Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00144)

Feb 6 2005

Friends:

I read:

" Logic flows from the fundamental assumptions of a particular
perspective. 

Changing the perspective changes the logic flow. If my default
perspective 

is linear then my default logic flow will be linear as well. 

----------------------------------

Apparently the one who uses "logic" or any other honestly responsive process
must have a wider perspective than any selected process.

Who or what is THAT ? I mean the Chooser or the Selector ?

How are the process we call: "logic" ( as Mental honesty and
consecutiveness ),
"mathematics" ( as numerical, measurement, spatial, dimensional, spatial,
abstract, concrete, etc... ) and "imagination' (the image building process,
from empiricism and selection to conclusions based on (desire, wish,
inclination, rigid exactitude, etc... -- make you own selection -- ) to be
considered and used ?

Do they enter into this search ?

I see "creation" and "Parabrahm" mentioned -- which are basics and
fundamentals if we agree on their universality and impersonality.

But how do we arrive with surety to those ultimates?

Best wishes


Dallas
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Creation

<< Logic flows from the fundamental assumptions of a particular
perspective. 
Changing the perspective changes the logic flow. If my default
perspective 
is linear then my default logic flow will be linear as well. >>

Bill, you can't know how happy I am to hear someone say this other than me.
What you say is true, but I cannot think of any assumptions that would
logically allow for any kind of doing without time to do it in. It happens,
but it ain't logical and I just seem to have to live with that. Logically I
can put the doing of creation and self-expression at the level of
Parabrahman, say, but not at the level of Be-ness, which has no Do-ness in
it. What kind of "nonlinear default perspective" will logically allow for
such a thing?


<< When I am able 
to transcend the linear perspective and "see" from the multiple
perspective 
the logic flow adjusts to incorporate concepts like the good of the race 
(collective) vs. the good of the individual even when that individual is
me. >>

Yes. And this kind of thing demonstrates the inherent limitations of logic
and reason.


<< From the multiple perspective a leap can be made to the One perspective 
which is All perspectives simultaneously interacting in an infinite system 
of timeless beauty. The glimpse from the One perspective may appear 
non-sensical and illogical from the linear perspective. Such appearance
does 
not invalidate the perspective.>>

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, How can you know if your "All
perspectives simultaneously interacting in an infinite system of timeless
beauty" is an actual experience or just your after-the-event
interpretation? And if the latter, Why would your interpretation be any
better, any closer to "truth," than anyone elses? 


<< I understand what you both are saying. When on the one hand we are
unable 
to conceive of something and yet on the other hand are able to
forthrightly 
agree with it, we may be able to witness our shifting perspective if we 
focus intently on the process itself instead of the components.>>

When we use "just being" with logical analysis, we can experience a point
in which the logical analysis fails to find the right words or the correct
phrasology. Multiple interpretations of the experience opens up as
possibilities, and we simply pick the one that we like best. Sometimes none
of those possibile interpretations are logical and we end up with a
paradox. Although our interpretations are inherently limited in this way,
this does not invalidate our experiences.


<< Yes, again there are wonders of being that the mind in its default
setting 
of linear cannot conceive. Our best efforts seem to fail as we struggle 
over and over again to see the supreme from such a "small" perspective.>>

Yes, and so we model and continually tweak our models and so on.


<< A worldview may not be enough view.>>

Good point, but it is all we human beings have. Of course, we are more than
human...


<< Models are unnecessary from a perspective that does not rely upon models
to 
explain itself. >>

Models are unnecessary for direct experiences but are needed for our
interpretations. I view the Esoteric Tradition (ET) as the accumulated
experiential knowledge of lineages of Adepts, and I view Theosophy as its
modern interpretation. Theosophy uses models that serve as pointers to the
ET. The problem is that it is all too easy to get hung up on pointers.

Thanks, Bill,

Jerry S.



---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-56348C@list.vnet.net