Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00259)

>Alexis writes>
> 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.

>Jerry S.>
>Agreed.  But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or homogenesis but
rather supplement them.

Richard Ihle writes>
Jerry, one reason I like you so much is that I can always trust you to
overlook my more off-the-mark ideas or at least disagree with them in a way
which still gives me credit for some minimal thing--having spelled
*euphemize* in the conventional way or something. . . .

Anyway, when I first read Alexis' sentence above, I sort of passed over it,
believing it to be one of those "from-the-hip" responses we all fire from
time to time--i.e., something which a person with more leisure might like to
call back and work on a little before others started arguing against it etc.

Thus, I was surprised when you said you "agreed" with his statement.  I went
back and tried to find what it was you could have been agreeing with.  Here,
as I see it, is what it contends:

1)  [either] That there is a great danger in the "psychological approach"
because it possibly avoids reality.  Does Alexis really intend to convey
something about a definite "reality" he has in mind or is he just throwing a
word out there hoping that others will supply their own objective
correlatives?

2)  [or] That there is a great danger in the psychological approach because
it possibly "euphemizes" reality into psychological states of physical human
consciousness.  Does this have any meaning all?  Perhaps it suggests
something like this:  "The vague and undefined *psychological approach*
substitutes the agreeable for the less agreeable vague and undefined
*reality* by turning it into vague and undefined *psychological conditions*."
 I can give this section my nod of approval only if its purpose is to force,
but unfortunately not to assist, a reader to become a creative philosopher in
his or her own stead. . . .

3)  "Psychological states of physical human consciousness":  Now, I suppose
one *could* come up with some possible understanding of this phrase with a
little "logical manipulation" work--e.g. (substitution of a negative to
suggest a meaning for the positive), 1) ~psychological states of NON-physical
human consciousness~, or 2) ~psychological states of physical NON-human
consciousness~.  However, it seems all-too-tedious, especially when there is
such a good chance that Alexis might not want this particular wording to
stand as his final idea at all.

So . . . were you just being a good guy again, Jerry, or have you really
figured out a meaning that you can agree with?

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle