Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00242)

Uh, the Kali Yuga is here and has been for some time now.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
 
In a message dated 1/9/2009 5:24:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
jpfulton314@cox.net writes:

 
 
 
Agreed. 

Which moral points of view need presented? 

How to  do it?

--- In _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) ,  
"Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> wrote:
>
> Joe, as one can  read in one of the Mahatma Letters, science has to
include moral and ethics  - otherwise the kali yug will come.
> Frank
> 
> -----  Original Message ----- 
> From: Joseph P. Fulton 
> To: _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com)   
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:45 AM
> Subject: Theos-World  Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> 
> 
> Again,  extending the apologies to M. Sufilight to you and Morten.
> 
>  I'm reminded of the horrified response of John Maynard Keynes when he
>  opened the chest of Newton's writings that he purchased at auction. 
>  He was expecting scientific treatises, and he got alchemy!
> 
>  One of the "salients" in Western materialistic thought is the very
>  notion of "matter" itself. Since Einstein proved with the equation
>  E=MC2 (sorry, no superscript) that matter and energy are convertible,
>  the whole paradigm has been on a slippery slope. The major question
>  which needs answered now is the one of consciousness. Science is
>  heading closer towards the boundaries of matter and consciousness by
>  becoming better able to see the links. It will be interesting for all
>  of us to see what they find. Perhaps none of us will like the answer.
>  
> Joe
> 
> --- In _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) ,  
Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't  read Dawkins but wouldn't mind a brief synopsis of this
> theory.  However, found this in my archives which may stimulate debate
> >  Cass
> > A CRITIQUE OF WESTERN SCIENCE
> > The technological  triumphs of science over the past 300 years - of
> which Newtonian  Physics is considered the foundation - provided strong
> support for the  concept that the universe was entirely a physical
> phenomenon  associated with the concepts of Philosophical Materialism. 1
> >  Ironically, this is not a position embraced by Newton himself. For
> him  the creation of the Universe was inconceivable without divine
>  intervention of a superior intelligence or Creator. Newton believed
>  God created the universe as a system governed by mechanical laws and
>  once it had been created, it could be studied and understood as such.
>  > "However, whilst Newton's followers kept the image of the  universe
> as a deterministic super machine, they disposed of the notion  of an
> overlighting intelligent creative principle as an unnecessary  and
> embarrassing leftover from the 'irrational' dark ages. Sensory  data
> about material reality ('objective' data) became the only  permissible
> source of information in all branches of science."  (Stanislav Grof) 2
> > The concept that the universe was essentially  a 'material' system
> operating under the laws of Newtonian Mechanics  reflected the basic
> metaphysical assumption of Philosophical  Materialism and, because it
> seemed to describe so well much of what  has been observed about the
> Universe, it came to dominate entirely the  thinking in all disciplines
> of science including biology, medicine,  psychology, psychiatry etc.
> From the perspective of philosophical  materialism, 'matter' is the
> elemental stuff comprising the universe  and logically the scientific
> discipline concerned with the study of  'matter' - namely physics -
> became the pre-eminent scientific  discipline to which all other
> disciplines were subordinate. 3
>  > "The determined application of this logic ensured that the  findings
> of other disciplines were not allowed to be in conflict with  the basic
> theories of physics, resulting in the systematic suppression  or
> misinterpretation of findings in many fields that could not be  brought
> into consonance with the materialistic worldview." (Stanislav  Grof )4
> > As Grof quite rightly states:
> > "This strategy  was a serious violation of the basic principles of
> science. Strictly  speaking, scientific theories apply only to the
> observations on which  they are based and they cannot be automatically
> extrapolated to other  disciplines. Thus for example, theories about
> the human psyche should  be based on observations of psychological
> processes, not on the  theories that physicists have made about the
> material world. ... The  criterion for the validity of scientific
> findings and concepts in a  certain area should be based on the rigour
> of the scientific method  with which they were obtained and not on the
> compatibility with the  theories of another field " (Grof) 5
