Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00246)

Dear Bart
Sorry for taking so long but the weekend leaves me little time. I have responded in a question,answer format as follows.
Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com> wrote: 



Bart Lidofsky wrote:
Cass Silva wrote:
> As these ideas were so revolutionary at the time and HPB was not a
> native english speaker or writer of english, language
> misinterpretations may have occured which were cleared up by
> KootHoomi. I do not believe that the truth was misinterpreted, but
> there arose a need for words to describe the undescribable and when
> this happens the words are misinterpreted but never the message.

B: That is why I use the following rule in reading the primary literature: 
If the Secret Doctrine differs from current scientific knowledge, I look 
for the following:

1) Am I making assumptions which are not necessarily warranted?

C: I think it is a good starting point, but "current scientific knowledge" needs to be verified in the same way. As an example of this, 20 years ago the corpus callosum was severed in severly handicapped Epileptic patients.(To control their seizures) They cut off the right and left brain connection by severing the Corpus Callosum- the nerve system connecting left and right brain hemisphere activity. They cut something like 2 billion nerve cells connecting Left and Right brain hemispheres, leaving an abyss. Think it is also called split brain surgery. What Science discovered was that after the disconnection, the left hand took on a will or mind of its own, becoming alien to the rest of the body. The right hand in fact didnt know what the left hand was doing. One of the patients said that she feared that her left hand would attack her beloved cats and her greatest fear was that she wouldn't be able to stop it. 

Science to try and make sense of it, postulated the theory that when the brain is split, two identities can emerge and more or less fight for control. These two identities, ipso facto, must have two separate consciousnessess. They even gave an example of how people with a fully operational Corpus Callosum can sometimes find themselves singing for no reason, and they (Science) postulate that this is the other consciousness. -Although left and right brain are merged in this case, "the other consciousness" can sometimes appear "out of the blue" and start singing! (I use layman's terms, but please look up the Web and you will get more scientific data).

This to me is the silliest notion I have ever heard of, Science cannot begin to understand anything beyond sub-conscious in one identify, but now they are postulating sub-conscious in two identity's sharing the same brain and operating at the same time? One consciousness operates through the brain, the other operates through the Hand. If nothing else, wouldnt it be easier to admit that "intelligence" is in every organ of the body, and start a new theory based on that assumption (and the observational fact) that the hand is intelligent enough to demand its own way. And this Brain Hand requires the intervention of supreme willpower to stop it, temporarily. But no, they are trying to make of us double brained monsters to make sure that their original theory is not bastardised. Their theory now is Two Heads are Better than One!!

Let's hope they never "prove" it (in their terms) as, can you imagine the legal ramifications, I didn't do it, my hand did. The punishment, cut off the hand, then what? the consciousness simply transfers itself to the left leg! It is funny, but very scary.

They are basing their hypothesis on the assumption they postulate as fact.

2) Is there a way of interpreting the words to conform with current 
scientific knowledge?

C: I guess it is a matter of finding out whether the horse (Theosophy)comes before the cart (current scientific knowledge), or the cart comes before the horse?


3) Is there any evidence that this comes from information that was 
received second-hand, which is incorrect?

C: Yes, information can be distorted by the receiver, unless the two minds are of "like" nature, the essence (truthful information) can be lost on some. 

B: "What does modern science know of force proper, or say the forces, the 
cause or causes of motion? How can there be such a thing as potential 
energy, i.e., an energy having latent inactive power since it is energy 
only while it is moving matter, and that if it ever ceased to move 
matter it would cease to be, and with it matter itself would disappear?"

C:

Force Proper - (and) the cause or causes of motion? There are two concepts rolled into one here. Force is Energy or Power. Motion is Activity or Movement. Force causes Motion. and while it is "Force" when it is moving matter. It is "something else" when it is not moving matter (a something, which has the propensity to move matter if it is willed into action). 

I could be, and probably am, totally off the mark here, as I said, I am a layman and one of our onboard scientists may be able to verify or discredit this analyzation of mine.


B: The reason why I often use this statement as an example is that it 
clearly shows that the Koot Hoomi is clearly using an incorrect 
definition of the term, "potential energy". Give the definition that he 
is using, he is most probably correct, but if you ignore the definition, 
then he is wrong. There IS such a thing as potential energy, but it is 
NOT what is being described.

So, applying the three tests:

1) One might assume that Koot Hoomi is personally familiar with 
then-current knowledge of physics, and knew what was meant by the term 
"potential energy."

C: Again, as a non scientist, I do not know whether 1899 Science was using these terms to describe the then-current knowledge of physics, but if they were not, and the terms were say, novel for that period, then it implies that KH and HPB understood that a "prophet is never recognized in his own time" and that, we, the future generations, clearly would understand the terms. Otherwise, he and HPB would have been conducting an exercise in futility, if they were exposing truths in language that no one would understand 100 years hence.

