Blavatsky Unveiled.

reply to post by tetra50

Feel me now? If not, research those subjects some, and once having done that, return and talk to me about judgement and perception...... maybe someone in some other multiverse thinks your identity did the same

I never cease to be amazed at how irrational some people can be.

So, I should begin my reasoning from this premise: that multiverses exist - an irrational, improbable, impractical, speculation of a small number of physicists. And from this unlikely starting point, I should base my moral judgements?

WOW! That is spectacularly unreasonable, and actually a little creepy.

Have I put it in terms, yet, where you understand my point of view? And please respond, for I absolutely do not accept nor tolerate child molesters or murderers or torturerers of humanity or any other form of life, and if you do not answer, that is an answer unto itself...

So then, I guess I'm not understanding you. Forget multiverses; they're an unprovable assumption; '___' trips will never get us any closer to proving it. If, perhaps, one day, it's scientifically proven, I'll take it into account. But till then, it's SCIENCE FICTION, and no rational person with their reason intact should admit this speculation into their moral reasoning.

Also, there is still a contradiction in what said. If you do not approve of con-artists, molesters, or racists, then you are in effect judging that behavior - and the people who committed it. Furthermore, we can't exactly do nothing about it. To say "oh, in another multiverse you may have done the same thing" is the most outlandish and frankly insane reasoning one could make in such a situation. Most people are aware of the laws; the murderer and molester understood that by engaging in this activity, they were deciding on a future course of damaging behavior. Did they properly consider the consequences? Both for themselves, and in particular, for their victim? Or were they selfishly over-weighing their own interests?

This thread isn't about free will so I don't want to derail it any further. But society acknowledges - and so does neuroscience - that people have the power to choose what to think about. Barring a psychotic episode, the murderer was fully able to remind himself and reign himself in before he murdered; same with the child molester C.W Ladbeater.

reply to post by Bybyots


Nice topic, I have read her books, she was also a racist and Hitler was a follower.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by skalla

 

Fascinating observations, Skalla!

Speaking of anthroposophy, it's maybe interesting to note that J. Allen Hynek was a big fan of Rudolph Steiner. I don't want to try and turn this into a UFO thread, but I wonder what might be made of that considering the alleged "automatic writing/channelling" done by Blavatsky?

edit on 10-6-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

It's all connected,
From Cthulhu to Cloning
jcolavito.tripod.com...

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by tetra50

 

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you.

If someone knowingly deceives me or others, or molests a helpless child, or develops metaphysical theories about the infirmity of another race, then like it or not, I will judge that person three ways from Sunday.

I do agree with you there, in the present, as we are experiencing it. And yes, we must judge to live, to some degree. I am suggesting, though, that there may be supplanted history, if you will, and I see this is something you would reject as an idea straightaway, through your replies to my multiverse suggestions.

But certainly, I am not intending to defend, as I have tried to make clear, what I consider to be aberrant behavior, even criminal, as well. I am, instead, suggesting it is good to keep an open mind, too. We see every day how easy it is to socially "brand" someone, stigmatize them. Then they live on the fringes. Do they live on the fringe first, because they are truly aberrant, or do they reject, perhaps, the stigmatization of society, and choose to attempt to live outside it. Talking about carnival and circus folks, here. Sure, there is some of both going on, but my larger point is that it becomes very easy to stigmatize those that live on that fringe anyway, whether that assessment is "true," or not. And sometimes, it is not.

I don't agree, either, that it is necessarily true at all that people choose what they think about, but anyway, it's an interesting point, because I'm not sure we have any idea what goes on in another's mind: what they think about....

Originally posted by micpsi
Blavatasky was the most erudite woman who ever lived. All you can quote is obscure pygmy minds who had some hang-up about her and published unproven slander about her dressed up as facts.

I found this an interesting thing to say, considering Blavatsky has been accused pf plagiarism. I decided to search for evidence of plagiarism and came across several interesting articles. Here is one link.

www.blavatskyarchives.com...

There are quite a few more.

reply to post by Khaleesi


I am keeping an open mind on Blavatsky because a lot of people in those days were very staunch in their beliefs and also had very backward opinions about women in general, least of all one of the standing Blavatsky developed.

The church alone would have felt threatened and I still feel its appropriate today as it was certainly back then, beware of men in frocks - - they have the balls to be twice as treacherous as women.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by Khaleesi

 

The church alone would have felt threatened and I still feel its appropriate today as it was certainly back then, beware of men in frocks - - they have the balls to be twice as treacherous as women.

LOL nice quote. Power. This is about power. People in positions of power will use it for their own purposes, whether they are in control of government or sit in seats of power of any religion. I don't call those people Christians BECAUSE they are using their positions for their own gain.