Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00960)

Jerry S. wrote:

>Tom:
>>I am not aware of a reason to believe that.  The idea that these laws
>>are fixed, universal, and eternal makes the most sense to me, with the
>>possibility of a higher being deciding them for us being the second
>>most likely.       

>	The "law of gravity" is not a law at all.  Einstein demonstrated
>that gravity is a characteristic of matter in space, not a thing-in-itself.

It is a law of how matter relates to other matter. 


>There is no gravity where there is no matter.  

In the sense that there would be nothing to which the law applied to,
yes.  But in the sense that if there was matter, it would relate to
itself in a certain way, the law would exist even if there was no
matter. 


>Thus gravity changes as matter changes.  

Unique forms of matter relate to each other uniquely only due to their
uniqueness, but the law is the same.  


>It can't be "universal" or "eternal" because matter isn't.  

I infer that you disagree with HPB's idea, as expressed in "The Secret
Doctrine," that homogeneous spirit and matter are eternal.  I see no
reason not to believe it.


>If you like the idea of God making it all up, then go for 
>it.  Thats not much different than the notion that Manus or Cosmocrators
>did it all.  I prefer to think that our spiritual Selves brought it all
>together, or at least had a say in it.

You seem to be saying that if anything exists, someone had to create
it.  Who created homogeneous spirit and matter?


>>What would the word "imaginary" mean, if there is no such thing as a
>>perception that is not identical to reality?

>	Imaginary means somethine that we perceive, that is not
>shared by the perception of others.  Its part of our personal reality.
>Reality, like karma and the unconscious, is both personal and 
>collective.

What would the words "error" and "accurate" mean?  The end result of
what you seem to be saying that there are no differences in value
between perceptions.  They are all equal.  If I perceive that George
Washington is still President of the United States, that is no better
and no worse than if I had perceived that Bill Clinton is President.
The word "education" would be meaningless, if this is true.


>>If I perceived a bridge across the Grand Canyon and tried to walk on
>>it, and instead fell in, in what sense would the bridge have been
>>"real" and why would it be wrong to refer to that perception of the
>>bridge as mistaken?

>	This is a mistake known in the occult world as 
>confounding the planes.  The bridge that you see, and others don't 
>see, is astral rather than physical--a physical bridge would be a 
>shared perception.  We get into all kinds of trouble when we
>perceive inner (astral) reality and mistake it for outer (physical)
>reality.

Does this mean that you would define the word "error" as "confounding
the planes, or is that only one type of error?"  


>I have the right to decide what
>I consider to be truth or false.  You do too.  Sometimes your truth
>and my truth may agree.  Sometimes not.  

Sometimes what one believes to be true is false, and vice versa.


>>That perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes with
>>it.  You are defining away the possibility of error.

>	Depends on how you define error.  I define it as anything
>that is replaced with something new.  As our sense of reality changes,
>we get a new sense of reality, the old being labeled as an error.  Your
>reality may be my error, or vice versa.  When I am dreaming, the dream
>seems very real to me.  After I wake, I can label it error.  This is
>pretty much what we all do.

This is what I meant by pure subjectivism.  It says that there is no
reality besides perception.  I would not label a dream "error," since
the dreamer probably never believes that the images are objectively
real.  But believing that the earth was flat did not become error when
the spherical shape of the earth was discovered.  As long as the earth
was shaped spherically, it was always error.


>>If I perceive a unicorn, the components of that perception must have
>>some reality.  I know what a horn is.  I know what a horse is.  By
>>putting together components of what I know, my perception of a unicorn
>>is possible.  But that doesn't make it accurate.

>	It will not be accurate in the sense that such a being does
>not exist on the physical plane.  But it would be accurate in the
>sense that such a being exists on the mental plane, else you would
>not have been able to invision it.  

I have always thought of imagination as active and creative.  You seem
to be saying that it is passive, more along the lines of physical
observations.  Or would you say that, just as physical forms can be
created by rearranging physical matter, mental forms can be created by
rearranging mental matter?


>You seem to keep wanting to limit reality to the physical plane.  

Not at all.  That Bill Clinton is President of the United States is
not a physical reality.  


>The physical plane is only the tip of a large iceberg, so to speak.

