Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00009)

At 02:07 PM 4/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <m0u57al-000JfOC@slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii
><
>
>Seriously, I think you have a point of a sort.  The bit that jars with
>me (leftover from the TS objects) in "laws of nature" is the
>preposition.  I prefer to think of - and observe - what appear to be
>laws *in* nature, like "dry wood can burn."  Like if I smash my fist
>into the wall it hurts, and I get bruised and bleeding knuckles.  This
>is also one way of looking at "karma".  I see no "uncertainty principle"
>in such examples.  Are we coming at the same thing from different
>angles, or calling the same thing something else?
>
>So far, and I hope it is early days in terms of feedback, this is the
>only change I would make: change "laws of nature" to "laws in nature".
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>
>Think about "principles" instead of law and I'll be happy. Sure "Dry wood
always burns (if you light a fire to it), and if you smash your fist into a
wall, it hurts like hell, and if you're dumb enough to do it very hard, it
bleeds. But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and
immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of
reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events
and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more
grandiose areas of reality.

On the physical planes of reality "cause" and "effect" are far too
immediately conjoined for the uncertainty to have time to activate Now, the
term "unexplained laws of nature" is connected intimately with the third
object which at least infers a study of paranormality, and in that case, we
don;t yet know enough, in the sense of scientific method to talk about
"laws" at all. "Laws" I think (except when speaking of the judicial codes)
are the kind of thinking endemic in the Victorian period. We don't live
then. Capisco?

alexis