Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00103)

At 08:50 AM 05/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>
>>When HPB was referring to the physical "universe," she was using
>>the word in the same sense as was used by Kant.  That is, she
>>believed that there were numberless island universes.  Today, we
>>call them galaxies.
>
>I am glad to hear this, since the alternative view implied by her ideas of
>universal (taken literally) manvantaras and pralayas applies what I believe
>to be a universal principle inconsistently.  The idea that everything is
>part of something greater implies that there is no ultimate whole, but that,
>infinitely higher and infinitely lower, the same cyclic principle applies.
>It makes much more sense if "universal" manvantaras and pralayas are
>regarded as applying to something definite and limited.
>
Here is an interesting snippet from the general semantic list that may suit
this thread.
Bee

> Subject: Copy of: Re: Infinity and the mind
> From:	Milton L. Dawes, 102362,1465
> TO:	(Unknown), Internet:nonserv@math.uio.no
> DATE:	12/5/96 9:32 AM

Hi Abstractors

This is based on my present understanding of my studies in general-semantics.

I don't  talk of ''infinite entities"  but of "infinite processes." Based on
that proposition,   I accept that  an infinite number does not exist. By a
process of addition I can arrive at another number. Similarly there is no end
(theoretically) to our ability to ' talk', (add to this:  'think' write,
imagine, philosophize, etc.)  and talk about what we have said, and talk about
this ad infinitum.  And there is no end (theoretically) to our ability to
"abstract" (make selections, assign meanings, values, etc) ., to  our
experiences.

Now here is a twist. If we accept that "everything is related";  "that nothing
exists in isolation", then anything in that sense can be considered an
''infinite process''. It then becomes a problem of "where *** we decide****to
put limits, boundaries" etc.;  how **** we decide****  to define anything
-operationally or statically.. For instance: Do we define a chair in terms of
what we see before us? Do we exclude its connections to the floor, to the
manufacturers, to the designers, the transporters, the sellers, advertisers,
buyers, and so on? And whose definition of "idea", or 'egoist', or  '
pornography' , or 'truth' , justice, 'beauty' , etc., is the 'right'   one? And
how do we decide what we mean by  ''right''? As mentioned, there seems to be no
theoretical  end to these puzzles.

A great deal of our problems in understanding ourselves, and others,  can be
attributed to the factor that "we do not explicitly include ourselves in our
pronouncements". We make claims, but  usually forget that we are not just
talking about the world, or things, or whatever,  we are also **** talking about
some of the ways we experience*****   these processes. Students of g-s (as
students) make the effort to include themselves in their propositions. This is
usually done through being aware of themselves as "abstractors", map makers,
formulators, etc. And by reinforcing this and by advertising this  to themselvs
and others, with terms such as "to me", "in my opinion", "according to my
present understanding",  "as I have interpreted", and so on.

We create language. But our language oftens adds to our confusion when we do not
remember that whatever else we 'think' we are 'talking'  about, we are also
talking about ourselves.  WE invent  words like "idea",  ''soul', ''spirit'' and
then spend endless hours discussing what we mean, and what an idea "is". And
what  is the ''soul'', etc.  The gods must be laughing.

That's part of my present abstractions.  I do not say  any of it  is so.

Milton



>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy NZ, TI.

I don't have a solution but
I admire the problem.