Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00249)

Cass Silva wrote:
> 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.
Which means that one should differentiate between knowledge and 
pragmatism. In general, science takes off when mathematics can be 
applied to it. For example, it is one thing to say that use of a certain 
fertilizer will increase crop yield. But if you can say that use of that 
fertilizer will increase crop yield by precisely 83%, then you are on to 
something you can expand into new knowledge.

> 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?
Truth is truth. But if advanced concepts are known without the basic 
underlying concepts, then mistakes can be made in the explanation. For 
example, someone might say that electricity flows through wires like 
water flows through pipes, but if you say that to someone who as no 
experience with electricity, they can easily get a very wrong idea. And 
if they explain it to a third party, then the third party can get a 
completely wrong idea.

> 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).
Force is a matter of definition. It is equal to (or proportional to, 
depending on the units you're using) to mass times acceleration.

> 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,
They were. This is Newtonian physics. Here's a good definition of 
potential energy (and was the definition back then, too):

"Potential energy, expressed in science as U, is energy that is stored 
within an object, not in motion but capable of becoming active. When at 
rest, every object has rest mass potential energy; if the object is in a 
position to be affected by gravity and to fall, it has gravitational 
potential energy. Once an object is in motion, potential energy is 
converted to kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion.

There are a number of kinds of potential energy. The pendulum of a 
clock, at the top of its swing, has gravitational potential energy which 
is converted to kinetic energy as it falls. Elastic potential energy is 
present in an object that can be stretched out and rebound, like an 
elastic. The potential energy is stored when an elastic is stretched, 
and converted to kinetic energy when the elastic is released. Other 
types of potential energy include chemical, which is related to the 
formation of chemical bonds and electrical, expressed as voltage."

> 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.
That's pretty much what I said.

> 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. 
Language is entirely composed of symbols. Do you think in language?

Bart