[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re:Criteria for continuity

Apr 29, 1998 07:05 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck

April 29th

Dear govert:

The test of THEOSOPHY is not in who presents it -- a name or a
presence -- but in the actual PHILOSOPHY.

If that is impersonal and universal, then it is in line with

Wisdom and knowledge are no one's property. If it is being
given away, then one of the criteria is met. No one can lay
claim to Theosophy and charge a fee of any kind. (Whether in
money or in authority.)

No one can claim that they have the one and sole pass-key to
Wisdom, and that following their methods or treating them as an
oracle will take them to ...whatever their hearts desire. That
is the start of a creed. The true teacher sets all his pupils
loose -- out on their own. Seek and find. Is his sole

Is there truth in this ? I think so. Dallas

>From: "Govert Schuller <>
>Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 3:39 PM
>Subject: Re:Criteria for continuity

>>In the ongoing and probably interminable discussion about who
>>and is not a genuine continuation of the effort started by HPB,
>>we cannot get off the ground because no criteria for such
>>judgments are shared.
>Meanwhile we have to be aware of the criteria we use to
determine which
>criteria are valid or not. We might be biased against criteria
which might
>invalidate our own beliefs and other way around. We might
promote those
>criteria we think will advance our own conclusions.
>In this discussion it will be good then to be aware of the
>distinction between 'context of discovery' and 'context of
>of, in this case, 'criteria of continuity.' For example the way
>ring-like structure of--I forgot who and what--a carbon molecule
>discovered during a dream of a serpent eating his own tail
(context of
>discovery), will have little to do with the way the theory will
have to be
>tested and proofed (context of justification). So if I think to
>valid 'criteria of continuity' by closely studying the
implications of my
>own theory regarding the same, they will have to stand on their
own and be
>justified by rational analysis. Otherwise you will get trapped
in circular
>reasoning: Because I believe in the validity of my theory, its
>criteria are valid, and because the supporting criteria are
valid I think my
>theory is validated.
>(This is of course a little critique of Paul's choice of
criteria, which in
>his opinion nicely fit ARE more than its alternatives. But I do
the same and
>we are of course free to do so as long as those criteria can
stand on their
>On the other hand this kind of circularity might be inescapable
for science
>has been accused by some radical epistomologists as being one
grand exercise
>in tautological reasoning with little contact to reality. A more
>position is to state that so-called facts are 'theory-pregnant'
and that
>theories are nothing but abstract facts. So, how to navigate the
>between the cynic's you-can-prove-anything and the skeptic's
>you-can-prove-nothing? I do not know. Just want to thank Paul
for starting
>to peddle.
consisting of

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application