> > Exacerbating this situation  has been the tendency of many scientists
> to adhere - without  questioning - to outdated theories taught to them
> by their mentors and  peers and then mistake them for being accurate
> and definitive  descriptions of reality.
> > This distortion of the scientific  principle has become so entrenched
> within contemporary Western Culture  - that any new evidence suggesting
> that the basic paradigm underlying  the contemporary scientific
> understanding of reality may be flawed -  is routinely dismissed
> without proper investigation. No other better  example of this sort of
> behaviour can be found than with Darwin's  Theory of Evolution.Thus,
> despite the lack of any empirical evidence  in support of it, and the
> growing list of seemingly insurmountable  technical 'problems'
> associated with the finer details of the theory,  Darwinists continue
> to argue that the mutation - selection mechanism  associated with the
> theory must have produced the changes required for  the evolution of
> new life forms - not because the mechanism has been  observed to work
> or that there is some irrefutable scientific proof of  the same - but
> rather because their guiding philosophy assures them  that in the
> absence of an
> > overlighting 'Creative  Principle', no other means is available to
> do the job. In other words,  the theory must be right because in their
> eyes, there is no  alternative! 6
> > In a sense the scientific community has forgotten  its purpose
> (raison d'etre) and the underlying ethic pertaining to  that purpose.
> > True scientific procedure calls for keeping an open  mind to all
> phenomena whilst maintaining a questioning attitude at the  same time
> and being prepared to modify or dispose of any theory that  no longer
> accommodates evidence collected in a systematic  manner.7
> > Today most academics professing to be scientists do not  observe this
> process - but rather display anuncriticaladheren process - but rather dis
> philosophy taught them by their peers and superiors  and because of
> this, they tend to ignore or treat as 'unreal'  phenomena that do not
> fit into the orthodox paradigm of reality.  8
> > This process has resulted in contemporary science becoming  ensnared
> in a very limited view of reality and the nature of the  universe. This
> position is summed up succinctly by Cornell University  professor,
> William Provine, who said:
> > "... modern science  directly implies that the world is organised
> strictly in accordance  with mechanistic principles. There are no
> purposive principles  whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no
> designing forces that  are rationally detectable ..."9
> > Now of course, Professor  Provine's position is a philosophical one
> and is not based on  anyempirical evidence and as such is a breach of
> the very principles  underlying scientific technique. Professor Provine
> is entitled to hold  and express any philosophical position he so
> chooses, but he  isnotentitled to imply the philosophical position
> expressed above is  somehow based on scientific methodology because
> "science it ain't".  10
> > By defining and adhering to such a proscriptive interpretation  of
> reality, contemporary 'science' is denying itself the opportunity  to
> contribute to an extraordinary new chapter in human understanding  as
> to the nature of reality and who we are.
> > Professor  Provine's inability to distinguish between 'science' and
> 'philosophy'  is very destructive of true scientific endeavour because
> his views as  a senior respected scientist clearly affects the thinking
> of those who  look up to him as their superior. Most scientists, like
> the general  public, acquire the vast majority of their knowledge and
> values on  what they are taught by their peers and mentors, and not on
> what they  personally experience. It is for this reason that Professor
> Provine's  views are so prevalent within the scientific community and
> why so many  aspects of science have become moribund.
> > So how will Western  Science deal with the plethora of 'New Age'
> phenomena now being  discovered? 11
> > If history is anything to go by, the contemporary  scientific
> community will almost certainly embrace an orthodox  position and
> embark on a concerted campaign of trenchant denial about  'New Age'
> phenomena. However, this is not such a bad thing, as  practically all
> the major advances in human knowledge and  understanding have emanated
> from the minds of dissenters who have  rejected the orthodox position
> of their contemporaries and postulated  what were considered heresies
> at the time. Presumably, the issues  pertaining to the plethora of 'New
> Age' phenomena now being discovered  (and their wider implications)
> will be treated no differently from any  new 'heresy'. As with all
> matters, eventually the truth will become  recognised as "self evident"
> and future generations will look back at  the position of contemporary
