Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Part 3 of Dallas's "LAWS."

Expand Messages
  • bri_mue
    As we have seen in the previous parts Reincarnation is a purely religious belief, yet Dallas and certain other Theosophists claim it is a LAW and SCIENCE,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      As we have seen in the previous parts Reincarnation is a purely
      religious belief, yet Dallas and certain other Theosophists claim it
      is a "LAW" and "SCIENCE," without providing any proof, and therefore
      seem to want list-members to accept this on blind faith, like in a

      Dallas:"Each MONAD is a mirror of every other. They are immortal
      centers of force"

      Bri.: As stated before, this is dualism at best. You are not talking
      about ordinary force but about a special form of it that is not
      recognized by physicists, a spiritual "force."

      The most obvious objection to this argument is that there is no such
      thing as such "force," and we are back to some form of materialism

      If the expression, "force" here really referred to energy of some
      kind, it would have to be quantifiable. It would then be entirely
      possible to select a unit of this energy, and it would not be absurd
      to ask such questions as "Into how much heat or electricity can the
      force now present in this person being converted?" It would be
      possible to convert spiritual "force" into kinetic or chemical energy
      and it would in principle be possible to establish appropriate
      transformation formulas. Evidently, Dallas or Leon would regard such
      transformation formulas as a possibility.

      Let us ignore this objection and grant for the sake of discussion
      that "force" her refers to something that is real but not physical.

      This would not be of any help to the supporters of the argument. The
      conservation principle has been shown by physicists to hold only for
      physical energy. If there is a nonphysical energy, we have no right
      whatever to say that the conservation principle applies to it.
      Incidentally, if we allow the concept of this "force," there would be
      no reason to disallow a concept of "spiritual entropy"; and just as
      usable physical energy is constantly lost, so the same might well be
      true of spiritual energy.

      Even if we waive all these objections, the argument would still prove
      nothing to the point. The conservation of physical energy does not
      guarantee the continued, much less the eternal, existence of
      particular entities. It is quite consistent with the destruction of
      houses, mountains, stars, and of course plants and animal bodies.
      What evidence is there that if our minds were indeed composed of
      spiritual energy, and if this energy were indestructible, that our
      individual minds exist for ever? It appears that versions of the
      argument had already some currency in the eighteenth century, quite a
      long time before the first formulation of conservation principles by

      And coming back to Dallas's claim "immortal," as they age, singers
      frequently lose the special sheen of their voices. It clearly makes
      no sense to ask where the sheen has gone and the same is true of
      shadows that have disappeared. The fact that the sheen of a voice or
      a shadow has not gone anywhere does not entail that they still exist
      and are indestructible.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.