contemporary scholarship and HPB - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T14:59:56Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/contemporary-scholarship-and-hpb?groupUrl=hpb-theosophy&commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A143129&groupId=3055387%3AGroup%3A141810&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJust curious, since so much o…tag:theosophy.net,2015-08-17:3055387:Comment:1449172015-08-17T16:15:55.060ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>Just curious, since so much of socially shareable understanding (at least through a medium like language, especially via publication, even e-publication) depends on description of views and the meaning of terms - what are the offered descriptions of the terms "soul" and "spirit" in the Pomegranate article? How are they being critically assessed and "valuated" in contrast to the way HPB assessed, "valuated" and described those words through her own usage?</p>
<p></p>
<p>IOW, I think a…</p>
<p>Just curious, since so much of socially shareable understanding (at least through a medium like language, especially via publication, even e-publication) depends on description of views and the meaning of terms - what are the offered descriptions of the terms "soul" and "spirit" in the Pomegranate article? How are they being critically assessed and "valuated" in contrast to the way HPB assessed, "valuated" and described those words through her own usage?</p>
<p></p>
<p>IOW, I think a general assumption that we all commonly understand and agree upon what those two words mean and can therefore intelligibly share and develop exchanges dependent upon them in communicable ways, is wrapped in potential and relativistic ignorance unless we press a bit on this point. We need to clarify those meanings and how we use them with whoever is participating in that particular discussion with us at any given time.</p> Hi -
Someone like Dr. Santucc…tag:theosophy.net,2015-08-17:3055387:Comment:1449152015-08-17T15:30:11.507ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>Hi -</p>
<p>Someone like Dr. Santucci, or other academic, could respond successfully. See Theosophical History, a peer reviewed journal: <a href="http://www.theohistory.org" target="_blank">http://www.theohistory.org</a>. </p>
<p>Perhaps the Pomegranate article is correct. I don't know.</p>
<p>note: Theosophy has been around for almost 1800 years. It will exist easily, and still does, without HPB.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The TS should respond. However, they have a confused focus right now. See Adyar…</p>
<p>Hi -</p>
<p>Someone like Dr. Santucci, or other academic, could respond successfully. See Theosophical History, a peer reviewed journal: <a href="http://www.theohistory.org" target="_blank">http://www.theohistory.org</a>. </p>
<p>Perhaps the Pomegranate article is correct. I don't know.</p>
<p>note: Theosophy has been around for almost 1800 years. It will exist easily, and still does, without HPB.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The TS should respond. However, they have a confused focus right now. See Adyar News:</p>
<p><a href="http://theosophy.net/group/news/forum/topics/from-theosophy-news-a-look-at-theosophical-society-at-adyar" target="_self">Adyar (TS) News</a></p> hi
As an example of what i ha…tag:theosophy.net,2015-08-17:3055387:Comment:1446242015-08-17T07:38:16.027ZDewald Besterhttps://theosophy.net/profile/DewaldBester
<p>hi</p>
<p>As an example of what i had in mind.</p>
<p>I am not sure if anyone has seen the following journal article in Pomegranate vol. 15, 2013. "The transvaluation of soul and spirit: platonism and paulism in h.p. blavatsky's isis unveiled". I'd be willing to email a copy if anyone were interested in reading it. It is very critical of hpb's scholarship concerning her use of the terms soul and spirit. Hpb is essentially an amateur dilettante at best, and ignorant and dishonest at…</p>
<p>hi</p>
<p>As an example of what i had in mind.</p>
<p>I am not sure if anyone has seen the following journal article in Pomegranate vol. 15, 2013. "The transvaluation of soul and spirit: platonism and paulism in h.p. blavatsky's isis unveiled". I'd be willing to email a copy if anyone were interested in reading it. It is very critical of hpb's scholarship concerning her use of the terms soul and spirit. Hpb is essentially an amateur dilettante at best, and ignorant and dishonest at worst.</p>
<p>I'd be interested in sharing ideas on how one might respond to an article around this. What are the repercussions for theosophy of an article like this if the scholarship is sound? How would one assess scholarship like this? and so on, i think the challenges raised by an article like this are real if one wants to take hpb theosophy seriously.</p>
<p>dewald</p> It has always seemed to me th…tag:theosophy.net,2015-05-14:3055387:Comment:1431292015-05-14T12:51:54.503ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>It has always seemed to me that HPB is trapped in the Victorian era. That would have to be overcome.</p>
<p></p>
<p>One main problem is that Theosophists have little respect for science. Many actually believe Sheldrake's criticisms e.g. With that mind-set it is impossible to get anywhere. The Mind-Body problem is in active research by many scientists so they are on top of some of the issues between Science and consciousness (ORCH OR theory is a good try by Penrose et al). I haven't seen…</p>
<p>It has always seemed to me that HPB is trapped in the Victorian era. That would have to be overcome.</p>
<p></p>
<p>One main problem is that Theosophists have little respect for science. Many actually believe Sheldrake's criticisms e.g. With that mind-set it is impossible to get anywhere. The Mind-Body problem is in active research by many scientists so they are on top of some of the issues between Science and consciousness (ORCH OR theory is a good try by Penrose et al). I haven't seen anything from HPB that would help the QM approach, or other approaches, to the problem. I expect scientists in this century will solve the remaining issues there. After that, they might look at mysticism/esotericism again (Some scientists did this during the development of QM ~late 1920's and 1930's).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Basically it is a 2-way street. Theosophists have to change and Science has to change. Until both respect each other there is little hope. I think it is easier for Theosophists to change first.</p>
<p></p>
<p>just my .02 cents on the subject.</p>