Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00887)

At 06:17 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>

>
>	Well, that's your opinion of course. My opinion is quite different.
>Regarding G de P: if you had really studied his writings you would see
>that most of it deals with elaborating the ideas of HPB, and I wouldn't
>exactly call it 'sidelining' her.

Well, I own, and have studied the writings of G de P and while they are
loosely based on HPB, they are his INTERPRETATIONS of what she had to say,
and while they are infinitely more intellectual and sane than Leadbeater's
versions of HPB, she I am sure would be very surprised by what he says she
said. G do P used Yelena Blavatskaya as a "podium" upon which to present his
personal views. Now, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having and
presenting one's own perceptions, I certainly do so proudly, but I do see
something wrong with presenting one's own views as those of another, and
more famous person. See what I mean?
>
>
>M>What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.
>
>A>And a serious question deserves a serious answer: A Ceremonial Magician
>utilizes ritual, which is a complicated construct of sensory input, to focus
>his/her will and the acquiescent wills of those who may be present, in an
>attempt to change reality in conformity with that will.
>>
>
>	Sensory input like what?

Martin: Go to a Roman Catholic High Mass or better yet an Eastern Orthodox
High Mass and you will see a perfect demonstration of what I mean by "a
construct of sensory input"...colours, lights, sounds, scents, a "battering"
of the senses to produce what is essentially "sensory overload" which cause
the celebrant, and the people present to reach a different level of
consciousness/awareness. Ceremony or Ritual is a very complicated art form.
Now when that art form is officiated over by a celebrant who has the ability
to direct his/her will in a totally controlled manner, the result is
ceremonial magic.
>
>
>
>M>Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
>>with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
>>house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
>>problems of how to deal with too many patients).
>
>A>I wouldn't find it a problem, I can train others to do what I do very
>quickly, and I think there's be no better healer than one who was healed.
>The only thing that "bothers" me at all, is that in two of the cases,
>they're back at their old haunts doing just what they did to get sick in the
>first place.
>
>
>  That's the dilemma a healer is faced with: do I accept only patients
>who are willing to understand the causes of their disease (with the help
>of the healer) or just every patient that comes along?

I accept any and every patient that comes along. It is not my place to "pick
and choose", but I do think I can complain about them when they are hurting
themselves.
>
>
>
>M>>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>>>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>>>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>>>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.
>
>A>Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
>reference" I used.
>
>	Indeed. I'm choosing a frame of reference that is an intrinsic
>part of the age-old Wisdom tradition. You, on the other hand, dismiss
>this frame of reference without giving strong arguments against it
>(maybe you do in your book). So, you leave me in the dark as to why
>exactly you don't find it an appropriate frame of reference.

I do give them in my book. But I am rejecting them because as a teacher I
have come to know that the young people in this country refuse absolutely to
listen to what they call "all that old crap". Once again, though Martin, I
must say that what you call the "Age-old Wisdom Tradition" I fear because it
is so closely tied with various religions, and as you know I reject religion
as the greatest oppressive force in human history. I call it "The Platonic
Lineage" in my writings even though Plato only re-stated it and did not
originate it. But who would know what I am talking about if I called it the
"Heritage of the Keltoi" or the "Thalian Lineage"?it would both be far more
accurate.


>
>
>
>>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>>today's young people.
>>
>
>M>Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
>>experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
>>disappear with that, however.
>
>A>I have a feeling that perhaps your speech in your own language is not as
>'flowery" as it is in a language that isn't your first one.
>
>
>	I don't think the style of my articles is flowery at all.
>Maybe you should read them, if you didn't do that already, and then point
>out what's so flowery about it. The only flowery expression is 'seven
>jewels of wisdom' and that happens to be a translation of Sapta-Ratnani
>(Sanskrit compound), the old name for the seven jewels teachings.

Wait a minute. What other articles? The only one I've seen is & jewels.
Please elucidate.

>
>A>And yes a
>framework is important but it had best be a valid one, and there's
>altogether too much about "Core Theosophy" that is anything BUT valid.
>That's my opinion of course.
>
>	Of course. But I do not count Leadbeater's teachings as 'Core
>Theosophy'.
>
>
>M>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.
>
>A>Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
>broader basis to stand on.
>
>	Well, I could present  a reformulation, one by one, but slowly
>as it takes some time to do so.

O.K. I'll take my hard copy and prepare something point by point and then
send it to you.
>
>A> My view is that there is no such thing
>as "divinely ordered truth" and that what I am seeking is not so much
>"truth" as an understanding of abstract realities. For that is what "truth"
>means to me......."abstract realities".
>
>	Don't you see order and structure in this universe?
>And don't you acknowledge the existence of spiritual beings (angels,
> etc.)? Last time I asked you, you evaded this question.

