Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00039)

Alexis,
you say "there are no constancies in nature." I think there are, but within
limits. Otherwise an American MD couldn't arrive in deepest Africa,
recognize the belly ache of someone copletely unknown, as probably coming
from appendicitis, & find the appendix approximately in the spot where he
supposes it to be when he makes his incision.

Re: verifiable theosophical claims. I think a good theosophist does verify
claims he hears about, but it depends on what method is used. It's not
always an admissibly scientific method, but may be something which means
something to the person who's verifying. Harry was a dyed in the wool
Theosophist to be sure. He lived & breathed theosophy. He said "Don't
believe, find out, and then tell yourself that it's probably true." He also
called himself a scientist (an engineer, an osteopath. & etc.). But now, for
instance, I have no idea how he decided what kind of vibrations an illness
gave off. But he selected the homeopathic remedy to counteract it, partly by
using something with vibrations 1/2 beat ahead of the illness, so that the 2
vibrations would tend to cancel each other out. It's very scientific, but
first you've got to be able to perceive the vibes given off by an illness,
plus the ones given off by the remedy, & understand what it is you're
perceiving.

Also, some of the things i've come to accept as fact, weren't so when I
first learned about them. But then, when something happened during the
course of living my life, which called for my applying what I'd learned
theoretically, I often found out that it worked. That's enough proof for me.
I don't know why or how it worked, & I don't really care that much about
that end of it. I rather care about that it worked for me. When the ocasion
arises, I'll also tell someone else to try see whether it'll work for them
as well. & if it works well for both of us, that fortifies that I think
it'll usually work.

Liesel
Member Ti, TSA, TS in Camada, HR
..............................................................................

>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
>
>
>