Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00400)

I think we have a really niffty subject to discuss for
awhile. What is truth? The following is my response
to Daniel: this is in the nature of sharing opposing
viewpoints, and not intended as personal criticism, etc.
I find this whole subject fascinating and would enjoy
further discussions, but please, lets try to keep our
emotions out of it.

: <Can we start a foundation that declares that
regardless of ones interpretation of truth, truth
remains objective? Hmmm?>

No, we cannot. Truth IS one's interpretation.
Period. If you think that there is some kind of
objective real and changeless truth outside of yourself,
then I think, my friend, that you have a lot of learning
to do. We each carry our own truth around with us, and
yes, it changes once in awhile, and grows just as we do.
 This itself IS truth. The fact that we share certain
experiences while on this Earth is only made possible
because a portion of our "objective truths" overlap with
each other. This overlapping is a necessary condition
or prerequisite for any world to exist, and we each
agreed to this when we joined this life-wave that is
currently perigrinating around Globe D.

:<In other words no matter what man believes about his
environment, social order, morality, that belief
although it may determine how man reacts or lives it
does not change objective reality.>

This sounds exactly like the viewpoint of the
materialist or scientist. I don't find it very
theosophical.

:< When you make an effort to understand the difference
between OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE Reality remember that
OBJECTIVE reality is immovable; an OBJECT, whereas
SUBJECTIVE reality is determined by the SUBJECT.>

This, again, is a materialistic view, and not
supported in theosophical literature, IMHO. There is,
in point of fact, not a hair's difference between
objective reality and subjective reality. Both are
expressions of each other. And neither is "immovable"
but rather both are very much fluid and changing all the
time. We adjust the one to suit the other all the time.
My reality is not your reality, subjectively or
objectively, and only a tiny portion of our "realities"
can be shared at any time. This may seem a bit
mystical, but I believe that it is supported by
theosophical literature. Also, at least it is some
steps above the purely materialistic viewpoint expressed
by Daniel. However, I can see where my viewoint
here would be detrimental (or at least frustrating) to
our historians who like to think that history is set
in concrete and "unmovable" and thus would qualify
as objective reality. Sorry to both you and the
historians here, but our past is almost as fluid as
our future. Our history books change all the time.
Although this is frustrating to historians with a
scientific bent, it is the nature of life, and
simply must be understood as a given and dealt
with.

:< I think that by God's grace I have been given the
 opportunity to line myself up with objective truth.>

Here is, in fact, the whole rub of your thrust.
You are taking the typical Christian, or I may say, the
"religious" attitude of superiority, which is to say
that you feel yourself to be in line with some kind
of truth via a direct connection to some kind of
personal God. This attitude has caused many a war
in the past. We each have an inner god with which
we can aline ourselves, and hopefully the result of
this alignment will be to see the viewpoints of
others a little better, certainly not to see "truth"
which other unfortunate wretches have missed, or who
don't qualify to receive it like you do.

:<The Law of the Land (Germany) declared the holocaust
Legal , but the law of objective reality cried out
against these laws.>

Your so-called "law of objective reality" only
exists in your own mind. The only thing that "cried
out" from the holocaust was the terrible karma that was
generated.

:<If I choose to believe that gravity doesn't have an
effect on me, the the weightier matter of the LAW will
certainly hold me accountable.>

There is, I agree, a "law" operating in this
case. It is the fact that we each agree to obey certain
laws or principles when we take on incarnation, and
gravity is one of them. However, it is only a "law" in
the sense that it is a part of our collective karma, with
which we each (unconsciously) agree to accept.
Refutation of this collective agreement can make a
person rise up (its called levitation) against the
so-called law of gravity, at least temporarily (we
also defy this law via airplanes and hot-air balloons,
but only by taking advantage of other so-called laws).
But just as the law of gravity exists outside
ourselves, so it exists inside (where its called
the law of attraction).

:<Why is it that the laws of Thermodynamics remain
constant throughout all humanity and time yet the
Laws of Morality and the Nature of God do not?>

Again, this idea of the constancy of scientific
principles (which is a materialistic notion) is not
terribly theosophical. Using the Gupta Vidya Model
of HPG as elaborated by G de P, for example,
theosophists have reason to suspect that these
"laws" change over time, just like everything
else. The fact that they change slowly proves nothing.

:<Theosophy tends to be so mystical and spiritual that
it does no worldly good. When the rubber meets the road
and when pay dirt is necessary for REAL life iving...the
jumbled utterings from supposed masters leaves you with
no real foundation.>

This is your own personal opinion, and I wish
you well with it. It certainly does not reflect my
own findings. I have found that the mysticism and
spirituality of theosophy does me a lot of worldly
good (my health and optimistic outlook, just for
starters). I hate to keep repeating myself here, but
the "rubber" only "meets the road" in your own mind.
It does no such thing in mine.

:<I can prove to you that following your own
interpretation or one of the supposed masters will
certainly cause you to live a life in sinking sand.>

My friend, we are ALL living in sinking sand
anyway. This is the nature of life, and this is the
"truth" that you are so earnestly trying to find
outside of yourself. Go with the flow, watch the
sand sink away, and let yourself sink with it. You
are fighting life overmuch (which is a typical ego
mode of operation). Your "proof" is worthless
because it is only your own subjective belief.

:<He is the LOGOS, THEOS and KURIOS or He is not.>

He is not.

:<Every theosophist, atheist and deist must determine
who YHWH is.>

Why, pray tell? Is he your much-touted
"objective truth?" And what about Mrs. YHWH?

:<Objectively either YHWH's declarations are true or
they are not. They are well founded or they are not.
They are historically reliable or they are not.>

Not, three times. Nobody's "declarations" can
have any objective truth unless they strike an inner
chord and thus have subjective truth as well.

:<DO NOT call YHWH a master>

OK, I won't (but I wasn't going to anyway!).

:<There is no room to call Him good without also calling
Him KING.>

Sorry, but I find it rather easy to call him
good without calling him King. So how come I seem to
have more room here than you do?

:<Do not neglect the security of your own soul.
You are responsible for wht you hear, what you say and
what you do not say.>

This has the undertone of a threat (rather
like a parent threatening a child) and has nothing
whatever to do with the subject of objective truth.

Comment: Your posting began in an appealing way, with
a degree of intelligence, and then began to degenerate
into some kind of raving religious nonsense that
I am afraid I was unable to follow. Maybe you can
say in other words what your YHVH has to do with
objective reality (I can only equate them both by
labeling them as phantasms of your own mind until
you make this more clear).

 Jerry S.