Part 3 of Dallas's "LAWS."
- 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.