I agree completely.  I have used this very phrase many times to refer
to physical reality.


>>All perceptions are objectively real.  But not only are they
>>not all accurate, I would go so far as to say that none of them are
>>perfectly and completely accurate, but are all partially so, to unique
>>degrees.  

>	What do you mean by "accurate?"  

A perception is accurate if it is identical to reality.  To one who
believes there is no reality besides perception, the term would be
meaningless.  Although I find your theory about the agreements that
people have about what they consider to be "reality" being explainable
in terms of overlapping of perception to be conceivable, I find it far
more plausible to believe that this agreement can be accounted for by
postulating a reality that exists independently of perception.  An
endless supply of examples of how one individual sees that another is
inaccurate in his or her perception could be given as evidence that
objective inaccuracy is possible.  Not without some arrogance,
however.  I actually argue the possibility of the other side with
Objectivists, whose philosophy is based on the premise of an
independently existing reality, since I at least see that whether or
not there is a reality that exists independently of perception can
only be a matter of faith, at least to some extent,  either way.  The
dangers of both Objectivism and subjectivism are similar, in that they
are both prone to equate reality with perception if they go to an
extreme.  For Objectivists, who believe there is an independent
reality, that would result in arrogance, and for subjectivists, who
don't, that would result in having no reason to be careful. 


>Do you mean that others have to agree to it?  

Reality is the standard, not consensus.


>You seem to be saying that our
>overlapping areas, our collective reality, is real but our personal
>reality is unreal.  Do you think that your dreams are unreal too?

All perception is real.


>>The law of karma is objective, as is everything else, in that errors
>>in perceiving it accurately are possible.

>	Again, I don't know what you mean by accurately.  As
>our perception changes, we label what was true as false, and
>assume the new stuff is "accurate."  But this only lasts until
>the next change.  There is no objective accuracy anywhere.  

There is no objective inaccuracy in our own perceptions, of which we
are aware.  But only if there is no reality independent of our
perception is there not objective inaccuracy.


>There is no subjective accuracy anywhere either, because our
>sense of identity changes along with our sense of reality.
>We each have a sense of reality, a sense of identity, and sense
>of time, and so on.  But all of these things change.  

I agree.  Perception of reality changes.


>>I infer that you mean that the law of karma is unique to each
>>planetary chain.  How might it differ in other planetary chains from
>>ours?

>	Depends on how we want to define the law of karma.  If
>we define it as causality, then it may not change much.  If we
>define it as some kind of divine justice, then it will change a great
>deal.  

In other planetary chains, then, perhaps murder is rewarded with
social approval?  I suggest that if this type of difference is
impossible, the law of karma is objective and universal.


>When defined as Order, karma
>is deterministic and logical.  Chaos is undeterministic and illogical. 
>Karma always exists with Chaos, just like subjective always
>exists with objective.

This seems to be similar, if not identical, to my belief that
randomness and determinism always co-exist, just as spirit and matter
do.  But I would not call randomness "illogical."  It is also subject
to law.


>For us, the reality of such beings are separate 
>and external, while for the world's mystics, they are not separate
>at all.  Whose reality is correct?  I think they both are.

I don't see how they could both be true.  Why would the mystic go to
the trouble of discovering that his spiritual Self is not separate
from the self of which most people are ordinarily conscious if it is
not an improvement?


>>I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from
>>the individual of whom I am aware.  

>	For this I am sorry.  Some day, perhaps.  Until
>you become aware of it, I doubt that you will accept much
>of what I am saying.

You're being sorry implies that it would be an improvement for me to
be aware of it, yet you are also saying that there never can be any
improvement in one's perception, since you define perception as
reality.  I don't see how those two contentions can be reconciled.
Why seek truth if I already have it in whatever I perceive? 


>>How could one who is not aware of one's monad become 
>>aware of it without trusting someone else as an
>>authority?  No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be
>>made without faith in others who say it exists.

>	I agree that we have to begin with faith.  At some point,
>though, faith has to give way to experience.  Actually, effort is
>not always necessary.  Some people get this automatically,
>without effort.  Presumably they developed the ability in a past
>life.  

I agree completely.  No other explanation of individuals developing
certain abilities easier than others do makes as much sense to me.