Did I? I'm sorry. I have no reason to evade that question. I am, as you know
an active Shaman, and so I relate very strongly to non-physical
intelligences, especially as I view the Unified Field as one vast
conglomeration of intelligence nexii...BUT I do not believe in "God" or
"Dieties" or "Angels" in the religious sense of the term. As to structure
and order? Well I view it this way the Cosmos goes from chaotic disorder
through an increasing period of orderliness on to a condition I call
harmonious disorder. It's spirilic.
>
>
>A>What sort of degree?
>
>	Roughly equivalent to bachelor (a bit more than that I think).
>
>A>
> I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
>quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more.
>
>	A matter of opinion. Feynman, one of the greatest physicists
>of this century and the one who developed the most successful theory
>in physics (quantum-electrodynamics) also held this opinion.
>Good company :)
The trouble with akademe is this: I asked a quantum physicist friend of mine
(3 phd's) about Feynman and he said "Oh Gawd, not him!"
>
>A> Second I am told
>that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
>implied that they all are.
>
>	You're nitpicking here. My God, your own style of writing
> is abundant with things I can nitpick on (and maybe rightfully so)
>in infinitely larger degree.

No, I am told that wasn't nitpicking.
>
>
>A> Lastly everyone knows (I assume that if I do,
>everyone does) that there are basic assumptions in Relativity Theory that
>are wrong, Einstein himself acknowledged that.
>
>	Get real, Alexis, most people know nothing of RT at all!

Martin> I meant most people who know what RT is, most people don't know
anything about anything. The Human Race is composed primarily of Quasi-monkeys!


>
>The most funny thing about RT is, BTW, that the Lorentz-transformations
>have never been deduced from first principles successfully. Einstein
>made an error in his first derivation, which was acknowledged later
>on, but despite a price being offered to people who would correctly
>deduce these transformations nobody succeeded (I doubt whether
>someone has succeeded thus far). All the deductions are wrong, because
>these can be shown to involve a type of 0.something =0.some other thing
>equations (physicists consistently made errors with vector signs)
>Maybe you don't believe me, but I studied the matter. Some physicists
>have found the errors in the deductions. There findings are ignored,
>however, because RT formulae seem to work. In textbooks, the formulae
>are typically just given without any attempt to deduce them (I don't
>know all textbooks on RT of course, but I'm talking about those I've seen)
>
So the equations are wrong but they work! And you say there is order in the
cosmos. No, the Csomos is utterly chaotic and Heisenberg was right, and that
proves is <giant grin>>

> A>But no matter what, I think
>our modern sciences at this point in time are far more in resonance with a
>"roll of the dice" theory than they are with "divine ordinance".
>
>	But sciences will discover new facts (have already) and will
>have to change their theories.

Yes, that's true but it happens so frequently it makes life very interesting.
>
>
>>A> I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
>>effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
>>a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
>>beings.
>
>
>	Sounds good. Only, I am pretty sure that we all are part and parcel
>of a greater whole (Oversoul), so I wouldn't separate cosmos from
>humankind. My experience indicates indeed that the unit (human being)
>is embedded in a larger whole but the exact relations and implications
>are not fully clear to me. So, I cannot fully agree with your statement,
>but would consider it as an undecided issue (for me, that is).
>
>
>M>Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
>>convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
>>working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
>>And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
>>previous paragraph?
>>
(see above)>
>(I keep the above question in this reply. It is vital for my understanding
>of your ideas about cosmos and man's place therein)
>
>
>
>A>Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
>should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.
>
>
>	Of course, nobody is saying that we should. But it may be not
>a speculation for all of us. And, contrary to what you say, world
>society *is* based on hypotheses or rather points of view. In the middle
>ages people though that the world was flat and many were afraid to travel
>far (they might fall off the earth..). Plato says that 'ideas rule the world'
>and I think he is right. The economies of countries are partly based
>on ideas how economy works (economists may be wrong in their ideas
>and politicians may implement the wrong measures and many will suffer
>as a consequence of those ideas as I do think currently is the case)
>
You know that flat earth business is mostly a myth, all educated people
since anaxamander knew the world was round and circled the sun, and
certainly the educated classes knew it since ptolemy.> Economics is as much
of a science as astrology, sure it's ideas that rule the world, well
actually that's not true it's people who  rule the world, they use the ideas
for various purposes.

>A>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
>speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.
>
>	That depends on the individual, I'd say. Someone who experiences
>that kind of things would *know* and not speculate.
>
>Martin
>
Alexis>
>