Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00122)

When thinking about the unrestricted Fibonacci sequence, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8,
13, 21, 34, 55, ...,
before there can even be a 2 there first must be knowledge of another 1.
Curious.  The key
then would seem, how to relax into the zero.

Spencer

Eugene Carpenter wrote:

> Beautifully written.  I agree with everything you have said.  Once one has
> been initiated into the community of Souls, however, one needs to know that
> from that perspective Pure Mathematics is a language more suited to the
> pursuit of the Theos Sophia, perhaps.  Much confusion continues as good and
> probably initiated disciples continue to cling to ordinary academic and
> street language rather than take the time to understand the mathematical key
> somewhat, particulary that which pertains to the ZERO, THE ONE, and the
> great illusion, THE TWO.
>
> Thankyou so much for taking the time to address some of my interests.  I
> feel much more welcomed into the group.  I had just written earlier today
> that I felt sad that no one had responded.  You have healed that saddness!
>
> You seem to know alot, unlike me, about Leibniz and Spinoza.  T'would make a
> wonderful book!
>
> Love,
> Gene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASANAT@aol.com <ASANAT@aol.com>
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
> Cc: ARASantaFE@aol.com <ARASantaFE@aol.com>; Elliot Ryan <nppress@vais.net>;
> csanabri@skadden.com <csanabri@skadden.com>; Armando Verea <averea@juno.com>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz
>
> >In a message dated 4/27/00 2:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:
> >
> ><<  I think I can irritate the hell out of mathematicians and show them
> that
> >pure
> > mathematics is about as close as one can get to esoteric philosophic
> roots.
> > And, finally, I love this, that HPB wrote:(I paraphrase)
> >
> > If one understands the philosophy of Leibniz and the philosophy of Spinoza
> > and harmonizes the conflicts between these two philosophers one has the
> > whole of the spirit of esoteric philosophy.  (And she goes on to write
> that
> > Spinoza is a subjective Pantheist and Leibniz is an objective Pantheist.)
> >
> > It is this last paragraph that states the challange to theosophy in our
> time
> > if one wishes bridge the apparent gap between esoteric philosophy and
> > western science.
> > I've no training in philosophy or mathematics, except the basics, but I
> can
> > cheerlead others into getting this job done.  Let's harmonize the
> conflicts
> > between Leibniz and Spinoza and thereby have a philosophy that can
> harmonize
> > the conflicts between our transpersonal souls and our personalities.
> Let's
> > let the world know, loud and clear, and in their own language, that HPB is
> > the greatest source of information about Life that the world as seen for
> > hundreds of years.  The moment has come.
> > Love,
> > Eugene >>
> >
> >Dear Eugene,
> >
> >I'd like to share a couple of thoughts on your very thoughtful message.
> >The first, concerning the place of mathematics & "esoteric philosophic
> >roots."  According to HPB & her teachers, the ancient wisdom MUST be
> >understood in terms of seven keys.  The mathematical key is one of those.
> >But -- again, according to HPB & her teachers -- the MASTER KEY that MUST
> be
> >turned FIRST before any of the others can have any efficacy, is the
> >PSYCHOLOGICAL or MYSTICAL KEY.  That is the key that stands for INITIATION,
> >TRANSFORMATION.  If that key is not turned first, we are told, we'll end up
> >in confusion, conflict, or worse -- in black magic.  (If you wish to see
> >specific references to what I've just said, please read my papers on "The
> >Secret Doctrine, Krishnamurti, and Transformation," and (in two parts)
> >"Transformation:  Vital Essence of HPB's Secret Doctrine."  They can both
> be
> >downloaded by going to www.teosofia.com.
> >So from an esoteric perspective, mathematics is useless, even dangerous, if
> >there is not first transformation going on in one's life.  For the dangers
> of
> >mathematics in particular (& of science in general) when uninformed by
> >theosophical states of awareness, please witness the present rape of the
> >whole planet -- which could not happen without mathematicians &
