[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Theos-World self-evident truths

Oct 22, 1999 07:03 PM
by W. Dallas TenBroeck

Oct 22

Why not consider that there are three things that cannot be destroyed
by reasoning of any kind.

1. 	You exist as a perceiver.

2	You are surrounded by Perceptions of various kinds, and assume "That
is the Universe,"
	my world, and my environment.  You may even assume that others see
the same as
	you do, or differently but, apparently they see something similar to
what you do.

3.	The relationship between you and your surrounding Universe, near or
far, visible or 	invisible, metaphysical or physical, is one that
permits your continued existence.  This	implies cooperation and
sharing and the rules of such cooperative inter-action.

All the rest is detailed discussion on degrees of perception and the
possible laws that apply.

Now when we go to metaphysics, the field alters and fresh parameters
need to be drawn, starting form the potential Causeless cause of all
existence, we pass in thought to the Proximate Cause of our Universe
and our selves as a part of it.  We ask what are the Laws that permit
the establishment of complexity ?  Who designs?  Where is the Plan,
and Who oversees the work?

We then posit an evolutionary program that accounts for ignorance and
wisdom -- and all the states and conditions in between..  But it has
to be something that operates under Law. You cannot have a Universe
that is 1/2 Lawful and 1/2 chaos and chance.  That is not a factor.

So out of simplicity we develop a vast catalog and start comparing our

This is where all life, science, philosophy and religion are today,
But if abbreviations and truncated concepts are adopted we need to
find out the reason why the partiality is being shown. Is it
legitimate to adopt such?  Is some vital and key item being left out
of the equation of life and living?

There has to a free and accurate exchange of information to and from
all, if we are ever going to make good sense out of all this
complexity.  If there is some obstruction placed in such an exchange,
then we need to identify the cause for that, and either adopt it as
fair and true or throw it out as incorrect. Does not Science try to
discern the rules and Laws that underlie the operations of NATURE IN

One basic statement to be used is:


And so the argument grows at the expense of the facts.

If we can get back to facts, simplicity begins to return.

Or, am I wrong in this ?



-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Street, Nicholas
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World self-evident truths

Randy & All,

You said:

"All of the achievements of science are based upon reasoning,
inductive or
deductive.  Granted there is serendipity and intuition used in some
but even then to bring the discovery to fruition requires reasoning.
seems to be a trustworthy tried and true ally.  The other
books, mentors, tradition, authority, religions, etc.--gets us in
it usually shifts the revelation of truth to someone other than
through casuistry does great damage to man."
I agree with Louis response but would also like to add the following.
I understand that Einstein described the process of discovering
as an intuitive one. That he intuitively "saw" the answer. The
part was then persuading the establishment who were fixed in other
ways of
thinking. ie, he needed to translate the intuitive experience into
acceptable to science. This was the reasoning process and it was, as
said, secondary to the direct revelation.
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." - Einstein
So, given a revelation such as Einsteins the problem is often that the
of the world is enmeshed in linear thinking and has great difficulty
accepting a new paradigm.
"Thinking outside of the box creates larger boxes for the
unimaginative to
think within" - Alan Harris
So I would like to question you own reasoning, Randy as it seems to me
many people also accept the word of science as they once did the words
religious men, on blind faith. The following is extracted from The
Letters by C.S.Lewis:
"But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a
general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to
picked up in casual talk and reading is "the results of modern
I certainly know of many people who think in this way. They see an
in New Scientist & therefore believe it must be the truth. Instead of
reasoning, they have come to accept the words of people THEY BELIEVE
So I think the issues are:
1) real truths are received directly and intuitively
2) those receiving these experiences often communicate them to others
verbally or in writing
3) these words of authority, religious or scientific, can only be
as signposts, pointers towards you achieving your own direct
Accepting the words of any authority blindly is not useful.
4) If you have not understood a truth directly and intuitively then
you are
right to question. The questioning process may be linear reasoning but
answer will come intuitively. (often at some later time when you have
stopped thinking about the issue!!!)
Comments welcome, hope this helps.
I will try to find the quotes I had from some of the great scientists
talking about the intuitive process.

Kind Regards,
Nicholas John Street

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application