> orthodox science in much the same way we  now view our ancestors who
> fervently believed the earth was flat!  12
> > ____________ ______
> > NOTE: Article based in  part on extracts from:
> > * 'The Cosmic Game' by Stanislav Grof  (p232 - p235)
> > * 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson  (p126)
> > Â 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > ____________ ________ ________ _
> >  From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@>
> > To: _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) 
>  > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009 4:16:46 AM
> > Subject: Re:  Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Dear Joseph
> > 
> > My views  are:
> > 
> > Yes. But Dawkins is accepting too much  (dualism) and rejecting too
> little as far as I read him.
> >  Some info:
> > _http://www.sirbacon_ (http://www.sirbacon/)  .org/links/ dawkins.html  
and _http://www.fbrt._ (http://www.fbrt./) 
> org.uk/pages/  essays/frameset- essays.html
> > 
> > But I honestly find _http://www.sirbacon_ (http://www.sirbacon/)   .org a 
quite interesting
> website.
> > 
> >  Shakespeare and Sufism.
> > _http://www.sirbacon_ (http://www.sirbacon/)  .org/mshrew. htm 
>  > It places the Gurdjieff - Sarmoung Brotherhood in Usbekistan at
>  Bokhara: _http://en.wikipedia_ (http://en.wikipedia/)  .org/wiki/ Bukhara
>  > 
> > -------
> > 
> > You did not answer my  previous e-mails questions, especially not
> this one:
> > And  I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
> and  not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> >  
> > So your silence to this question tells me you do not know the  answer.
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> >  ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Joseph P. Fulton 
>  > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, January 05,  2009 4:29 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or  non-policy?
> > 
> > Morten and Cass,
> > 
>  > Thank you very much for your interest. The names mentioned above  are
> > there to represent an entire point of view, namely the  "rational
> > materialist" point of view which makes up the  prevailing opinion of
> > our culture. I hope that clarifies things a  bit. Richard Dawkins is
> > a prime target, in this case. He forms a  great deal of opinion in the
> > field of religious studies and  evolutionary biology.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
>  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> >  <global-theosophy@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear  friends and Zaitzev
> > > 
> > > My views are:
>  > > I will certainly not quote all the Alice A. Bailey book in an  e-mail
> > to prove you wrong.
> > > Just have a look at  the online editions. There are no words about
> > them being "first  editions".
> > > It is you who need to prove it to be otherwise by  quoting, what I
> > tell you is not there to be found.
> >  > 
> > > Even "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" have had added  several footnotes in
> > various translations and as far as I hear  from others also in the
> > online editions.
> > >  
> > > But why not add, what edition Problems of Humanity is? Why  hide it?
> > > And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A.  Bailey is political
> > and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and  Morya was. Is that true?
> > > 
> > > 
> >  > 
> > > M. Sufilight
> > > 
> > >  
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From:  Konstantin Zaitzev 
> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>  > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:50 PM
> > > Subject:  Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > > 
>  > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten  Nymann Olesen"
> > > <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
>  > > 
> > > > And ALL of them First editions? I doubt  that! 
> > > > It is for instance - as far as I am aware - not  written anywhere
> > > online, that the book "Problems of  Humanity" have seen several
> > editions..
> > > 
>  > > Doubt isn't enough. Prove that. Some of the books, at least,
look  like
> > > facsimile copies with old typeface, for example  "Treatise on cosmic
> > > fire". Though I admit that such books as  "Problems of Humanity"
could
> > > be updated as they deal with  politics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
>  > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this  message have been removed]
> > >
> > 
> >  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
>  > 
> > 
> > 
> > Stay connected to the people  that matter most with a smarter
> inbox. Take a look _http://au.docs.http://au.http://au.docs.h_ 
(http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox) 
>  > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>


 

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)


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