theos-talk.com

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

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

Kyrie elision

Aug 01, 2006 06:09 AM
by Mark Jaqua


Re:  Silent Editing
   
  DC:
       As in almost EVERY instance, 
you completely avoid the issue involved, 
and DIVERT your answer away from it. 
(Of course! Primary Sources should be 
used if possible - you think I'm some 
kind of numchuck - I edited a newsletter 
for 42 issues on was staff-writer for one 
previous to that - but for common popular 
papers, it's Ok, or if the sources aren't 
available, like in your book.  Its 
disgusting and not worth responding to.  
One of the traditional Buddhist debate 
tournaments would make mincemeat of you, 
while the average reader is just - CONFUSED.  
Of course this isn't a right-hand method - 
but a left-hand method.  (You defend 
yourself of not just being a 
"scholar" of HPB but a "student" - as 
you believe she was genuine.  What 
difference does this make?  In analogy - 
"Does Darth Vadar Believe in Yota? - 
of course he does.  In actuality with 
your methods, you are developing into 
a fine Dugpa.  In a few more years or 
incarnations - who knows?
  
    Relatively and Luckily, Occult World of 
Madame Blavatsky and its treatment is not an 
important book in the big scheme.  Light and 
interesting secondary biographical information 
is good reading, but not too important, and 
has little to do with the purpose of the 
Theosophical Effort.  (Some History IS important 
tho - like Tillet's Elder Brother.)
      This arguing is a genuine waste of time, 
like trying to swat an errant fly which never 
stays in one place long.  I have to go get my 
first and primary source edition of 
Aeschylus now.....
                  - jake j.
  
--------------------
  DC writes:
  
<....THE OCCULT WORLD
<OF MADAME BLAVATSKY that had all the dots (...) I don't think
<it would be good practice for some author to quote some of the 
<extracts from that work.
   
  ============================================
  <But let me ask you,  would you as an 
<author quote from a book that had been 
"silently edited?"  At least the dots (....) 
<gives it validity and one knows that 
something is missing.  With the dots in, 
<one might use the quote, but without the 
<dots, I wouldn't use the quote myself.  
<Occult World may be an excellent source 
<of material, but how much ultimate good 
<does that do if other researchers won't 
<quote from it.
  =========================================
  <Good question.  Being trained as a researcher
<and librarian in a university, I was taught that
<one should always go to the PRIMARY source not only
to study but also especially to quote.
  <For example, it is NOT good practice to quote
several paragraphs from one of Einstein's book AS FOUND in some
secondary source.  I was taught instead you need to go to Einstein's 
actual book.
  <My book whether the first edition or the second edition is a 
SECONDARY source.  Not a primary source.
  <Therefore even with my first edition of THE OCCULT WORLD
<OF MADAME BLAVATSKY that had all the dots (...) I don't think
it would be good practice for some author to quote some of the 
extracts from that work.
  <Now I suppose you could for example quote Olcott's words about 
meeting the Master Morya (I posted that excerpt recently on Theos-
Talk) as they are transcribed in my first edition but you would need 
to add something like.  
  <"Olcott, Henry S.  Old Diary Leaves, Vol. I, etc. AS QUOTED in THE 
OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY, etc."
  <This ALERTS the reader that you are NOT actually quoting DIRECTLY 
from Old Diary Leaves, Volume I.  
  <Authors and researchers who plan to quote material, etc. in their 
own books should not take the easy way out [one of my professors 
called that the lazy man's approach!!] and just quote from secondary 
sources.  
  <Changing the subject somewhat, personally if I wanted to quote 
something from HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE I would not use Boris de 
Zirkoff's edition of the SD to quote from.  Why?
  <For the simple reason that the editor has done some editing of HPB's 
text.   I'm not saying that Boris' edition doesn't have many good 
features.  I could list many good points of Boris' edition but since 
some of his "changes" in certain instances may "distort" HPB's 
original meaning I would instead prefer HPB's original or at least a 
photographic facsimile of the original as produced by TUP and TC.
  <Hope this helps.
  -------------------------

 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1/min.

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




[Back to Top]


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