Rebecca wrote:
Quote
1. 'often a lot can be said in very simple language' ... again this is a question of context ... I was talking about facebook posts.
In regards to the grammar and the style of Serge's books, they are written differently than most writing and because of this they require more presence when you read them if you are to fully grasp them. I don't see this as disadvantaging anyone because if there is an earnestness to read them then the focus is there and the words themselves are not that hard to understand. Have you ever read a thesis or an academic paper? In my experience there are writings that are a lot harder to understand than Serge's books.
Academic writing is done according to a standard that can be understood by people from different backgrounds, as long as they have the reading skills and enough background information.
When I was trained to write papers in graduate school, two things I had to pay special attention to were transition sentences--how to lead the reader from one idea to another, from one part of an argument to another.
One has to know how to pay sustained attention and make distinctions and evaluations when writing and when reading academic writing. One also has to give sources and those source materials have to meet an exacting standard.
Rebecca, have you considered it possible that if one spends enough time in the environment SB has created that one may
lose ablilty to concentrate attention, and make distinctions? Like muscles getting weak if one doesnt engage in regular exercise?
By contrast with academic writing, this was written by someone who had read Theosophical and Anthroposophical writings--writings of the kind Serge produces.
Maria Carlso noted that she found Blavatsky's writing to be
'hynotic and associative.'
In her book,
No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia Maria Carlson wrote that the problem with reading Blavatsky, Besant, Steiner and other esotericists, is that these authors do not reason according to causal logic or by use objective evidence and premises. They tend to reason by analogy.
Definitions of analogy
[
www.google.com]
One must, to meet academic standards introduce one's argument by defining terms and then use the terms consistently. If one changes how one uses terms, one must notify the reader of this. Its a lot like playing sports. One must not change rules in the middle of the game)[/i]
Quote
One of the major reasons that Theosophy and Anthroposophy are difficult to define and outline concisely is that both doctrines continually redefine basic concepts (such as Logos, Christ, soul, spirit, plane, and so forth) according to the immediate demands of the point under discussion.
"The understanding of the various terms also change with time, topic, exegete, and the point of the argument:
(Corboy note: in academic writing one cannot do this. One must, to meet academic standards introduce one's argument by defining terms and then use the terms consistently. If one changes how one uses terms, one must notify the reader of this. Its a lot like playing sports. One must not change rules in the middle of the game)
(Carlson)Mrs Besant and Rudolf Steiner, for example, frequently (though not always), mean very different things when they use the word Logos; thier definitions are, in turn, different from either the traditional Christian or Gnostic understanding of that important term.
"At the same time, enough points of coincidence lull the reader into a false sense of identity of concepts.
The esultis that becomes impossible to get a real grip on what should be basic building block ideas.
(Corboy, this can make the ideas seem more profound than they actually are. And result in students remaining confused and thus dependant on the master teacher.)
Carlson:
"Furthermore, occultists tend to develop their arguments not by deduction or even induction, but by analogy. The reader, at the time of reading, momentarily senses the relationship of terms and intuitively or sympathetically perceives parallel; afterward, understanding vanishes.
"Finally not only do the Theosophists (and IMO successors such as Serge) constantly redefine their own terms, but they "translate" the statements of non Theosophists into their own terminology, invariably muddling the translation.
"Their definitions of basic concepts are unfortunately so loose and subjective that just about any alien concept can be subsumed by them.
(Corboy note:In academic writing one is expected to use terminology with precise meanings and keep them that way--dont move the goal posts in the middle of the game
(Carlson)
"Thus, for example, Anne Kamenskaia, discussing Fedor Dostoevsky (who was not much taken with oriental philosophy) blithely attributes to him the idea that mankind will achieve spiritual heights not through sorrow and suffering, but through the radiant flight of an exultant soul liberated from the chains of karma (!), although Dostoevsky would never have chosen to express himself in that way."
(Maria Carlson, No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia 1875-1922 Princeton University 1993, page 229, footnote to Chapter 5: Theosophical Doctrine: An Outline.
Corboy note: I am not sure, but perhaps this alludes to the kind of dream like primary process thought one encounters in dreams or in the thought process of children too young to be capable of former logic.
This analogical process is richly creative for artists, and in relationships, but incompatible with adult logic and scientific and historical problem solving.
If one cannot retain logical grasp of such material, that means that one is always left insecure and in need of the 'Master'.
It is not because the material is profound and not due to any shortcoming on the reader's part. The confusion comes because these kinds of esoteric texts are written out in a manner that induces confusion and may produce a dreamlike trance like state of mind that operates by analogy, not by adult level logic. It mimics adult logic but that is actually pre-logical and possibly for some readers, could be hypnotic due to induction of confusion.
(Corboy note: In medieval times reasoning by analogy was acceptable academic writing. But in modern times, this is no longer the case.
In medieval times and into the Renaissance a standard principle was based on analogy. A guiding principle, beloved and used by esotericists is stated in the form:
"
As above so below."
The human body mirrored the cosmos, stones and plants corresponded to analogues amongst the planets. Through controlling and changing one's body and ones routines, 'as above so below' it was believed one could change the cosmos.
This was current and standard until seemingly ancient prechristian writings that taught, as above so below, and which were prized by esotericists were demonstrated not to be ancient wisdom, but written during the early Christian era. By this time, evidence based methods began to supplant reasoning by analogy as the academic standard and open sharing of information, instead of secret lodges lead to creation of open discussion of ones findings and in turn created evidence based open communities of investigators who became modern academics and created modern science.