If we are going to start an intelligent discussion, we have to be on firm ground. We all probably know about the psychological process of “projection”. As the (Spanish?) saying goes: “It all depends on the crystal you are looking through.” A person who tends to interpret reality in terms of, say, plots, will see plots everywhere. A person who doesn’t know what unselfishness is will never think of the possibility of an unselfish action. Each man is the measure of all things in his little universe.
Even from a scientific point of view, if your instrument of perception is distorted, then you will draw distorted conclusions. Thus, the first step in all serious investigation is to have reliable instruments. Are we aware of our perceptual apparatus, of its flaws and limitations? And maybe more importantly, are we willing to cleanse it?
Thus, to begin with, I want to question the very motivation for us to participate in this forum.
What are we looking for? Are we aware of our inner workings? Are we willing to be aware? Aware whether we really care for a discussion that may lead to a better institutional life or we only want some entertainment and excitement. We know that conflict and scandal are supremely attractive to most humans. Especially in our culture, we can see how scandals have the largest audience. Our feelings and passions are called forth when there is gossip and conflict. And even in the so called “theosophical forums” the source of energy of the discussion many times is just that: scandal, gossip and conflict. Drop a philosophical subject, a few will answer. Drop a “bomb” and the forum will explode with comments. It is a fact. Are we beyond that?
How is our personality? Are we happy? Are we frustrated? Are we aware of our limitations? What is our usual way of responding to reality? We can answer that simply by observing our life and thoughts, examining our more cherished theories and interpretations. What are our interests? What are our usual conclusions? Do we have a let-me-tell-you-what-the-truth-is habit? Criticizing is very appealing since we feel wise, above the rest, secure…
Through this discussion, do we look for new answers, new vistas, examining, facing the unknown? Or do we just want a space to assert our opinions, to express our frustrations, to attack what we don’t like, to defend what we are identified with?
Are we aware of our emotions and thoughts when treating this subject? All we feel and think is being broadcasted to our surroundings, polluting or purifying the psychic atmosphere of humanity, adding force to the luminous or the dark side of life. Also, it is building our subtle bodies –our instruments of perception and expression– thus determining the way we experience our life.
Are we able to question out of love and goodwill? Only then, I believe, this discussion can be a real evolutionary force.
Here my contribution to the reflection on the saying that “Man is the measure of all things,” being a condensed amalgamation from my readings and state-specific experiments in continental philosophy, especially its Maestro Martin Heidegger:
We come—or are thrown–into a world, which is already interpreted for us by our parents and teachers in and through a language already constituted (Heidegger). Through trial and error, fusion with other interpretative schemes (Gadamer) and a multitude of tacit assumptions, we develop our own interpretation of reality with the guiding idea that the one you adhere to is the best one for you in this life, this situation, these circumstances. Through the experience of limit-situations (Jaspers) and anomalies (Kuhn) we might get to the point of questioning foundational assumptions (Husserl) and maybe find out that objectivity is to a certain extent an inter-subjective construct (Husserl); that the categories and interpretive schemes as developed by science, theology (including theosophy), philosophy and common language are not adequate for the right understanding of the mode of being that man is (including the modes of being of time and being itself), and that therefore new ones have to be developed (Heidegger); that we are always already interpreting, no matter what (Heidegger); that what and how we see is always already perspectival (Nietzsche), situated (Sartre), embodied (Merleau-Ponty) and bound to one’s past history, present coping skills and futural projects (Heidegger); that this applies to all sentient beings, including quartz, roses, dogs, pygmies, aliens, Mahatmas and Avatars (HPB); that it is liberating to have different interpretative hats at hand between which one can switch; that language has a certain plasticity (Wittgenstein); that there are no verbal absolutes; that all statements, theories and scientific laws are provisional (Popper), including the Ancient Wisdom Tradition and its modern expression Theosophy (HPB); that almost everything can be deconstructed through foundational questioning and con-textualization (Derrida); that there might be notable exceptions like friendship, love, the teacher-pupil relation and democracy (Derrida); that, as a prescriptive point, all philosophies, sciences and theologies should be based on–or at least give primacy to–the experience of the inviolable, mysterious and attractive characteristics of ‘the other,’ within his/her own unique situatedness and interpretive framework (Levinas & First TS Object); and that by intensification of one’s engagements, opening up to the call of conscience, and facing death as the ultimate limitation of this life, one can come to a supreme moment of vision through which the remaining rest of one’s life is taken up as a specific project based on an authentic, creative appropriation—or handing freely over to oneself–of the skills, insights and traditions from one’s own past (Heidegger). Ergo, man—because of the inherently interpretive nature of his being and world—always already is the measure of all things, and he should be so, especially in the sense of ‘being a standard,’ when his aspects of radical otherness, immeasurable uniqueness, insoluble inter-relatedness are taken into account and used as a basis for all other practical and intellectual endeavors. The foregoing can be, and even should be, interpreted from a theosophical angle, though with the caveat that as long as the interpretive nature of man is not adequately understood I’m afraid that such an exercise will be undertaken from a reductionist-theosophical position (I’ll term that theosophistic or theosophism analogous to psychologism or logicism) instead of an open position that will lead to a fusion of interpretive horizons, even paradigm shift, that transcends both previous frameworks. Now, applying this to organizational politics and the issues that are foremost on my mind, I’ll venture into the following position and expectation: the collective interpretative tendencies of members within an organization will produce the leadership that fulfills the tendency best, but, as all is provisional and open to correction, new tendencies will arise with its own new leadership. The assumption that a fusion is feasible between the Theosophical and Krishnamurtian paradigms (Burnier, Sanat, Sender), and as such embodied by most of the TS leadership, will soon arrive at its logical conclusion that this fusion is actually not feasible (Krishnamurti, Hans and Radhika Herzberger, Schuller), and thereafter the realization will set in that a different, more esoteric, Theosophical angle (Scott, Anrias, Hodson) will have to be developed to properly process Krishnamurti–which I see partially embodied in John Algeo–but only to come to full fruition if and only if the insights of continental philosophy (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, etc.) are put into play, combined with a psycho-esoteric interpretation of the history of the TS, which still has to be developed. (A draft can be found under the title “The State of the TS (Adyar) in 2008: A Psycho-esoteric Interpretation”)