05-23T12:46:08.211ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>I wanted to encourage anyone who has questions about any of the 9 (6+3 total) characteristics, stated in the FAQ, to feel free to ask questions in this discussion. There are no dumb questions. If you are lost on a concept, I guarantee others are as well.</p>
<p>I wanted to encourage anyone who has questions about any of the 9 (6+3 total) characteristics, stated in the FAQ, to feel free to ask questions in this discussion. There are no dumb questions. If you are lost on a concept, I guarantee others are as well.</p> Esotericism & Theosophy in Audiotag:theosophy.net,2013-05-22:3055387:Topic:1254412013-05-22T12:06:42.737ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>The Esotericism & Theosophy in Audio has been upgraded from just English to 3 additional languages</p>
<p>Follow the link to enjoy in your own native tongue!</p>
<p><a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/page/esotericism-theosophy-in-audio" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2867570958?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="354"></img></a> If there are any discrepancies with the translation, please drop us a…</p>
<p>The Esotericism & Theosophy in Audio has been upgraded from just English to 3 additional languages</p>
<p>Follow the link to enjoy in your own native tongue!</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/page/esotericism-theosophy-in-audio"><img width="354" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2867570958?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="354"/></a>If there are any discrepancies with the translation, please drop us a line.</p> In my own words...tag:theosophy.net,2013-05-22:3055387:Topic:1254282013-05-22T07:10:34.102ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>We know that what we're asking in this group is pretty difficult.</p>
<p>This is a Theosophy that most of us have not even heard of, but it exists and is quite legit.</p>
<p>What we encourage you to do is to go to the page with Faivre's Characteristics of Esotericsim and Theosophy. Then come back here and put what you understand into your own words. If you have questions, please feel free to ask.</p>
<p>We are on a journey of exploration together. Please come along and do something brand…</p>
<p>We know that what we're asking in this group is pretty difficult.</p>
<p>This is a Theosophy that most of us have not even heard of, but it exists and is quite legit.</p>
<p>What we encourage you to do is to go to the page with Faivre's Characteristics of Esotericsim and Theosophy. Then come back here and put what you understand into your own words. If you have questions, please feel free to ask.</p>
<p>We are on a journey of exploration together. Please come along and do something brand new!</p>
<p>Please see <a href="http://theosnet.ning.com/group/faivre-and-theosophy-net-faq/page/characteristics-of-esotericism-theosophy" target="_self">Faivre's Characteristics of Esotericism & Theosophy</a>.</p>