Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01296)

Alexis,
In what I said quoted  below and what you replied to, my only point was that
if you can cite
what the scientific community believes about the absence, etc. of good
evidence for the
existence of lost civilizations,etc. and therefore dismiss HPB's teachings
on Anthropogenesis, then one could equally dismiss HPB's teachings on
psychic phenomena, the occult constitution of a human being, etc. in light
of the fact that the latest psychological studies generally agree that there
is no scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological
(psychic) phenomena.  That was my main point.  Period.

****************************************************************************
***********
Now personally, after studying parapsychology for 25 years, I believe there
is SOME
*scientific* justification and evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena.

I agree with Dr. Dean I. Radin, a psychologist and parapsychologist, when he
writes:

"...Over the last 50 years scientists investigating psi phenomena have
developed repeatable laboratory studies that demonstrate the existence of at
least three main classes of unexplained effects [telepathy, remote viewing
or clairvoyance, and psychokinesis."

[Maybe Paul Johnson will give us a review of the latest book he is reading
on parapsychology.  A book which clearly illustrates what Dr. Radin is
talking about.]

But I also agree with Dr. Andrew Greeley when he writes:

"...there's been a scientific iron curtain raised against serious research
on these [psychic, paranormal] experiences [that millions of people have
had]...."

And even one of  the most vocal skeptics of ESP and PK research/claims, Dr.
Ray Hyman, has admitted:

"...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological
claims *without firsthand knowledge of the experimental
evidence*....Parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that
the scientific community is dismissing their claims *without a fair
hearing*....."  Asterisks added.

Unfortunately,  I have found that far too many "scientific" skeptics and
disbelievers of the paranormal have the "open-minded attitude" exemplified
by Thomas Jefferson in his remarks concerning the discovery of a meteorite
by two scientists:

"...I would rather believe that those two Yankee Professors would lie than
to believe that stones fell from heaven."

Even scientists will dismiss or downplay evidence which would go against
their own
pet theories.  Could the latest anthopological studies, etc. also suffer
from this same kind of prejudice and disbelief?


Just food for thought.

Daniel


>At 12:36 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Daniel comments as follows:
>>
>>In the above remarks you write:  " the latest
>>anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree...."
>>
>>To me this statement means or at least implies  that official science or the
>>scientific community or the majority of anthropologists/paleontologists
>>agree on "such and such".  And you say that this "such and such" knowledge
>>therefore invalidates HPB's anthopogenesis.  Hence throw out Root Races,
>>Atlantis, Lemuria, etc.
>
>HPB's Anthropogenesis, despite Rich's denials, is, to the best of my
>knowledge almost entirely invalidated by the current "state of the art" in
>Anthropology, Paleobiology, etc. Atlantis and Lemuria are entirely
>speculative, there exists no proof either for or against their existence,
>therefore they must be "shelved" as it were, until some kind of valid proof
>either way is obtained. They're an interesting hypothesis as are "Flying
>Saucers", but they are hardly factual, at least not at this point in time. I
>didn't say "throw the S.>D. Out" it contains some interesting hypotheses,
>but they cannot be assumed to be factual as they are neither amenable to
>proof or amenable to disproof.
>>
>>But if we go by that kind of thinking, how much of what is left in HPB's
>>teachings (after throwing out anthopogenesis) would merit our attention?
>
>Daniel: I think there's one hell of a lot in HPB's overall writing that
>deserves our attention, and I have never even hinted otherwise. I just
>happen to think concerning one's self with things that really are irrelevant
>to our own lives, when those things are utterly unprovable and must be
>"taken on faith" is a waste of time.
>
>Well, for starters, there are HPB's teachings on
>>the occult constitution of a human being. ( The kind of stuff Jerry HE and
>>Jerry S
>>have been going around and around on.)
>
>That's nice, and if the two Jerry's and Kim find it enticing, they are
>welcome to it. But to me the same objections apply, the whole thing is
>neither provable or disprovable, it conflicts with my own experiences, and
>it has to be "taken on faith". My own personal credo is" "Never take
>anything on Faith".
>
>PB's affirms the reality of  psychic
>>phenomena and affirms the reality of other invisible planes of existence.
>>She affirms
>>the reality of life after death and even reincarnation. She even performed
>>psychic feats such
>>as materializing a cup and saucer at a Simla, India picnic.
>
>Obviously, at least as far as I'm concerned the reality of psychic phenomena
>are amenable to proof and disproof, at least to me. As to the unreality of
>death, I can accept what she claims by personal experience. As to
>reincarnation, My view of that is different than hers, and for all you know
>hers may have changed. As far as the cup and saucer, that was the dumbest
>trick she ever pulled it's been used to prove she was a fraud ever since it
>happened. And if you're the theosophical scholar you claim to be you know
>that's true. It doesn't matter whether she did it or not, most people don't
>believe it and that's what matters.
>
>
>But what does
>>official science
>>and the scientific community as a whole say that is relevant to these
>>teachings and claims of HPB's?
>>
>>For example, in an 1988  report prepared under the auspices of the National
>>Academy of Sciences,  the following conclusions were drawn:
>>
>>"...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that
>>ESP...exists."
>
>Now Daniel: You know I not only believe in ESP but practice it, BUT, what
>else can responsible scientists say, there is some statistical evidence
>amassed by The J.B. Rhine Institute, but when it comes to actual recordable
>empirical evidence, and reliably repeatable phenomena, what else can they
>say? As far as they know, they're right, and all those of us who are
>psychics can hope for is that a new methodology of "testing" or "Trying the
>spirits" will be developed by scientists who count. Those whole actually
>believe in ESP or paranormal phenomena are considered to be Kooks, at least,
>and crazy, at worst. And when one views the overall community (Theosophy
>included) who can blame them. CWL's maundering are hardly a good
>introduction to a serious philosophical study.
>
>>"...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of
>>psychokinesis...."
>
>See above.
>>
>>"The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over
>>a period
>>of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."
>
>See above.
>>
>>Most members of this committee are well-known psychologists.
>
>These people are honestly reporting their opinions on what they have they
>can legitimately work with, you wouldn't suggest the Secret Doctrine as
>evidence would you?
>>
>>Furthermore, if ESP and PK were accepted in the scientific community, would we
>>not see parapsychology being taught in universities and colleges?  Would we
>>not see
>>parapsychology as a valid part of departments of psychology in universities
>>and colleges?
>>In reality, very few universities in the WHOLE world even have courses on
>>parapsychology. And can you  name the departments of psychology that have
>>parapsychological sections?

