Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00083)

Paul wrote, in part: << Analysis is 
indifferent to the results. It's
only motive is to persue the truth 
whever it may fall. >>

I suspect that any "analysis" is only as 
impartial (in whatever sense) as the 
basic assumptions that led to it, so how 
can one's basic assumptions (per 
karma/maya) in the form of one's 
worldview, or in the form of whatever 
offshoot of one's worldview, be seen as 
impartial, except as per some basically 
karmic/mayavic/conditional sense (not 
that that kind of sense isn't often seen 
as "true enough," obviously enough) ... 
And not that one might not have 
persuaded oneself that karma/maya and 
conditional reality/truth doesn't leave 
a lot of room for various kinds of 
impartiality, in whatever creative 
sense. So you might have a point there, 
Paul, in your way. I personally don't 
believe in any kind of "real 
impartiality" for a second, though. In a 
basic sense, I think that "impartiality" 
could be used only conditionally, but 
even there if the conditions are not all 
known ... Who is to say/define what are 
all of the conditions making up a given 
conditional "truth"... Seems to me that, 
basically, that's an impossible task. 
Not that people, in general, aren't used 
to lots of limited, creative 
(karmic/mayavic) definitions for 
conditional truths. So I think you 
might have a point, there, Paul, in your 
way, up to a point, but ...

Speculatively,
Mauri