Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00082)

Dear Daniel,

It is a well-known facet of the study of occultism that those who 
doubt are prevented from recognizing the truth of that which they 
doubt. The presence of doubt in their minds prevents them from 
realizing the truth of evidence of the validity of that which they 
doubt. We can provide any amount of such evidence, as you are doing 
in a way which is very interesting to me, for instance, but none of 
this evidence has the power to change the mind of one who cherishes 
his doubting stance. 

You plead for a reasonable and fair debate, but it may prove 
impossible for this to happen, if those for whom you wish to open the 

door of understanding prefer to keep it closed. They have their own 
reasons, which we may as well respect, since no efforts are likely to 

convince them until they too have some inner experience which leads 
them to try to peek behind the door of doubt and denial. Until they 
do, as you say yourself, all they have to do is doubt the reality of 
the phenomena you describe for their position to be validated, at 
least to themselves. 

I wonder why people who deny the validity of such phenomena concern 
themselves with it at all? Why do they try to prove that it is all 
fraud, when there are plenty of intelligent and responsible people 
who find it plausible and believable, and who do so with no motive of 

personal gain therefrom? Can it be that these doubters have another 
motive, possibly hidden from themselves, of finding a crack in their 
own argument, a way to peek behind the self-imposed door of 
limitation in their own minds? Unfortunately, this will not happen 
through debate and "scientific" methods. Our materialistic science is 

just not ready to allow for non-material proofs, evidently. 

But we can see, from his own words, that such an eminent and highly 
respected scientist as Einstein, was willing to open this door, and 
did not hide behind doubt and denial:

The most beautiful 
and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of 
the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of 
religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and 
science. He who never had this experience seems to me, 
if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind 
anything that can be experienced there is a something 
that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and 
sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble 
reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am 
religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets 
and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image 
of the lofty structure of all that there is.

from My Credo, by Albert Einstein

One day karma will provide the opportunity for all the doubters and 
deniers to see beyond their self-imposed ring pass not. Perhaps, when 

that time comes, your exhaustive work to provide evidence of that 
mystery referred to by Einstein will give them some clues about the 
immense world beyond, of which the material plane is only a pale 
reflection.

Best wishes,
Adelasie

On 3 Mar 2002 at 7:15, Daniel Caldwell wrote:

> Many persons are thoroughly convinced that some
> paranormal phenomena (i.e., psychokinesis,
> materializations, levitation, etc. ) cannot possibly
> be facts, no matter how well authenticated certain
> cases happen to be. Reports are commonly ignored, or
> shrugged off with only a wisecrack , or at best
> dismissed with offhand general remarks about the
> psychology of deception or of illusion.
> 
> Such persons who dimiss even the best attested reports
> are in so doing only testifying unawares that,
> nothwithstanding, their invoking the name of science,
> they forget that science speaks not thus a priori but
> only after careful inquiry into the facts.
> 
> Such persons have the tendency to assume from the
> outset that every report of materialization,
> levitation, etc. is necessarily mistaken. When such
> critics assert (directly or indirectly) that the
> witness of the facts must necessarily have been
> deceived, they are displaying the inverted credulity
> which assumes that there are no limits whatever to the
> possibilities of deception. Such critics will force a
> normal kind of explanation upon an apparently
> paranormal event by ignoring or trimming or stretching
> the record of the circumstances under which the
> occurrrences took place.
> 
> Some critics have the strategy of subjecting such a
> paranormal event to a minute scrutiny for "possible"
> flaws. Since there is no such thing as the "perfect"
> (whatever that might mean!) experience (or experiment)
> it is just a matter of time and patience before one
> finds such a "hypothetical" flaw. Indeed, if the
> critic is willing to go to any lengths (i.e., ignore
> the rule of "give evidence" and speculate ad
> infinitum) this becomes a game in which he cannot
> lose! It requires only some ingenuity to think up
> some way in which the results might have been flawed
> or faked and, with any luck, apparent "suspicious"
> features can be found or suggested to substantiate the
> critic's conjectures.
> 
> The challenge that "a flaw is possible" or that "fraud
> was possible" is an insurmountable one, since the
> critic can always claim that everyone involved in the
> event was mistaken or lying about any or all of the
> details. Even if the event is repeated, it could be
> claimed that it is "possible" that all involved were
> deceived or deceiving. This impasse shows the
> importance of dealing with the question of direct
> evidence rather than various possibilities.
> 
> The proponent of a paranormal claim and the opponent
> must agree on a procedure for verifying the claim. It
> is evident that unless such an agreement is reached,
> hypothetical arguments concerning claims and
> counterclaims will be, in principle, insoluble.
> 
> Therefore, the only honest approach to the subject is
> to deal with the actual data and evidence with the
> standard rules of evidence and accepted canons of
> logical thinking, and to follow the evidence wherever
> it may lead.
> 
> [The above compiled from various sources.]
> Submitted by:
> 
> =====
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
> their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
> hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
> H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.