Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00490)

I don't think you are in a position to claim about other people on
this list that they are crazy, this is not a fair way of comunicating. Leon=

Maurer said the same thing about another list member (Mauri) a few 
days ago.

Psychotic is the term for a diseased state, that even a
psychiater(MD), which you are not, would need to diagnose someone 
personally in their office for an extended period of time to make such 
claim as you misuse in this case.

I do not think this is a fair way of comunicating, besides the point
about Descartes was not properly explained by you in reference to what 
I wrote in my previous mails.

And on top to then simple vindicate another person without further 
explanation, is a rather below the belt polemic style, so lets end it
right here. =
      
=
Bri.


--- In theos-talk@y..., Mic Forster <micforster@y...> wrote:
> Sorry for the misunderstanding Brigitte but I was not
> being critical of your posts. In fact I took much
> pleasure in reading them. I completely agree with you
> that we should question the reality of reincarnation
> or, for that matter, the reality of anything claimed
> to be theosophical. Perhaps many of the theosophical
> teachings are presented to us to impress the point
> that we are living in complete illusion. 
> 
> You say you don't have a thesis but what you wrote
> could be considered a thesis in some circles
> especially in light of the following definition found
> in the Collins English Dictionary:
> 
> thesis. 1. dissertion resulting from original
> research. 2. a theory maintained in argument. 3. a
> subject for discussion or essay.
> 
> Given this last definitional point, by asking about
> Descartes and how that one paragraph related to
> mind/body dualism I was treating your work as a
> subject of discussion. I have wanted to do such in the
> past but have restrained myself from doing so because
> of the irrational response you have just given to my
> seemingly harmless question. I was not questioning the
> underlying basis of your posts, nor was I questioning
> your crediblity which your scathing reply implied, but
> was rather hoping to extend on one minor fraction of
> your work in order to promote discussion in this so
> called "chat group". If you want me or anyone else to
> take what you say seriously and intelligibly, and most
> of what you say is intelligent and highly credible,
> you must get over this psychotic fixation you have
> that everyone is out to get you.
> 
> 
> 
> --- bri_mue <bri_mue@y...> wrote:
> > I don't have a thesis, the question is if
> > reincarnation a reality (A "FACT =
> > 
> > OF NATURE") as Theosophy claims it, or not ?
> > 
> > What do you think about this, and how do you explain
> > it ?
> > 
> > I have presented some observations that speak
> > against the form of 
> > reincarnation as in the Theosophical system. Have
> > send 4 long e-mails 
> > with a number of arguments in that regards, can you
> > do the same in the 
> > reverse and show how come all the points I presented
> > (not just one 
> > pls !) to be wrong, and why reincarnation a la
> > Theosophy would be a 
> > fact , if so ? I mean the way you have learned to
> > look at evidence in 
> > your science classes. Since reincarnation and the
> > various globes and 
> > rounds including races and sub-races are being
> > called a "Fact of 
> > Nature" as Dalval and others do.
> > 
> > It seems the Theosophical system is indeed a
> > mind/body dualism.
> >  
> > =
> >                  
> >  
> > =
> > Bri.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., Mic Forster
> > <micforster@y...> wrote:
> > > Bri:
> > > "Has anybody ever witnessed such creations and
> > > attachments? If not, 
> > > what would it be like to witness them? Further, do
> > > these minds come 
> > > into being without a cause or are they created by
> > some
> > > in
> > > telligent being? If so, by whom? I know what is
> > meant
> > > by saying that
> > > a painter or a composer created a certain work of
> > art
> > > or that a chef 
> > > created a new dish, but I have no idea what is
> > meant
> > > by creating a 
> > > mind. Equally, I understand what is meant by
> > saying
> > > that a label has 
> > > been attached to a suitcase or that an artificial
> > leg
> > > has been
> > > attached to a person who has lost his leg in an
> > > accident, but I draw a 
> > > blank when told that a mind has been attached to a
> > > body. Unless the
> > > questions I have raised here are satisfactorily
> > > answered we do not 
> > > have 
> > > a coherent theory but mere verbiage, accompanied
> > by
> > > certain very 
> > > vague pictures. The attachment portion of this
> > > "theory" is 
> > > particularly
> > > objectionable. How is a purely nonphysical entity
> > > attached to a human 
> > > body? 
> > > 
> > > By bandaids, by scotch tape, or glue, or perhaps
> > by
> > > means of a rope?"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This sounds like Descartes grappling with
> > mind/body
> > > dualism. Could this be incorporated into your
> > little thesis?
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy
> > Awards®
> > > http://movies.yahoo.com/
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
> http://greetings.yahoo.com/