Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00303)

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Re: What can we learn? What is our position ?


Dear Terrie:



I think that you will consider also a third position.

This one frees us from limitations. It gives a fulcrum around
which one may achieve balance in a welter of confusion and
opinions.

There is the position of the Witness, the Observer -- who is able
to see "both sides" of an argument, but is essentially detached,
considering the opinions and deciding which are most reasonable.


Now this may be called: "out and out fundamentalism."

I say that is no insult, it is fact an expression of envy.

Nor does it in any way demean those that invoke and use it. It
is a recognition by those who are disorganized and the
argumentative of something they are incapable of fragmenting or
of confusing.

So they try to give the "poor dog" a bad name. And they devoutly
hope that the average reader will not investigate, and assure
themselves of the existence, and use, of this most valuable tool
which gives every one their deserved independence, and forms the
first and most basic step in THINKING independently.

Every argument emphasizes one side.

The best position I think, is to take no partisan position but
consider them all. Look then, like a "Judge" for the principles
that are at the base of any "position." Are they valid? Do they
represent the "common-sense" attitude? Do they deal fairly and
offer "an even field?" Do they pay the respect due to readers:
that they too can think ?

Theosophy was once described as "sanctified common-sense." Well
is it so? Or is this not so ?

Let's take an example: the Laws of chemistry, mathematics,
physics, astronomy, biology, are not "partisan."

While there may be differences in the language used in making
descriptions and recording experimental changes, they do not
alter the way people talk or the writing as such.

A student of "Science" and an investigator learns the language,
or jargon of his particular choice of scientific work. The
broader the interest, the more departments of Science that are
covered, the broader becomes the vocabulary used in description.
They lay-man has to really stretch his education to encompass
that which the man of science has taken years of training to
develop ways of expressing detail into brief phrases, and
specialized words.

But as you wade through masses of description and speculation our
Minds always turn back to fundamentals in those SCIENCES. Those
FUNDAMENTALS invariably from the link between discovery and
already established expressions of laws that have been proved to
exist.

Take the example of Mathematics which has arithmetic as a base,
and is always true to that. Physics uses measurements (based on
widely accepted conventions) to precise the conditions of
temperature, pressure, and purity of substance for its base of
description. Chemistry depends on a study of the physical
interactive of qualities, variability of conditions, and
selected, measured quantities of substances, their purity, the
temperature of a reaction, the pressure under which it takes
place and many other factors. When one passes to Biology, the
factors that may apply are vastly increased. And when one passes
to a consideration of Psychology and the Logic of thinking the
factors are almost infinite in their details. Yet to make them
clear to the average mind there are certain simple norms that can
be found and used.

The most fundamental of all are the following:

1	I exist. [Complexity arises when attempting to describe what I
as consciousness is.]

2.	The Universe (as my surroundings of all dimensions) exists.
Nature establishes ALL.

3.	There is a continuity of lawful and recordable relations
between myself and my environment -- the Universe -- symbolized
by the Earth and its complexities. Law and Laws simplify and
exist.


However when all is said and done, description is ultimately
based on the fact that NATURE first established those conditions.
It has innate to it the LAWS that regulate both organization and
apparent chaos. It precedes the examination by any Science, and
it demands that the Observer be accurate and entirely TRUTHFUL in
his reports. No opinions are permitted at that stage.

What often happens next is that Science turns speculative and
seeks to establish "probable cause." In that attempt, unless, it
has for tools a knowledge of the 7-fold Universe, it goes astray
as purely PHYSICAL causes can never explain the facts in their
entirety.

Example: Take mathematics. The facts of addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division are used all the time, but what
underlies them? One might say ALGEBRA, where letters are used to
signify independent factors. But the equations remain unchanged.

And underlying algebra one can see graphic representations in
terms of Geometry.

Under GEOMETRY we have the Science of measurements based on
ratios. These are arbitrary because, while we might select
certain standards on our Earth ( as the metric system, for
instance ), those measurements might not pertain to conditions on
Venus or Jupiter or planets in the Andromeda Nebula. But the
mathematical ratios are invariable. Under those are the
fundamental Laws of Evolution and of the innate urge for the
continual striving of the individual to universalize himself.
This has been expressed as : "The Universe grows I." Or : "We
widen out to the Universe and discover we are ONE."

So for "thinking," "emotion" and "common-sense" -- there are
norms and specific bases, which Theosophy tries to show to us are
COMMON in all ancient philosophies and religions without any
exceptions. Is this wrong? is the so-called "fundamentalism"
wrong? Is it inaccurate? Simply because it happens to be "Old" ?
Is mathematics to be discarded simply because it is invariable ?
Are "measurements" to be discarded simply because of their age or
their complexity? Or is it just possible that WE NEED TO GROW
UP and perceive their value -- not one of sentiment, but one of
hard pure reasoning and fact ? Of universally demonstrable fact?

This is difficult in our modern world, where: 1. the concept of
soul immortality is generally rejected. 2. the idea of
progressive learning and self-education through many, many
reincarnations is rejected. 3. The gradual progress from the
relative "ignorance" of an 'atom,' to the "WISDOM" of a
Professor is not perceived. 4. The identity of the said "atom"
to the "indefinable vastness of our Universe" is rejected as a
continuity. 5. The Spiritual Universe is rejected. 6. The
Brotherhood of the WISEST of MEN is scoffed at. 7. the ability
of perceive the Law and the Laws of CAUSE producing definite
measurable effects is rejected.

Yes, Theosophy is unpopular in some quarters because it advises
caution and referral to the records that have descended to us
from antiquity when these things were well known and discussed.

We like to think we are discovering, whereas we are only opening
up the facts and verifying the ancient statements again.

Survival of the fittest has not become survival of the WISEST,
but survival of a short while in a deteriorating physical frame
of the sly and the inept who use guile and might to achieve a
base ascendancy over their more moral and truly wiser companions
in life. But we end to extend our vision over several lives to
truly be able to see the relative value and effects of "virtue"
vs. "vice."

Complex? Yas, cuz we makes it so!

Best wishes,

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Terrie H
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:21 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Chat? Why is we what we is ?

Hi,

I'm sorry to be adding my 0.02 cents but as I watch
this debate take place it truly feels like I'm
exploring "survival of the fitest" theory in
motion/activity as and within the means of its
conveyence. So, I end up wondering what that means or
if that is truly a most desirable process for
understanding (or, proofing) these kinds of concepts.
It's interesting "mode" to insert.

I think to myself, ...."but, I still do not think/feel
that science and spirit study should truly oppose each
other".

Further, I believe there is great interest/utility in
understanding the "machine" and/as also the "mechinism
of life".

I know that I would not prefer to see myself studied,
examined nor classified strickly (and, only) by my
mechanics alone -cuz- well, yeah, that's just how
Llife is/thinks/feels/reacts (connects) and I for 1
intend to extend that courtesy (and, yeah, that's like
a privilage).

So/also, I think theories as such reincarnation,
karma, masters, "materializations" and/or "toe" are
subjects in and of themselves and aside from whatever
intersting "informations gathered/not gathered
(understood/not understood) and proved/not proved by
mankind's history/researches/"discoveries" thus far.

It's all very interesting I think - it's like
"complexual" .)

Have a BEAUTIFUL day,

Terrie




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/