Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00451)

Compiler wrote:
> Note: In all of the 225 places that this
> letter was mailed to, I have
> leonmaurer@aol.com as the "Reply To" address,
=====cut

Leon's letters in general tend to 
suggest to me that they might get some 
people interested in interpretations 
towards forms of universe modeling that 
might additionally be interpreted as 
having or possibly having some kind of 
Theosophical or possibly Theosophical 
aspect to them. For all I know there 
might be ways of "translating esoterics" 
or of offering "exoteric versions" into 
a kind of "scientific language" that 
might make for a wider interest in 
Theosophy. The following quote from 
Blavatsky's STUDIES IN OCCULTISM (p82) 
seems to me as if it might be seen to 
have some relevant aspects with respect 
to the topic of "science and Theosophy" 
in general, (though students of 
Theosophy, eg, one might want to 
distinguish between various kinds of 
scientific particulars and biases ...).

<<Unconscious of their error, the 
psycho-physiologists identify the 
compound elements of psychic activity 
with that activity itself hence the 
conclusion from the standpoint of the 
analytical method, that the highest, 
distinctive speciality of the human soul 
— free-will, spontaneity — is an 
illusion, and no psychic reality. But as 
we have just shown, such identification 
not only has noth­ing in common with 
exact science, but is simply 
impermissible, as it clashes with all 
the fundamental laws of logic, in 
conse­quence of which all these 
so-called physico-biological deductions 
emanating from the said identification 
vanish into thin air. Thus to trace 
psychic action primarily to motion, 
means in no way to prove the "illusion 
of free-will." And, as in the case of 
water, whose specific qualities cannot 
be deprived of their reality al­though 
they are not to be found in its 
component gases, so with regard to the 
specific property of psychic action: its 
spontaneity cannot be refused to psychic 
reality, though this property is not 
contained in those finite elements into 
which the psycho-physiolo­gist 
dismembers the activity in question 
under his mental scalpel.>>

I tend to feel that as long as Leon's 
ABC's or anybody's "science-related 
perspective" or modeling is interpreted 
as having taken into account (as I 
suspect that Leon's approach, in 
general, might be interpreted) what HPB 
was trying to say in that quote, then 
... are we to think that, where such 
account taking might be seen to exist, 
that because of that there would not be 
too many problems (and instead definite 
benefits ...) with such 
"exoteric/science-related 
versions"---short of, possibly, some 
problems that might be brought on by a 
general lack of understanding of 
scientific particulars, maybe, in some 
cases ... Since I tend to think of 
myself as one of those who might be seen 
to be lacking in the kind of scientific 
particulars that might help to throw 
more light on the likes of Leon's ABC's, 
what can I say, speculatively or 
otherwise ...

To me, not being a scientist per se in 
any particularly "scientific," as 
opposed to speculative, direction, the 
scientific aspects of Leon's ABC's 
(where/if they might be seen to be 
exoterized/interpreted or separated from 
the esoteric/experiential ...) seem to 
boil down to images/notions about 
"bubbles within bubbles" and "zero 
points," while, at the same time, that 
kind of ABC modeling tends to give me 
the impression that it might tend to be 
generally interpreted in a way that 
might appear reasonable (or more than 
reasonable ...) by way of Theosophical 
modeling or precedents. And so I tend 
to wish Leon best wishes towards his 
efforts (while scratching my head 
occasionally).

Speculatively,
Mauri