Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00406)

Daniel:

I can see that we have much to discuss, and hope we can do so in
an agreeable manner. Here's my first reply:

>>>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.

True. We shouldn't accept something simply because it is popularly
held, nor currently in vogue in the scientific community.

>>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.

You have to first believe that there is such a thing as "objective reality",
something that exists on its own, independent of the existence and
perception of any being. I'd say that there's no such thing. Everything is
living, life is everywhere, and even such a thing as the known universe is
but the results of some living being on a scale of being too big for us
to comprehend. If you take away everyone, all beings, there's simply
nothing left to be the "objective universe".

>>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.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean, so we could discuss these
arguments.

>>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?

We're related in the sense that all living things are. One way of describing
it is that whenever you interact with another living being, you create karma,
a bond, that represents a living connection. And we are not, from a high
standpoint, fixed egos or centers of consciousness, but are rather the
sumtotal of all those living connections that we have established.

>>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

There's nothing outside of nature, nothing to call "supernatural". Modern
science could be called, though, "subnatural," though, since it restricts
itself to a subset of all that is.

>> 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.

There is no external, unchangeable "objective". Everything that exists
is changeable and subjective on its own level, even if appearing to us
to be relatively "objective."

>>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.

Theosophy deals with things that are not provable, except by personal
experience, which can only arise by the student taking the necessary
steps in spiritual unfoldment.

-- Eldon