Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00373)

>>Dainel:
>>Is there any room for objective reality in Theosophy?
>
>I'd say yes, but perhaps not in the since that you'd think. One form of
>"objective" means accepting what is commonly thought to be true in popular
>thought, where any deviation from the norm is considered untrue.

This is not true objective reality.

>
>Another form of "objective" may deal with external physical things. Something
>is considered objective if anyone can observe it and it always appears the
>same. It is objective if one's personal views cannot change its outcome.
>At the quantum level, the act of observation changes what is observed. At
>the psychological level, in the experience of life, the personality acts as
>a filter that interprets (and changes) what is observed according to its
>own particular bias. On this plane of existence, the nature of the world we
>are on also addes a bias to what we experience, it is not totally objective.

Steven Hawking said something to the effect "That laws of relativity
remain constant and that belief that those laws change at the quantum
level is unverifiable and that belief in that premise is unfounded".

Again...biased interpretation does not make objective reality change.

>
>Complete objectivity is impossible, I'd suggest, as we might deduce from
>the Buddhist idea of the interdependence of life. All that lives is
interrelated
>in a vast web of life. Nothing exists apart and separate. There can be no
>sense of objectivity, since we cannot exist apart from what we observe. We
>collectively co-create the world from one moment to the next.
>

Have you ever heard of the Argument of Cause, the Argument of Change,
and the Law of Causality? These simple premises refute such claims.

>When we try to understand the inner laws of nature, we are really trying to
>understand the behavior of *living beings*, and we are in relation to those
>beings. We could not exist without that sense of relationship with them.
>

Are we related?

>It would not be possible to come up with, I'd think, a series of
>mathematical equations that would describe in an objective manner, the
>inner nature of life. This is due to both the interdependent nature of
>life, and due to the fact that many systems may be in a turbulent state,
>under the influence of strange attractors, and not subject to normal
>predictability in either time and/or space.

Declaration of Natural vs SuperNatural

> Is Theosophy objective? It
>can be as far as such is possible, but there are serious limits on what
>can be known and be "objective".

That limit is declared. As a man I am limited. But the Objective is
unchangeable.

>Theosophy goes much further in dealing
>with the reality of life that the popular scientific methodology, which
>stops short with its narrow definition of "provability." There's much
>more to be known in life that can be accounted for in a proper scientific
>experiment, and that knowledge is available for any of us who undertake
>the Search.

I believe that a lie can be proven a lie, but that is not to say that truth
can be proven true.

>
>-- Eldon
>