Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tl00022)

Nov 28th 1998

The enclosed is offered in addition to remarks already posted

Dallas

>Date: Saturday, November 28, 1998 8:57 
>From: Pete [mailto:Pete@village.uunet.be]
>Subject: Re: Relativity, synchronisticity, quantum and chaos theories, Black Holes and Dark matter, etc, etc.

Hi Dallas,
can't let this opportunity go by without replying to Jerry
Schuelers' comments regarding Judges' or either of your quotes.
Please post this to the usual server where people get in touch,
as I'm
not acquainted with this stuff.

Thanks, Pete.

FOLLOWS PETE'S REPLY:

Pete's reply to Jerry Schueller:
When either Dallas or Mr. Judge refers to Theosophy as complete
in
itself.
we obviously refer to THEOSOPHY as the "Horn of plenty or
Cornucopia"
as related in the 1st item of the SD where it is said that "The
flashing
gaze of
those seers has penetrated into the very kernel of matter, and
recorded
the soul
of things, where an ordinary profane, however learned, would have
perceived
but the external work of form", and not to the fragments of it as
recorded by
either HPB or Judge. Both we and quantum physicists -however
penetrating
their instruments may be, since the result of what they
interpret, remains on "the external work" of perception- are for
the time being, limited to our brain consciousness and its
ramifications into myriad of theories.  Using  the word
determinism is just a pretext for evading the rationale behind
the theosophical point of view, in the same fasion as people who
say they don't believe in anything, in the mean time not
realising that "not believing in anything" constitutes a belief
as well, or people who say they don't want to phylosophize, not
realising that what they say is a philosophical statement!  Jerry
may not realise that his statement is as guilty of determinism as
the people he blames for the same. When we view nature from a
physical point of view, determinism is obviously present and a
necessity or there would be no evolution at all and that's why
it's been noticed by their adherents, but it is not the final
perception of things!
The "severe limits on the ability of the human mind to understand
things" as Jerry
puts it quite correctly, may be improved upon by adding the word
"lower"
to his
expression of the human mind. If we add to this that intuition is
very
often
the breakthrough experience which allows scientists to improve
upon
their
understanding, we come to realise that there is more to the mind
than we
can see,
* There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy- and it is usually this intuition
which is responsible for the real progress in science! So, is it
"Theosophy that is not complete" or our understanding of things?
Knowledge in itself is just a pronounced or written concept, what
we do need is not more knowledge but more insight in the
knowledge that is already presented, both by science and
Theosophy, and applied insight is Wisdom.
Just as disbelief constitutes a belief as well, so "acausality"
is part
and parcel of the
"reign of law". This concept -and relativity theory as well- has
been
again and again
* albeit with different words- explained by HPB with relation to
the
Arupa states. It is not because "we" do not perceive the "causes"
behind for instance "synchronistic events" that we may conclude
that "causes" are altogether absolutely absent. Twist the words
as much as you can, but from no-thing comes no-thing!
Chaos-theory just points to the fact that life finds its
equilibrium at the verge of order and dis-order and constitutes
in the words of David Bohm exactly an "Implicit Order".
Remember, that in antiquity, the expression Chaos refered to the
homogeneity of undifferentiated cosmic substance -before
differentiation- (do I hear anyone shout pre-big-bang concept ?)
and not to disorder.
Pete.

"W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote:
> Nov 28th 1998
>
> Jerry writes:
>
> Subject: One place where Judge is wrong
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 14:41:39 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> Dallas had written:
>
> It [i.e.., Theosophy] is therefore complete in itself and sees
no
> >insolvable mystery anywhere and hails the reign of law in
> everything and every
> >circumstance.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Jerry comments:
>
> Albeit this misleading idea comes from Judge, it is nonetheless
> deterministic and as dead wrong as determinism. Alas,
> Judge didn't live to see modern chaos theory, or quantum
> mechanics, or even relativity, all of which have put severe
> limits on the ability of the human mind to understand things.
> Theosophy is not complete, there are insolvable mysteries
> which no amount of knowledge accumulation will ever solve,
> and the "reign of law" is not in everything because some
> things, like synchronistic events, are acausal.