Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00261)

jem coments follow:

>     The Adepts, understanding with foresight the century we are
>now in the midst of, and grasping the stunning burst of
>intellectual development - with all its power and its delusions -
>that was immanent, and understanding as well that the chief
>characteristic of the intellect is the *differentiating function*
>(i.e., that it is the "great slayer" of the (unified) "real", the
>*source* of the "heresy of separateness"), understanding that it
>was a *required stage of evolution*, but that it harbored
>tremendous dangers, and desirous of aiding in that evolution by
>trying to mitigate the great pain inherent in the delusions of
>the intellect, sought then a means of *immunizing* our race
>against the worst of the viral infections the spirit of
>differentiation (that is the core of the intellect) had almost
>inevitably to cause.
>     The source of the *danger* exists in the very core of the
>intellect - whose first and most fundamental sentiment is "I, not
>I". It *seeks* to differentiate, to pull apart what is whole, to
>*magnify* differences, to see how many pieces compose the atom,
>how many different hierarchies can be named as composing the
>natural world, how many categories it can create to demonstrate
>how *different* humans are from one another. (Want to see this in
>action? *Every* race, every philosophy (*including Theosophy!),
>and every religion has produced a "ranking system" in which its
>members are the *highest*, and all others descend "downward" from
>the defined peak). Its development, for aeons possessed by but a
>few every generation, was on the verge of becoming widely
>diffused. Its powers are unprecedented - it can cure diseases,
>produce food, clothing and shelter for everyone on earth, but its
>downside is virulent. And the anti-virus, the immunizing agent,
>had to (of necessity) be of the nature of the virus - i.e., had
>to be *an idea* ... an idea *as basic and powerful as the
>predilection to say "I, not-I", but *diametrically opposed*.
>
>     "To form a nucleus of a universal family of humanity,
>*without distinction* of race, creed, sex, caste or color."
>

two basic comments:

1) the mind of science is also confronted with transient ideas.
their ideas are dependent upon time and perception.  the concept of
reality is based upon our culture, and ability to persuade
others.  i.e. we have many facts which are *true*, but
do we have a reality fixed by those facts?  I venture not.
Absolute truth, is only as true as we absolutely know.  this is
very little.  Physics is somewhat of a pop culture:  the big hit
this year is chaos,  but hidden variables may be alive tomorrow.
:-)        (we only do the best we can).

(Dr. Don will have many comments on this, I'm sure)


2)  People cannot "hold-up" in their Ivory towers or even their
town of "Po-dunk".  They have to *relate* to each other.  They have to
allow each other to exist, or destroy themselves too.  Discriminations
of the mind are simply folly.  However, they make very good
signposts:
we now have a Christian Coalition claiming a "Culture War".
We have Theosophists arguing about things which happened 100 years ago.
We have Scientists arguing about everything (including "what is
science").


in essence:  I agree with JRC ---

peace -

john e. mead


-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------