Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00172)

At 12:13 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>> I know HPB wouldn't disagree with
>>me, but HPB isn't the problem. CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa. and Arundale et
>>al, are the problem. If any of those people had made it clear theywere
>>speaking symbolically or creating models of reality to make the
>>comprehension of abstractions more attainable, we'd not be in such a pickle.
>	Well, I can't disagree with you on this one. I would include Judge
>and G de P on your list as well.   As a matter of fact, the first writer that I
>came
>across to use the term "model" for descriptions of the universe was in a book
>by Robert Anton Wilson.  Only very recently do we see theosophists
acknowledging
>
>this.

Oh absolutely, I have to say my omission of Judge and G de P was
inadvertant, I hope they weren't feeling "left out". I suppose this comes
from having most of my Theosophy via the Adyar Bunch. I do think the use of
the "owrd "model" in the context we're discussing precedes Wilson's use of
it, but I'd have to do some research to prove it. I do, however, remember
one Albert Eisntein using it when explainging his work to me when I was a
kid. (No kidding
>
>>. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called
>>"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or
>>euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness,
>>and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness.
>	Agreed.  But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or
>homogenesis but rather supplement them.  This should help avoid this
>pitfall.

I'll definitely go along with that just so long as it's not based on Freud
or Jung. They are both far too Judeo-Christian in their value judgements.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI	
>
alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA>