Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00791)

Nov 24 2002

Dear Friend:

In my experience, as along-time student of Nature and of Theosophy, I
would observe:

Theosophy excludes nothing, nor does it set parameters or limits for
consideration. I try not to do those things either. Call me a
liberal who hails common sense as the best safeguard we all can use.

For instance "epistemology" by definition, seems to be an exercise in
personal prejudices. In my "For example," who sets the "methods and
bounds of knowledge?" How are "limits or validity" established ? The
Dictionary gives a pretty nasty , almost dogmatic, meaning to
"epistemology."

It seems to me that subjects for study are innumerable. Observations
are then not subject to
any pre-set limits. What may be validity for one, may be yet
unexperienced by others. The lack of experience ought to cause, at
best, the setting of such statements or observations, aside for
future reference and not for obliteration or concealment.

If any one presumes to set limits, it is obviously (to me) only for
themselves, and no one is capable of obscuring the vision and thought
processes of others.

It is admitted that they may try to do that, but then they cease to be
honest and objective, and are found to have adopted some set of rules
purely their own. They seek to establish and maintain their own
limited orthodoxy. It is not the orthodoxy of Nature, which is
sensitive, responsive and quite immovably heterodox. Nature is
admitted to me the repository of rules and laws which being just, fair
and impartial are the basis for all scientific examination, and also
for human inter-relationships.

In my observation, the realm of NATURE and the UNIVERSE, even our
Earth and our own bodies, have plenty of unexplored regions.

We cannot deny to others the right to discover by investigation. If
however those findings upset preset theories, and hypothesis, that
does not make them suspect, but merely draws our attention to the fact
that the original "ground rules" were not set wide or deep enough.

Let me mention a few areas of ignorance.

Medicine and health are not fully explored, discovered or explained.

The human mind has many recesses left unexplored.

The quality and nature of emotion, and its seeming rule over
rationality makes for many unexplained gaps in psychology.

The "Soul" of man is still to be defined. Some say it is the mind.
some say it is a combination of mind and emotion.

Are emotions and desires different from "thought?"

Is there a "SPIRIT?" If so, where, and how identified?

The urges and motivations of our lives need identifying.

Many regions of science show that active discovery still brings to
light facts -- some of which contradict long established theories.

We notice important advances in mathematics, physics, astro-physics,
and the science of vibration and it transmission and effects.

But what are the "fundamentals" you choose to look at? Could they
also be mine? Are they for all ?

Let me also say that Nature was here long before the last 225 years
that Science (established and codified by Napoleon) was established
by his order to make serious investigations, unsupervised by a
prejudiced and dogmatic clergy.

So too, in philosophy, and in the history of religion and theogonies,
there is much to be examined, compared and adjusted.

Myths and legends need to be examined and codified.

I would say that any limits we set to our considerations are set up by
the lack of experience we have.

But of course, I may have misunderstood you and may be giving the
wrong answers.

I have not found the Theosophical philosophy to be exclusive in any
way, and therefore prefer its "open field" approach to investigation.
I don't think any one will not profit from it.

I find that most who are academy trained today are more trained in
impossible and unproved hypotheses which limit the mind and its innate
freedom. The sooner one can escape from those bonds, the better.

Best wishes,

Dallas.



-----Original Message-----
From: rnewman2003 [mailto:robertnewman@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 7:19 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: Theism Can't Honestly Be Dismissed -- SEEING
GOD

--- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:

...unless we agree that we are studying together and seeking to
discover things together the conversation has not much future.

Dallas, people cannot discover things together unless they agree to
accept the same principles of epistemology. I have stated that the
only proof of the existence of anything, phenomenal or noumenal,
material or transcendental, is direct experience of the same. Either
we have such an experience ourselves, in which case the issue is not
a matter of faith but of certainty, or we accept the possibility on
faith, based on the reported experiences of others whom we find
credible, for one reason or another.

You, on the other hand, seem to accept only possibilities which fall
within the scope of Theosophical metaphysics and psychology. That is
certainly your privilege, and again, if it works for you, I wouldn't
want to disturb you. But in that case there is no question of
fruitful discussion; we're speaking different languages on the most
fundamental level.

Still, as a fellow seeker, I thank you for this stimulating exchange,
and I wish you all the best. Hare Krishna, as we say in the "trade."

:-D

Robert




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