Theos-Talk Archives (May 1999ar Message tt00107)

May 13th

Dear Gerry:

I thank you for your notes.

Of course so long as the information that the Adepts give is to
us "subjective" Science will not accept it as evidence in the
"material world" that is to all of us so "objective."

However a 'thought" is always SUBJECTIVE.  Is evidence to be
eliminated because our thinking is not objective ?

Phenomena are observed, such as magnetic fields and teh low of
light or electricity, but the CAUSE for these three forces is not
yet identified or explained.  Are they not to be used or their
phenomena rejected because we cannot OBJECTIVISE the cause ?

There is this constant play between the subjective and the
objective that one might conclude that one cannot be without the
other close by. This does not make, necessarily, a good argument
in favor of subjective proofs, but it does give pause to the
fair-minded person who desires to see if the reasoning or the
feeling, or the intuition of others may have validity.

Psychology and the science of the Mind is entirely based on
this -- the brain is demonstrated to be a kind of sophisticated
transfer point between the Thinker ( the MIND) and the controller
of the objective active senses ( 5 are receptors and 5 are
actors) on the physical plane.  There are too many instances of
brain damage and impairment which are overcome by the mind
setting itself to bridge the missing tools that are usually
available to it.  The latest is the instance of 2 paraplegics in
widely separated clinics (America and Germany) who trained, using
their Minds, sections of their  brain to respond to their Will,
and generate electrical currents that in turn were able to move a
cursor across a TV screen and thus, with letters and numbers,
communicate intelligently again with their doctors and
attendants.  This was reported about 2 months back in the pages
of the weekly SCIENCE NEWS of Washington

There is however the concensus of thought (subjective always) of
"feeling: or "hunch," or "intuition," which seem to have their
place and are widely recognized as events, although not provable
as "hard" evidence. None among us anywhere but uses this
subjective pathway to memorize, to compare, to reason, to evolve
theories of the future on which we make choices and guide our
actions.

So is the nature of the SUBJECTIVE TO BE DISCARDED or DERIDED ?
Then all the records of Science go, as well as everything else.

Theosophy does advance the information that the Adepts have
gleaned over the ages in regard to the powers of the invisible
man -- the subjective entity and its various sheaths.

I am only advancing this as it has enough support and validity to
be considered also.

If Science rejects this (and there is evidence that it has, on
its growing tips, individuals who are aware of these areas for
further investigation), morpho-genetic fields, the Kirillian
photography of residual energy surrounding objects and living
beings, the curious immediate stimulus response that is
reciprocal relation in plants to sections taken from them and
located several hundred miles away, etc...

Best wishes,

And many thanks for your thoughts on these subjects.

I believe if Theosophy and its concepts were to be used and
considered advances would proceed faster than even at present.

Dallas




              Dallas TenBroeck
               dalval@nwc.net




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Gerald
Schueler
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 8:20 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Theos-World Response to Dallas


>>"Sad" because school we have been taught theories as though
they were
facts and I have 60 years to look back on the changes made.>>

I absolutely agree with you. Especially true for undergraduate
schools. Graduate schools already distinguish fact from
theory pretty well.


>>I would not like to be ever caught saying something was a fact
when it was not.<<

Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference. Science
pretty much defines a "fact" as something observable by
many people, and thus equates reality with observational
conformance. If someone observes something that cannot
be confirmed by others, then it remains theory. A lot of
occult work, especially work on the inner planes, is
subjective and not easily substantiated by others, and
so it is a fact to the one who experiences it, but a theory
to others. NDEs are a good example. So are past lives.


>>Have you looked into the evidence that de Quatrefages offered
?>>

I think he mainly gives us theory, albeit some good ideas. The
idea that monkeys came from humans rather than the other
way around is slowly catching on in science circles, but
both, as far as I know, remain theoretical.  Some excellent
modern scientists are challenging Darwin's "survival of the
fittest" concept as well with mutual cooperation and
symbiosis theories which are much closer to Theosophy.


>>I have no "beef" with pure observational and factual Science.
studied it in college and worked for a publisher of reference
level and college Scientific books (VAN NOSTRAND).>>

OK. It is the scientific method of unbiased observation
that is important. HPB claimed that her Adepts did this,
but their "hard evidence" is all subjective, like NDEs
and recall of past lives. We also have to remember that
there were other groups of Adepts doing the same
thing, and that not everyone agrees to the "facts."
Perhaps the most important thing to come from these
Adepts are predictions that can, in fact, be proved,
such as the prediction of hearing stars before seeing
them, which has been scientifically proved correct.


>>So I do respect truth in reporting and the bold assertion that
what is offered is TENTATIVE, something to use until a better
solution or fact supplants it.>>

Again, what is truth and what is theory is debatable. I have
to think that most of the SD and the whole teaching of
Rounds and Races and Globes is a perfect example.
This will probably never be "provable" but it can be
demonstrable in the same sense that occultists demonstrate
the Tree of Life and other models of the universe. We
can actually visit the Globes in our subtle body and see
for ourself. But such methods won't usually convince
others unless they can do the same thing.


>>Incidentally the climate now is far more subdued than the
authoritative one of the 30s and 40s
Dal>>

At the end of the last century the smugness of science
was thick enough to cut with a knife (patent office
closing for impossibility of new inventions, etc). Although
HPB helped change this atmosphere, Einstein did even
more. Then along came quantum physics and now
chaos theory, so that today there are hardly any
scientists who remain smug in their theories. Too many
theories have been proved wrong. But proving them
wrong while under the umbrella of the scientific method
is the correct way to bring about such changes.

We each use the scientific method in our daily lives,
mostly unconscious, to build up and maintain our
individual world views. Every person has a unique
world view, and each is based on personal
experience (observation) and interpretation (theory).

Jerry S.


















































-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.