Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00128)

Spencer,

Yes. Yes. Yes.  How to relax into the Zero!  I love it!  I can argue, well,
that the zero can be symbolized by the empty set and that the set is  "a one
that can be thought of as a many"(the many cancels out into a unity, a
singularity) therefore the symbol of zero(the circle)(the empty set) is also
the symbol for the expression of DIVINE LOVE.  Relaxing into the expression
of DIVINE LOVE is rather a nice purpose ain't it.  Zero is the EMPTY ONE.
Relax already, relax.

Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer <kellogg@west.net>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz


>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.
>


-- 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.