Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00020)

alexis

Hi everyone.  I've not had much time to participate lately, but I simply could
not let these discussions between alexis and Alan pass me by.

I would like to address Alexis' statement:

< 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.>

With all due respect, Alexis, I think you may be going a bit too far here.
Construing the Uncertanty Principle as a law of nature different from the fact
that dry wood always burns is not accurate.  Both are generalizations of
regulaties observed in Nature under particular circumstances.  That the
Uncertainty Principle derives from sophisticated mathematical deduction and the
observation of wood buring derives from direct sensory perception is of little
concern.  The important point is that both are consistenties of Nature.

Perhaps we should abondon the word "law" altogether from the 3 objective.
Perhaps we should say something to the effect that "Theosophists are willing to
seek verifiable regulaties in the behavior of Humankind and Nature" - the key
word here being "verifiable".   This would begin to lay a scientific
underpinning to Theosophy, something that is sorely lacking at present.

Too much of Theosophical discourse is simply the parroting of unsubstantiated
ideas.  The lack of concern over the verifiablity of theosophical claims simply
opens the door to dogma and mythologizing, neither of which serve any higher
purpose, and instead serve to dogmatize and limit free and open inquiry.  This
fact is why the modern world has, for the most part, left theosophy behind.

Perhaps as we try to formulate a "new" theosophy we should be sensitive to the
fact that the old theosophy has done little by way of open, honest and rigorous
intellectual discipline.  As a matter of fact, the "old" theosophy has been
downright defensive about questioning and challenging its accepted - and mostly
unsubstantiated - claims. Simply ask Paul Johnson about this.  Perhaps TI would
be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it
is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism.  In
this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and
Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in
this regard.

Thanks for considering these ideas.

Don DeGracia, PhD