Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00263)

Well, I am a little student in exile here, better you ask an adept...:-)))
But so far as I can see, ethics which science should consider are at least:

1. the Hermetic axiom "as above, so below", which was not long ago rejected by a German professor as nonsense
2. that research must not be based on economical profit, but on truth
3. that research solves problems and does not create new ones.

As to how to do it - that is quite easy: responsible Scientists just need to develop a sense for th ehigher life, reject corruption and inmorality, speak out if necessary and whistleblow misdeeds.
Then the evildoes hav no chance.

Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joseph P. Fulton 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:24 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?


Agreed. 

Which moral points of view need presented? 

How to do it?

--- In 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@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@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 anuncriticaladherence to a materialistic
> 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@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 .org/links/ dawkins.html and http://www.fbrt.
> org.uk/pages/ essays/frameset- essays.html
> > 
> > But I honestly find http://www.sirbacon .org a quite interesting
> website.
> > 
> > Shakespeare and Sufism.
> > http://www.sirbacon .org/mshrew. htm 
> > It places the Gurdjieff - Sarmoung Brotherhood in Usbekistan at
> Bokhara: 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.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



 

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