Re: Theos-World Re: Einstein's personal library
May 20, 2004 01:17 PM
by leonmaurer
In a message dated 05/18/04 12:45:05 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> Since the original statement is based on
>> information that is not scientifically or logically arrived at, and
>> therefore, not claimed as a "known" fact.
>
> Then why did so many people get angry at me when I pointed that the
>evidence was inconclusive? Why are several people saying that simply
>making the statement that he had a copy of the Secret Doctrine
>establishes it as fact, until someone disproves it? And, unless I have
>proof that he did NOT read the Secret Doctrine, I have no right to bring
>up the possibility that he didn't?
Ask them. I never said I knew for certain Einstein had the book. I just
reported what I heard from others that appeared credible. And, it's only my
personally considered opinion that it is a certainty that he, at least, read the
book.
>
>> If you do not believe the presumptive
>> conclusion, then the burden of "disproof" lies with you. If you can't do
that,
>> then all you can do is say is, "I don't believe it." But, according to
your
>> criteria, you would be saying, "Einstein did not read the Secret Doctrine."
>
> There is a third option, which you are ignoring: "It is inconclusive
>whether or not Einstein read the Secret Doctrine." And, there are
>degrees of uncertainty within that.
I didn't ignore that option. I just thought it was so obvious that it needn't
be mentioned -- since I took the same direction you did in your previous
letter by simplifying your argument into a form that could be negated by reversal.
Sorry if that satirical approach fell like a lead balloon.:-)
My assumption that Einstein read the SD -- besides study of his papers and
early letters to other scientists and their comparison to information in the SD
-- was mainly based on Richard Feynman's statement that Einstein did not rest
his theory on any previous "scientific work." Isn't it strange that Einstein
proved the four fundamental ideas that entirely vindicates the theosophical
metaphysics -- that most scientists at the time completely denied (without
proof, by the way)?
Namely:
(1) -- That matter and energy are equivalent.
(2) -- That light is the mediator between matter and energy.
(3) -- That light is electrical in nature. And,
(4) -- That light acts as both a wave and a particle...
All of that being totally obvious and fully explained in the SD to any
discerning and intuitive student... Especially to one with an advanced educational
background in chemistry and physics. But that doesn't "prove" anything (except
to me :-). Or, does it? The SD was a best seller worldwide at the time of
Einstein's late teens, when he decided to get a degree in physics. How could
he have muissed it -- since it spoke, scientifically, to the same questions he
was asking himself since he was a young boy?
Leon
> Bart
>
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application