> "scientists"
> >-- or its possible destruction through some idiotic system-monger pushing
> >some button & blowing us all up to smithereens -- with technology created
> by
> >untransformed mathematics & science.
> >About Spinoza & Leibniz:  It strikes me rather intensely that what is by
> far
> >most relevant in the work of these two men is almost always ignored, when
> >they are studied from an academic perspective.  To me what truly matters
> >about them both is the saintliness & insight-compassion that saturates
> their
> >work.  That saintliness & insight-compassion is what informs every single
> >thing they had to say, & strikes me as their real source.  But
> academically,
> >we are told that Spinoza was "philosophizing by doing geometry, or
> >geometrizing by doing philosophy," & that Leibniz was "the monadologist,
> for
> >whom everything is reducible to incommensurable spiritual points."
> >Yes, Spinoza's great work, the Ethics, was written, as he put it in Latin,
> >"more geometrico" (in a geometrical way).  But if the saintliness that work
> >came from is ignored, its whole point WILL be ignored, as well.  At least
> >that's the way it strikes me.
> >In other words, & as in the esoteric teaching (as outlined above in terms
> of
> >the seven keys), there were first theosophical states of awareness --
> >transformation -- & then an attempt at expressing the reality of such
> states,
> >using a language that would be understandable & acceptable to the 17th
> >Century audience for whom it was primarily written.
> >I'll share with you what strikes me as eminently relevant about the work of
> >these two men, from an esoteric perspective:
> >Leibniz "starts" as if from the MICROCOSM, whereas Spinoza "starts" as if
> >from the MACROCOSM.  Spinoza is attempting to tell us "the way things are"
> >from "God's perspective."  Leibniz attempts to do the same, but seemingly
> >starting from "the monad," the "particular" unit which is actually like a
> >hologram of the entire universe, since it reflects the all within itself,
> as
> >a kind of universal DNA.
> >Esoterically, both are "right," insofar as they are both saying that there
> >MUST be the particular & the universal engaged simultaneously.  But
> >esoterically, none of this can really be spoken about, without making
> >colossal mistakes.  (This is, incidentally, a major "reason" why the
> ancient
> >wisdom has always been "hidden, occult.")
> >This oneness between the particular & the universal can only be a
> >PSYCHOLOGICAL process, an ACTION one engages in, not a merely INTELLECTUAL
> >consent or BELIEF.  If it is only the latter (which is what is done
> >everywhere with the work of these two men), one ends up in a self-centered
> >miasma, thinking that one now "understands better," whereas the fact is
> that
> >one has only succeeded in ACCEPTING a new system-based notion, without
> having
> >even the vaguest understanding, since one has not gone through the
> extremely
> >rigorous process of transformation, which was the source for these works,
> in
> >the first place.
> >This central esoteric "teaching" of the unity between the particular & the
> >universal (which are extraordinarily clumsy, inadequate, & misleading
> WORDS)
> >has been expressed in its most clear way, to my knowledge, in the work of
> J.
> >Krishnamurti.  A main reason for that, is that in K's work there is no
> >reference at all to any purely ANALYTICAL CONCEPTS.  Therefore, it is
> nearly
> >impossible, within K's work, to make the kinds of mistakes that used to be
> so
> >very common within as well as without esoteric circles.  The only way it's
> >possible to make such mistakes within K's work is by grossly
> misrepresenting
> >them.
> >This is VITAL, because if & to the extent one persists in the belief that
> the
> >analytical mind is in a position to yield valuable "insights" into THAT
> WHICH
> >IS, to that extent one will be saturated with, & promoting, confusion,
> >conflict, & division, both psychologically & globally.
> >With affection,
> >Aryel
> >
> >-- 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.
begin:vcard 
n:Kellogg;Spencer
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:kellogg@west.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Spencer Kellogg
end:vcard