The latest psychological studies all generally agree that there is no
>>scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic)
>>phenomena.
>
>This statement is entirely true, it states the majority of the scientific
>and academic community's position exactly.
>
>If it were accepted, and acceptable, we would. It is not yet accepted so we
>don't. I really can't see why this surprises you. By their own best lights
>they are being reasonable and careful.
>>
>>I think we can truthfully say (paraphrasing Alexis and the above mentioned
>>report on
>psychic phenomena) the following:
>
>Daniel: You don't actually mean "paraphrasing" what you do is "twist" a
>persons meanings to fit your own thesis and make the other person look if
>nothing else, unreasonable. It's really not good intellectual practice and
>it's rude to boot.
>>
>>
>>And Dr. Michael Mueckler, a cellular biologist, (who has been posted and
>>mentioned on this
>>list before), would agree with the above statement.  Mueckler says that his
>>scientific
>>colleagues would also concur  with such a dismissive summary about psychic
>>phenomena.
>>
>>Therefore, in light of this scientific finding, who would be foolish enough
>>to believe what
>>HPB's says about the psychic, about life after death, etc.  Following
>>Alexis' reasoning, we
>>should therefore throw out everything HPB said on THIS  subject, too.  Right?
>
>Daniel: That line of so-called reasoning is entirely non-sequitous and you
>surely know that! And I think you've managed to paraphrase this as
>maliciously as is humanly possible. But it is a terrible distortion of what
>I've been saying. And I will not permit it to pass unchallenged.
>There are things in HPB's Secret doctrine, and in her E.S. Material, and in
>some of her other writings which I believe are just plain wrong and which I
>therefore have rejected. There are other things she wrote that remain to be
>either proven or dis proven and those I have set aside, in a wait and see
>attitude. There are things that HPB wrote that I have either seen proven, or
>proven myself and those I accept, not on faith, but on the basis of experience.
>>
>>Well, remember HPB was
>>fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong.  And she could have made
>>"intentional" errors?
>>Right?
>
>Daniel: That's really kind of juvenile sarcasm. She WAS fallible. and
>sometimes she could easily have been wrong. She never made  "intentional
>errors" but some things she said may have been what she referred to as
>"blinds" and were intended to serve  as "hints' of "clues" to those with the
>inner independence not to take things at face value.
>
>
>Alexis dolgorukii
>Nothing, even theosophy, is higher than truth
>>
>>Okay, now what is left of HPB's teachings?  Let us turn to an examination of
>>WHATS LEFT......................
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>