Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00416)

Daniel:

I see from your other message that you've expanded upon
the subject. I did not see this message when I wrote mine
earlier today. A number of your statements may evoke
different responses from various readers of 'theos-l'.

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

I'd say, only relatively so.

>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.

External reality is the result of all of live. Each living thing
contributes to it. It does not exist independent of life. There is
no objective reality that remains when living things disappear
from a universe.

>What does the individual do when the one who rules over the
>individual declares that reality is best suited to be a detriment
>or dangerous to the individual? In this case it is not a matter of
>right or wrong it is a matter of POWER...so now the subjective
>truth is that the one with the biggest gun wins.

Thought control is always a way of manipulating the masses. The
important thing is that each of us learns to think for himself,
without regard for the established opinions of public thought.

>Is this objective? 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. Whatever
>the relative position of the observer is determines interpretation.

I'd disagree that there is such a thing as "immovable objective reality."
The world is collectively created by our being alive.

>As I sit in front of my P590, I have a myriad of experiences and
>teachers and documentation to help me make a willfull choice about laws
>and life. I think that by God's grace I have been given the opportunity
>to line myself up with objective truth. I have come to the determination
>that I should not murder, nor steal, nor commit adultry or fornication,
>etc... Now that I have made these decisions...I am most certainly
>a better citizen. But is holding these values part of Objective reality
>or is it subjective.

If when you say that you are lined up with objective truth, that you
have come to beliefs about life and the way that life works that rings
true to you, then that's fine. But not if you expect everyone else to
accept your beliefs because yours are "objective" and ours are "subjective."

>Subjective interpretation of reality has churned out the likes of
>Stallin, Hitler and the ATF.

It was not the interpretation that was the problem, it was the
authoritative forcing of beliefs onto others that disagreed that
was the problem.

>The Neuremburg Trials is a perfect example of MAN attempting to
>reveal error by other men. You see the Holocaust was LEGAL. But
>was it right? This is also the first time that "Acts against Humanity"
>were uttered. Truthfully is was an act against objective truth.

There are moral and ethical principles that are generally agreed are
true and should be followed. When people violate them, society seeks
to punish them. This does not mean, though, that those generally agreed-to
values are "objective truth" and universal in nature.

>The Law of the Land (Germany) declared the holocaust Legal , but the law
>of objective reality cried out against these laws. The defense
>raised documents with SS seals and signatures by the Council of 12
>and Hitler himself, so those that participated could say "We were
>just obeying the Law"...but the prosecution declared that LAWS do not
>take away personal responsibility to act as a HUMANITARIAN.

This was certainly a sick time for the German people.

>What was the basis for such interpretations?
>As an example:
>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.

Just because you believe in something does not make it true. But the
fact that there are things that are independent of your beliefs don't
make them objective in an absolute sense.

>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?

There are various laws of physics thare are fairly constant over the
known physical universe. But this is our perception of merely one plane
of existence; there are many others with different "laws". And these laws
are the observed *behavior of physical things*. The laws don't exist in and
of themselves. In some distant time in the future, perhaps physical plane
things will behave differently. Does this mean that the "laws" changed? No.
There never were "laws." It simply means that physical things behaved
differently.

>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 living...the jumbled utterings from
>supposed masters leaves you with no real foundation.

The same could be said of art or music. Does something have to help you
roof your house or put food on the dinner table in order to be of practical
use in life? Theosophy deals with spiritual realities; if you avoid them it
will do nothing for you. It's all up to what you do with it.

>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.

Other people have different personal experiences.

>You see Buddah declared that he knew the Truth.
>Krishna uttered words that he knew the Way
>Muhammed said he knew the meaing of Life.

>But YHWH declared that He is the Truth, the Way and
>the Life.

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

There are various stages to using the concept of deity in a spiritual
practice. First the image is externalized and interacted with as though
you were before it. Second you picture yourself as that deity. Third
you picture yourself in life, carrying that quality with you. The true
Path is something that you have to take responsibililty for and engage in
your life; there is no external deity that will answer your prayers and
do it for you.

>Every theosophist, atheist and deist must determine who
>YHWH is. YHWH is not an abstract culmination of a Jewish Man
>of 33yrs of wisdom wrapped up in one cool master of many.

>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.

I don't read them as literal truths, but rather as stories that hide
metaphysical truths, truths hidden from the profane, and only understandable
in their true nature when the student has the proper keys.

>DO NOT call YHWH a master. He is either Master or not.
>His Masterful teachings declared Him Masters of all Masters
>and the Creator of all. There is no room to call Him good
>without also calling Him KING.

>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.

If you need an external deity to comfort you, that's fine. You'll find,
though, perhaps to your dismay, if you choose to study Theosophy, that
it leaves this idea behind, and teaches a different, more elaborate,
worldview.

-- Eldon