B:
2) By looking at the definition rather than the term, it DOES fit with 
current scientific knowledge.

C:Do you mean the definition of Potent is Powerful, the definition of Impotent is Powerless, so Potential Energy is a force of power?


B: 3) Since this was an answer to a letter written by a non-physicist, it 
is not unreasonable that the letter contained the term "potential 
energy" with the incorrect definition.

B: It has been theorized, and has so far stood up to all experimentation, 
that humans can only think in terms of symbols. The problem with symbols 
is that they can be manipulated into something self-contradictory, and 
therefore meaningless. For example:

The sentence on the next line is false.
The sentence on the previous line is true.

C:The paradox is that neither sentences say anything in the real world other than what is true is false and what is false is true. Meaningless, they both negate each other.

In terms of humans only being able to think in terms of symbols. Are you referring to Metaphors, Simile's, Analogies Parables?otherwise, I am the exception to the rule because a symbol to me (e.g. crop circle) is a piece of art and nothing more. Whatever it symbolises it keeps to itself, it hold's within its essence the meaning, if any. And even that must be subjective as it's symbol is a reflection of it's own reality or subjective experience. Symbolists will probably be raising their arms in defence, but any potent symbol, is so, because it has been impregnated with human thought,desire and will, and is not powerful in itself. Anyway, That is my opinion.



B: We appear to have a paradox. What we have is a bunch of glowing 
phosphors on a screen, or a bunch of drops of inks on a piece of paper, 
that appear to create a meaningful pattern, but in fact create a 
meaningless pattern. 

C: Although it produces a "meaningful pattern" or a "meaningless pattern". It produces or replicates the same pattern therefore stands as a fact that certain combinations produce certain effects and remains within its evolutionary nature. It is true to itself.

B: While I would not go as far as the late 
philosopher, Jacques Derrida, in his theories of Deconstructionism, he 
DID have a good basic point that language is always ambiguous.

C: and elusive

Bart



Looking forward to your comments

Have a good Christmas

Cass


Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com> wrote:
Cass Silva wrote:
> As these ideas were so revolutionary at the time and HPB was not a
> native english speaker or writer of english, language
> misinterpretations may have occured which were cleared up by
> KootHoomi. I do not believe that the truth was misinterpreted, but
> there arose a need for words to describe the undescribable and when
> this happens the words are misinterpreted but never the message.

That is why I use the following rule in reading the primary literature: 
If the Secret Doctrine differs from current scientific knowledge, I look 
for the following:

1) Am I making assumptions which are not necessarily warranted?
2) Is there a way of interpreting the words to conform with current 
scientific knowledge?
3) Is there any evidence that this comes from information that was 
received second-hand, which is incorrect?

For example, in Mahatma Letter #65 (by the way, anybody who wants to do 
serious Theosophical research should get a copy of THEOSOPHICAL 
CLASSICS; for $24.95, it's an incredibly useful tool, containing ISIS 
UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE, THE MAHATMA LETTERS, THE COLLECTED 
WRITINGS OF H.P.B., and several other sources):

"What does modern science know of force proper, or say the forces, the 
cause or causes of motion? How can there be such a thing as potential 
energy, i.e., an energy having latent inactive power since it is energy 
only while it is moving matter, and that if it ever ceased to move 
matter it would cease to be, and with it matter itself would disappear?"

The reason why I often use this statement as an example is that it 
clearly shows that the Koot Hoomi is clearly using an incorrect 
definition of the term, "potential energy". Give the definition that he 
is using, he is most probably correct, but if you ignore the definition, 
then he is wrong. There IS such a thing as potential energy, but it is 
NOT what is being described.

So, applying the three tests:

1) One might assume that Koot Hoomi is personally familiar with 
then-current knowledge of physics, and knew what was meant by the term 
"potential energy."
2) By looking at the definition rather than the term, it DOES fit with 
current scientific knowledge.
3) Since this was an answer to a letter written by a non-physicist, it 
is not unreasonable that the letter contained the term "potential 
energy" with the incorrect definition.

It has been theorized, and has so far stood up to all experimentation, 
that humans can only think in terms of symbols. The problem with symbols 
is that they can be manipulated into something self-contradictory, and 
therefore meaningless. For example:

The sentence on the next line is false.
The sentence on the previous line is true.

We appear to have a paradox. What we have is a bunch of glowing 
phosphors on a screen, or a bunch of drops of inks on a piece of paper, 
that appear to create a meaningful pattern, but in fact create a 
meaningless pattern. While I would not go as far as the late 
philosopher, Jacques Derrida, in his theories of Deconstructionism, he 
DID have a good basic point that language is always ambiguous.

Bart




Yahoo! Groups Links










---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]