Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tt00100)

Oct 21 1999

Dallas Asks:

Does not any reasoning require a Reasoner?  If we can determine in us
where and what are the faculties and powers of the Reasoner are, would
we not be able to answer this ourselves?

Who are "We?"  		Mind - Soul  (which of the three?)  - Atma - Buddhi -
Manas - Kama (desire)  ?  Or some combination of these?  Can we use
the KEY TO THEOSOPHY to discover what HPB defined as the "Reasoner ?"

Which are "we" taking to be the reasoner?  And if we select any or all
of those how do we use Theosophical psychology to determine which is
active ?

As I see it,  the Mind faculty includes the power to reason from
premises to conclusions, using the rules of logic -- which are akin to
mathematics, and prevail in metaphysics as well as ordinary thought.

If we get our basis right, and our definitions clear, then the path of
discovery (which each has to use for himself to arrive at any
satisfactory proof) is entered.

Pat answers rarely help.  An organized way to approach any problem
does.

Best wishes,

Dallas

Dallas
dalval@nwc.net 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Teos9@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:21 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World self-evident truths


In a message dated 10/20/99 8:14:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WLR7D@aol.com
writes:

<< Give me an example of where good reasoning has harmed man.
  >>

Randy,

First, my definition of "good" reasoning. It must include the
functions of
both sides of the brain, conscious and subconscious, rational and
abstractional, verbal and nonverbal, deductive AND inductive. I think
this
may be where we are having trouble understanding each other.

<<The other stuff--visions, holy books, mentors, tradition,
authority, religions, etc.--gets us in trouble since it usually shifts
the
revelation of truth to someone other than ourselves who through
casuistry
does great damage to man. (This does not say such sources may not
bring us
truth by appealing to our reasoning powers.)  But since these others
always
seems to ultimately have there own interests most at heart, the
followers
eventually suffer.>>

Oh my, that's a very broad brush you are painting with. It suggests
all the
areas that you do not experience directly and are willing to write
off, as
not useful or irrelevant. Be careful Randy, here lies the path of the
cynic,
a creature quite different from the skeptic.

<<Give me an example of where good reasoning has harmed man.>>

As I said before, Good reasoning does not harm humans, but faulty
reasoning
has. What I hear you saying is a defense of faulty reasoning. Purely
intellectual reasoning (rationalizing) without its intuitive
(abstractional)
counterpart is faulty and destined to cause more problems than it
solves.

1: The solution to human violence is, more violence. (wars & capital
punishment)
2 Antisocial behavior of the poor is solved by legislation passed by
the
wealthy (laws, laws and more laws, all empty of insight)
3: The answer to the costliest and poorest public education program in
history, is to throw more money at it. (We are graduating an endless
stream
of  functional illiterates)

Will this do for starters?

Louis



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.