Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00028)

At 09:01 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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.

Whoa there! I think we have a misunderstanding here (whether semantic or
otherwise) I did NOT say that "The Uncertainty Principle" was any kind of
Law of Nature. What I said was that this principle deals with things on an
abstract level rather than simplistic "cause and effect" phenomena on the
physical planes. What I hoped people would understand me to mean was that in
neither case was anything so absolutely invariable as the word "Laws"
implies to be accepted as appropriate. I was saying there were no laws not
passed by legislatures, at least not in anything dealing with either the
nature of the human condition or the nature of reality. I was trying to
indicate that the word "principles" is less didactic than the word "Laws"
and that is why I suggested it's use.
The other point I was trying to make is that there are no constancies in
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.

The term "verifiable regularity" to me, would seem to imply things that were
common but hardly inevitable. For as I see it, nothing is inevitable.
>
>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.

With this statement I couldn't agree more. In fact I have said the same
thing, many times, in many ways, on this forum.
>
>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.

Don:
I don't need to ask Paul Johnson, I've experienced the phenomenon myself, in
spades! Back in 1973, when I was much younger and far more idealistic, I was
hounded to resignation becuase of my questioning and my sexuality. It won't
happen again I am much older now, and at my age, we don't "hound" easily.
Your last sentence above: "OIn this regard, etc." is something I can
wholeheartedly support and I really think it ought to be included in the TI/
statement.
>
>Thanks for considering these ideas.
>
>Don DeGracia, PhD
>
>
Alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA