General Responces from Don
Jul 28, 1993 08:16 AM
by Donald DeGracia
1. In responce to Leonard Cole's comment:
<Is anyone else having difficulty reading Don DeGracia's messages on
I'm sending through CompuServe using WINCIM. I have one other e-mail format
option that I am trying with this letter. Please let me know if this letter
is better, or if its formatted correctly.
2. Leonard also says: <I'm having a difficult time keeping up with this
"live-wire" group. >
I'm also new to internet mail. John has informed me that internet mail is
not sequential, so it looks like we might have a learning curve here.
Hopefull, as we all get more used to this format, a natural rythem will
develop for us.
3.Leonard, thank you for the info about the Theosophy symbol.
4. I'd also like to say "Welcome!" to Judy Cilcain and Tom McFarlane!
5. To John Mead: If I need to become a member to be secretary (presuming
others go for the idea!) then I think that'll be ok. I've teetered over the
years about joining the TS and this is fine impetus to push me over the
edge. How do I go about becoming a memeber? Can I call Wheaton and sign up?
6. To everyone: Usually, I write long letters when I do e-mail. Is this an
inconvinience to anyone? Should I try to keep my letters shorter? If
anyone has pros and cons about long letters, please state them. My natural
tendency is to run off at the mouth <g>.
7.Yes, lets nominate John Mead as secretary as re. Leonard's suggestion.
8. John recommends starting a discussion of Occult Chemistry. I'm all for
To anyone who doesn't know, Occult Chemistry was a book published by
Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater (1st edition 1909) in which they claimed
to clairvoyantly see atoms and molecules. The book has many diagrams and
pictures and describes a number of phenomena that scientists later
discovered. In 1980, a physicist form UCLA, Dr. Stephen Phillips, published
a book called "ESP of Quarks" in which he attempts to account for Besant
and Leadbeater's observations in terms of modern particle physics. Phillips
shows quite niely that Besant and Leadbeater's observations correlate well
with modern physical theory. However, Phillips' work is not conclusive and
there are still many open ends to the issue. Thast is to say, a hard core
sceptic could still find reason not to take Occult Chemistry seriously. I,
however, believe that Occult Chemistry is one of the most provocative
aspects of Theosophy as a whole and holds great promise for vindicating the
general teachings of Theosophy.
So, there, a short into to the subject. If there are any takers, please
Hopefully, this is a suitable topic for the list. I myself, if it's not
already apparent, have a complete bias in scientific directions, but I know
that others do not. We may want to find issues that appeal to everyone,
which I do not think will be impossible given the scope of Theosophical
teachings. Occult Chemistry gets very technical quickly and it might not
be a suitable topic for the nonscientific memebers of the list.
Please comment on this everyone!
9. Also, this is my first attempt to send to Theofirstname.lastname@example.org. net, so lets
hope you all get this letter and it doesn't come back to my mail box with a
"wrong address" message!
Best to everybody!
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application