theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: D. Caldwell & Silent editing

Jul 29, 2006 08:48 AM
by Mark Jaqua


Re: Caldwell & Silent Editing
   
  Jake wrote:
  <This seems to be a thing with DC, he 
<wants to win the argument, using logic, 
<even though the spirit of the truth of 
<the matter is lost along the way.".....
   
  Dan wrote:
  <One of the things I find lacking in 
<what you write above is that you are 
<not specific.  You write about THE 
<ARGUMENT..."the argument".  Exactly 
<which argument?......
  
    Well, that was meant to mean "the 
argument, Any argument, in general."  I 
thought it would be taken as a generality, 
but I guess you can't know what I am thinking.  
The unstated goal of any discourse should 
be to get at the truth of a matter - 
multifarious as that may be - and not to 
use just logic to "put down" the other party.  
I.E., my general impression that you were 
justifying "silent editing" in your own book, 
because - After all!, even BdeZ did it, and 
also it has slipped into some ULT publications.  
i.e. - they are both "silent editing" - so 
you prove your point.  But is a misleading 
point - the very minor changes BdeZ made or 
might appear in the ULT publications is in 
no way the same as silently removing whole 
sentences or paragraphs.  (And, again, this 
may be important in biographical material - 
but not nearly as important as source 
philosophical material.)  You win the 
argument on "silent editing" logically but 
the truth of the matter is lost, because the 
two types of "silent editing" are not the 
same at all - in truth - minor things like 
updating spelling may be a GOOD, while 
editing whole sentences can be very bad.  
(Not so bad in your biographical case.) 
   
        Much of this critical and logical 
investigation can be very valuable, as 
in History or other cases, but it can also 
be used to avoid points altogether, and 
divert attention altogether from the key 
attitude or point involved (I know - 
"please give me specific incidences."  
Well that may apply sometimes, but it also 
can be a diversion.  I don't doubt you 
"KNOW" that changing sanskrit spelling, in 
example, is not the same as editing out whole 
sentences - ethically - even though you might 
say I am having "dreams" and jumping to giant 
conclusions about what you "know."  Well, if 
you don't know the difference between these 
two types of "silent editing," then something 
is wrong with your knowing.)
           - jake j.
  
 

 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengerís low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application