Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00595)

In message <199604151857.GAA36959@iprolink.co.nz>, Murray A Stentiford
<mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz> writes
>Alan,
>
>Re:
>
>>Below is the revised version for the consideration of TI members, as
>>also mentioned on theos-l in a separate post.  If you accept

>>>snip<<<
>
>First, I subscribe wholeheartedly to what I perceive the intentions of this
>statement to be, as indeed of TI itself.
>
>However, I don't think the wording in a couple of places says clearly enough
>what is intended. The first of these is where it says
>
>"THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises free men and women who ...".

>>>more snip<<<
>
>I think what "free" is meant to imply here is that members of TI
>
>1   expect the decision to join TI to be made free of fear or undue influence,
>    and
>
>2   recognise the need and right of individuals to choose the paths on which
>    they seek understanding, free of coercion.

That is I think what we all most likely understand.
>
>
>To address 1, I suggest that the opening paragraph be changed to read
>
>"THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice,
>subscribe to the spirit .... etc."

.. and that the wording as offered means this anyway.
>
>
>For 2, I suggest that the paragraph
>
>"No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member."
>
>be extended by making it read
>
>"No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member,
>in acknowledgement of their right to choose, without trace of coercion,
>the path on which they seek understanding."

Is this not implicit in the statement to begin with?  We could easily
get overcome by an overdose of verbosity by trying to cross every "t"
and dot every "i".
>
>
>Now, my second point is about the phrase
>
>"To investigate unexplained laws of nature ..."  in the 3rd object.
>
>With my science background, I have always felt uncomfortable with "unexplained
>laws of nature", and I think that words like  "regularity" and "consistency",
>as Don DeGracia put it a while ago, do much better than "law", today.

A recent correction, following discussion among members, alters "laws of
nature" to "mysteries of nature" of which there is an abundance of the
unexplained, which agrees quite well with your view below, I think?
>
>The use of "unexplained" also sits poorly with the current understandings
>and approach of science at large, as I see it, for the simple reason that we
>tend not to think in terms of final explanations anymore.
>
>A hundred years or so ago, people didn't realise nearly as well as they do now,
>that a "law" is more of a repeatedly-observed PATTERN of response or behaviour
>than a declaration that nature will always obey from now on. When a pattern
>does appear to repeat reliably, scientists allow themselves to infer that
>there's an underlying principle or process or relationship.
>
>Not only that, but there was an almost proprietary feeling about discovering a
>"law", not unlike the blithely-assumed right of visitors to another land to
>stick a flag in it and declare that it henceforth belonged to their home
>country.
>
>Today, science has a degree of humility born of seeing classical physics fail
>in the quantum arena, etc, and the realisation that a humanly-declared "law"
>of nature is basically a mental construct or pattern placed over a pattern
>observed in nature, and that a mismatch can be discovered between the two at
>any time. Then, the law either has to be scrapped, or seen as being useful
>in certain circumstances, like Newton's laws of motion.
>
>The word "explanation" seems now rather naive and obscure in its effect because,
>like "laws", an explanation is a humanly-constructed connection between
>observations on the one hand (and heaven knows, they can be fraught with
>distortion and incompleteness), and the ever-expanding world of theories on
>the other.

Well, yes, any "explanation" will be subjective to whoever "discovers"
or experiences it, and there is the never-ending problem concerning
mutually acceptable definitions.
>
>So, for the 3rd object, I would suggest something like
>
>"To investigate realms of nature not yet within common knowledge, and
>unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for
>all life.
>
>I think this sits a bit better, despite having 2 "ands" in it, and addresses
>also the aspect that a vast body of theosophy may be already known to a few,
>but that it's our job to help the evolutionary process on the planet where
>it's up to right now, not 120 years ago. Plus a hint of the fact that we're
>not trying to compete with science.

Impossible!
>
>These changes may seem minor in terms of wording, but I feel that they connect
>to issues which it is part of TI's work to address.
>
>Despite my keenness to see these suggestions accepted, I am willing to vote YES
>for the wording you sent, especially if you have already secured a large
>proportion of YESes, for the sake of seeing a cohesive forward step taken now
>rather than later. However, if that is the case, I would very much like to see
>them taken into account next time changes are being considered.
>So it's YES for now, and even more so YES if you can incorporate these ideas!
>
>Murray
>Member TI & TS in NZ

So can we leave it till next time?  You can bet there will be one!  At
the head of the TI statement we say "as expressed thus" - I see no
reason why you or any other members could not add a rider to this effect
at a local level - needs and expression vary from place to place, and
from country to country.

>PS:  My new e-mail address is     mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz

Noted - I will amend the TI membership list.
>
>     I will still get e-mail sent to the old address, but want to keep that
>     address for work-related messages as much as possible.
>
Your feedback is greatly appreciated. BTW - I am trying to get
subscribers to post TI related messages to theos-buds, which has been
little used in the past.  This is partly to be kind to those who do (for
reasons I do not comprehend, and no one tells me) wish to participate in
TI.  They can then, if they wish to avoid TI traffic, unsubscribe to
theos-buds while remaining subscribed to theos-l.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html