Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00024)

I guess we'll start where we left off. If you're going to prove everything
scientifically, I wonder how you're going to prove scientifically that a
very skilled clairvoyant can diagnose a slight heart murmur from Sidney
Australia to upstate New York. I checked it out with an EKG, & the diagnosis
was correct. That, just as an example. I agree with you that we don't want
dogma & beliefs to creep into our system, but I think we have to be on the
lookout for those another way. The scientific method, such as we know it
today, just isn't broad enough to cover all realms of nature.

Liesel
Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR




>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
>
>
>
>