Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00139)

Please tell me more about this.  This is very interesting.

Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer <kellogg@west.net>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz


>Was taught once that what we apparently see as, ... -1, 0, 1, ... is
actually
>an illusion
>and what may actually be happening is more akin to 0, 1, 0 as visually
>demonstrated
>by the Tibetan dorje.
>
>Spencer
>
>
>Eugene Carpenter wrote:
>
>> 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.
>


-- 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.