Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00024)

Jerry S. wrote:

>Tom:

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

>	OK.  But it can be different in other universes.

>From a non-omniscient being's point of view, anything is possible.  I
don't know how gravity would be different anywhere else.  Clarifying
what is meant by the word "universe" also might be helpful, since, if
it means to not exclude anything, there can only be one of them.  I
find HPB's use of the term "numberless universes" in "The Secret
Doctrine" to be interesting.  I guess this means that she was calling
all that was known to science as our universe, but that there is no
limit to what is beyond what we know about.


>>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.

>	No, I agree with HPB.  But what is "homogeneous matter?"
>She means that spirit and matter per se always exist in some form.
>But material atoms and molecules come and go, just like all
>material forms come and go.  All aggragates or compounds are
>maya, as Buddhism teaches.  In the above quote, HPB is referring
>to Purusha and Prakriti as defined in Hinduism.  This is not spirit
>and matter as we normally think of them, but rather their original states.

This all makes sense to me, assuming I have understood you correctly.
By their "original states," do you mean their homogeneous states, and
by "spirit and matter as we normally think of them," are you referring
to the forms which they comprise?


>every creation must have a creator.  The creator of "homo-
>geneous spirit and matter" is the collective energy of our divine monads,
>which are inherently creative and self-expressive.

If homogeneous spirit and matter are eternal, they could not have had
a creator, assuming the "if it had a beginning, it must also have an
end" rule is universally applicable.


>the purpose of education is to produce a shared
>knowledge.  But even shared knowledge changes over time, thus Newton
>gives way to Einstein, and so on.  Today's truth is often tomorrow's
>error.

That the perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes
with it.  You are implying that there is no reality besides
perception.  Under the assumption that there is, the purpose of
education is to discover that reality, not to create a consensus.  If
there is no objective truth to discover, what purpose is there in
producing shared knowledge?


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

>	It is only one kind.  We only recognize something as
>erroneous after a new perception changes our view of reality.

That is when we recognize the error.  But errors that we do not
recognize are also made.


>On the physical plane, an "error" is usually defined as anything
>that is not shared, or that cannot be corroborated by others.   But
>this definition doesn't work on the inner planes, because so little
>is shared there.

I define "error" as being any lack of perfect accuracy.  No one needs
to be aware of it for it to exist.


>>This is what I meant by pure subjectivism.  It says that there is no
>>reality besides perception.

>	There is no such thing as pure subjectivism.

There is no such thing as a perception which does not have an object,
but there is such a thing as a philosophy of pure subjectivism.  As
long as there is objective reality, it is a false philosophy,
incompatible, as far as I can tell, with the idea that in all
perception, there must be both a subject and an object.


>Our perception
>is always of external objects.  Even when we try to perceive ourself,
>we turn ourself into an external object.  Every subjective I has an
>objective Not-I around it.  This Not-I is as "real" as anything gets.

I agree.  In self-consciousness, there is still a subject and an
object.


>when I dream, I tend to think
>the dream objects around me are real.  They effect me, and so on.
>When I see a dream person and talk to them, I think of them as real.
>Unless its a lucid dream, I only realize the unreality of it all after
>I wake.  Even then, a dream is only unreal in comparison to the
>physical world, which seems very real indeed, during our waking
>state.

This seems to mean that you have self-consciousness while you dream.
I don't.


>>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.

>	It did become error in our minds, which is where it counts.

I agree that reality independent of perception is irrelevant, but that
does not mean it doesn't exist.


>The world was flat when that idea was part of our shared knowledge,
>and it became spherical when that knowledge changed and what was
>once perceived as truth began to be perceived as error.

I don't believe the shape of the earth depends to any significant
degree on anyone's perception of its shape.


>If you want
>to call the fact that the Earth is spherical a truth, then OK.  But this
>fact has little influence in our daily lives, and is simply one of the
>rules of the game of life on Globe D.  It is a good example of how these
>rules can change over time.  As science advances, the rules will
>keep on changing.

If no one sailed past the horizon because they were afraid they would
fall off the edge of the earth, their not knowing that the earth was
spherical might have great influence in our daily lives.  We would
forego all the advantages of knowing the objective truth.


>>That Bill Clinton is President of the United States is
>>not a physical reality.

>	Touche!

But it is an objective reality.


>>A perception is accurate if it is identical to reality.

>	Who, except maybe God, is to say what reality is?

Accurately knowing the accuracy of perception is a different question
from the accuracy of perception.


>I would say that "accuracy" does not pertain to perception
>except in the sense of a consenus with others.

That is based on the premise of their not being any reality besides
perception.  That is what I mean by pure subjectivism.  It contradicts
the idea that there must be a subject and an object for perception to
take place.  Only if there is no object to perceive would accuracy
only mean consensus.


>	Reality is whatever seems to exist relative to the perceiver.
>Reality is not the perception itself, but what is perceived.  Although,
>truth to tell, perception (a characteristic of Fohat) is real enough.

I do not see how your first two sentences do not contradict each
other.  The first says that perception is the only reality.  The
second says there is a reality independently of perception, but I
don't believe you mean to say that.

We are using the word "reality" for two very different concepts.  I
define it as being what exists, regardless of whether or not it is
perceived.  You seem to be saying there is no such thing as what I
call reality, but I don't see how that is compatible with saying that
perception requires there to be an object to perceive.  Are you saying
that objects only exist when they are perceived?  If I were at the
Grand Canyon, looking at it, and you were not, would you say that it
exists for me but not for you?  If this is true, why go to Arizona to
see it?  Why not go to Michigan?


>	The Independently Existing Reality Model is the
>one used by the materialists.  It is not terribly theosophcial
>and I gave it up a long time ago.

I don't see why it has to be materialistic.  My greatest attraction to
Theosophy is the Society's founder's and early leaders' claim to know
universal, objective, metaphysical, eternal truths.


>>Reality is the standard, not consensus.

>	I would appreciate it if you would expound more on what
>you mean by "standard."

The standard does not have to be known in order to exist.  The value
of all perceptions is in how true they are.  How true they are is how
accurately they conform to objective reality.  If your perception is
that the Grand Canyon is in Arizona and mine is that it is in
Michigan, and if it is really in Arizona, your perception is more true
than mine is.


>Reality as changeless objective fact
>can be known only by God himself.

It can only be known perfectly accurately by an omniscient being.  It
can be partially known by anyone.  The value of one's existence
depends to a great extent on the accuracy of perception.


>	Would you rather have a nice pleasant dream or a terrible
>nightmare?

I would rather have truth and reality.


>What I have been saying, is that you can change your
>reality (yourself and the world around you).  In a large sense, this
>is exactly what magic is all about.  I am advocating that we seek a
>higher truth (little t) in the sense of a more pleasant one.  Buddha's
>promise to us was a Path to escape suffering.  Magic is also a
>valid Path to eliminate the sufferring in our lives.

What is the difference between magic and psychosis?  I have always
considered it a step down to "lose touch with reality" and go insane.
That is why the motto "there is no religion higher than truth" means
so much to me.  Insanity is the karma of preferring fantasy to
reality.