Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00435)

be94bmp wrote:
> I have to disagree with you on your remarks made about philosopy and science.
> Philosophy is the study of ideas which characterise the whole, both the
> physical and non-physical realms. 

	I tend to agree with the Mahatmas, that there IS no non-physical realm.

> Science is the proof of the ideas
> presented. Granted,exoteric science is the study of the physical universe,
> but ofcourse one also has the esoteric sciences which study the subjective.

	What, in your opinion, is the difference between the sujbjective and
the objective universe.

> To try to suggest that the two disciplines are the same, ie. simply
> "Science" is I believe not the case, though they can complement each other!

	I believe that is what I was saying.

> Then, there is the philosopy of science which is the study of how to go
> about proving the philosophical ideas through scientific method. I suppose
> this splits the esotericist from the exoteric scientists because they study
> the interplay of the objective and subjective from two different stand
> points.

	Once again, what is the difference between the objective and the
subjective?

> Speaking about mathematics, I would say that mathematics is a subset of
> scientific method. One can use the same symbols to mean something completely
> different as long as you tell others what the symbols in your system
> actually mean. Then you don't lose communication. I think you could suggest
> that languages such as English are mathematical in nature, one "adds" up
> letters to form a word which has definite meaning to the native linguist, but
> to an Englishman who hasn't studied French the "mathematics" are going to be
> incomprehensible.

	Not quite, but close enough for horseshoes and H-bombs.

	Bart Lidofsky