Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00259)

Aug 27

Dear Was

I think this is a splendid answer.

Dal

----------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Amerman [mailto:amerman@theosophy.net]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:18 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World RE: The Secret Doctrine as seen by
professional philosophers today

Dear Brian,

You wrote several things of note:
1. <Even philosophy departments at Universitys will
invariable characterize
"The Secret Doctrine" as pre-modernism.>
2. <Daniel Caldwell and others once again disjoint my
postings in order to
find reasons not to answer the points brought up in them.
3. <Dallas: The general theories current when the S D was
written over 110
years ago, are still in place.>
4. <Religions (like Theosophy) have been built up around
factual events,
cultural perspectives of the world and gross elaborations
over time until
they come to be regarded as indisputable fact.>
5. <The above disputes the history of man as claimed on the
Secret
Doctrine.>

May I be allowed a brief reply to each:

1. Why should theosophists care what those in the
philosophy departments
think? My experience with the "professional philosophers"
in those
departments has been that they regard "philosophy" as a sort
of mental
gymnastics, serving no particular purpose except the
development of
arguments. It may be good training for law school, but it
has nothing to do
with the "study of the fundamental nature of the universe"
as eloquently
described by Leon.

2. This is a general complaint and is not substantiated.
Just what
questions do Daniel and the anonymous "others" not answer?
At the same time, I asked you questions and raised issues to
which you have
not replied. See my posts of August 14 and 17. You never
answered my
statements about the theosophical view of "race," the nature
of
consciousness, "the great web of life" nor the purpose of
"The Secret
Doctrine."

3. Dallas is correct in terms of the "general theory" of
modern Science:
that consciousness is a function of form and matter. A
very few
contemporary scientists (e.g., Roger Penrose) have seriously
questioned this
premise, but it is so deeply engrained that you seem totally
unable to
recognize that it is just as much a matter of faith as any
religious
conception.

4. Again, EXACTLY the same thing can be said of YOUR
religion: "Modern
Science has been built up around factual events, cultural
perspectives of
the world and gross elaborations over time until they come
to be regarded as
indisputable fact."

5. All your quoting of high school and college textbooks
about the early
"hominid" forms prove nothing about the inner man. So long
as all you can
see about human beings is what you can dig up and analyze,
AND which fits
your preconceptions derived from your Religion of Science,
the science of
human consciousness will forever elude you.

Best Regards,
Wes




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