Subject: Re: Guenonians and TS Problem/objects of TS and heretics.
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
Katinka Hesselink writes:
> I totally agree with you. When writing about theosophy, or what I think
> personally, I continually find myself dealing with the difficulty that
> there is a *generally accepted* belief - and what to call it.
Yes, I think we need to recognize that there is no such thing as a perfectly doctrineless organization nor a perfectly neutral cosmopolitan worldview. Even the American Philosophical Society, supposedly where all viewpoints are neutrally and freely debated, has specific philosophical views of those in control of defining what is important, relevant, and needs time blocks at conferences leads to a quasi-official ideology (materialism, currently, with three flavors in materialist philosophies of mind: eliminative materialism (there is no mind - it is a socially generated linguistic illusion), type-identity reductionism, and token-identity functionalism (mind is software of the neural hardware - when the hardware dies, so does the software that runs on it)) that is self-reinforcing because people judge what is pertinent and important (for lecturing, theses, dissertations, articles, textbooks, books, hiring) by what is covered at conferences and what gets covered at conferences is partly determined by what trends lectures, theses, dissertations, publication reveal which also determines who is in the best position to know what is current and so should hold offices in charge of determining sections at conferences. TS works the same way.