Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00184)

Dear Kim,

Thankyou so much.  You seem to really understand this study space.  I'll
need to happily absorb what you have written.  I have shared it with others
interesested in this space.  I'll send the quotes to your private email.  I
have on other request.

Love,
Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Poulsen <kpoulsen@vip.cybercity.dk>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Several Comments on Alice Bailey


>
>
>> Dear Kim,
>>
>> Wow.  Thankyou so much.  If you're on the list then I'm yours!
>
>I am, but generally I prefer the sweet peace of silent contemplation. But
>perhaps this time a greater harmony may be achieved through a little
>conflict. A space can be too restricted, whether little communities in
>Cyperspace, or puritan minds.
>The latter should remember that the great mind of old HPB herself was like
>the inventory of a 17th c. curiosity museum or a chinese apothecary, full
of
>weird things, egyptian rarities and pulverized remains.
>Puritans need not worry for their intellectual virtue, closed minds will no
>doubt remain stale. And the old lady herself, the master of syncretic and
>synthetic thought, might be imagined rumbling from the grave.
>
>> I resonate to your writing like a new silver bell, like body- surfing in
>the
>> beautiful waters of Dana Point Beach in the early or late hours.
>Thankyou.
>>
>> I like the other feedback too.  I am starting to get uncomfortable not
>> having colleages who will stand up and speak their minds and their
hearts.
>> We can all learn together.  Many are simply testing the waters with their
>> opposition.  Electric Fire in relationship to Fire by Friction yields
>Solar
>> Fire or OBJECTIVITY!!!
>
>Nothing arouses my spirit more than a shouting croud, it tends towards a
>murky self-existence of its own, unless dismembered in the cradle by the
>muscle of gentle reason.
>
>> So let's fight each other with a bemused smile on our faces and love in
>our
>> hearts.  Such joy is ours!
>
>:-) I miss so much the ancient indian rules for such interaction. Brilliant
>young philosophers like Shankara would study and then venture out on a
>digvijaya, a philosophical tour of world-conquest, challenging the sharpest
>minds of all schools.
>The looser of such duels would generally have to become disciples of the
>conquerer.
>So much for orthodoxy in old India!
>
>> George Spencer-Brown wrote down the LAWS OF FORM in the late sixities.
>> Collin Johnson, author of the superb book WHY, writes in that book that
he
>> had a telephone interview with Spencer-Brown in which Spencer-Brown
>clearly
>> stated that the Buddha had taught the     LAWS OF FORM ( . . .mutual
>arising
>> . . .).  He discovered this in 1984.
>> He was so happy about it.
>
>His ideas is extremely interesting, not the least because he, like Leibniz,
>derives his ideas from a mathematical system. But sometimes he gets carried
>away, fx. when considering Shakyamuni "the only other author who evidently
>discovered these laws (of Form)."
>
>> George Spencer-Brown thinks that he has proved that all of Boolean
algebra
>> and arithmetic can be derived through logical deductive steps from two
>> ideas:
>>
>> 1. The Idea of Distinction
>> 2. The Idea of Indication
>>
>> This all seems to relate back to Nagajuna, etc.
>
>Or:
>0. the unlimited or unrestricted space, mahaakasha, infinity
>1. The distinction or boundary decided upon, leading to:
>2. Indication is the restricted space, the field of action, a system, cell,
>universe, etc.
>
>See the opening lines of "Laws of Form:"
>
>"The theme of this book is that a universe comes into being when a space is
>severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism cuts off an outside
>from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By
tracing
>the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an
>accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlyin
g
>linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin
to
>see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the
>original act of severance. The act itself already remembered, even if
>unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a
>world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we
>please. At this stage the universe cannot be distinguished from how we act
>upon it, and the world may seem like shifting sand beneath our feet."
>
>And then consider the idea contained in the first picture of the opening
>lines of the SD Proem.
>
>> I have a wonderful unpublished collection of quotes from HPB, AAB, Allen
>> Watts and other like Chang (THE BUDDHIST TEACHING OF TOTALITY).  That you
>> might love.  Anyone who is interested please let me know.  I am eager to
>> share it.  I compiled it.  Me!  Me!  (grinn, smile, puffed up, etc.)
>
>Send it along. If it is large file, please send it to my private e-mail
>adress. :-)
>
>> I think that the space you have outlined so well is the funnest space
>there
>> is.  Zero, One, Two  It is this area that can help all of us wanna-be's
>> focus as we struggle, in our own individual freedom soaked ways, towards
>> really understanding Life.
>
>Have you ever thought of the fact that in a binary system your triad yields
>0, 1, 10(2).
>The idea contained in these three (both 0 and 10 are primarily ideas)
>remains the same in the decimal or sumerian hexad systems, but the
>mathematical properties differ, when considered as representations of ideas
>rather than mere values. It would be easy to construct a philosophy based
on
>this triad.
>    But is is far more important whether nature reacts to these ideas as we
>conceive them. According to esoteric philosophy we are only able to observe
>the top of the iceberg in the case of macrocosmic systems, but the
primitive
>cell might give us a clue to the operations in a system. At least we have
>the guiding principles within sight.
>
>At the core of the guiding principle of the human cell, the logos or DNA,
>recognises a language containing a set of four values (whether represented
>by numbers or letters) in three-letter words. The Messenger RNA (or Fohat)
>also recognises four values.
>
>To be faithful to the language of nature, your philosophy would perhaps
need
>a language consisting of a primary set and a seconday set
>
>> Your friend indeed,
>> Gene
>>
>> Tell me more!
>
>> May I have permission to share this Kim-Gene exchange with the 22 member
>> esoteric science group?
>
>Certainly, and feedback is very welcome. If we get too
"pseudo-theosophical"
>we can always share thoughts in private e-mail.
>
>Kim
>
>
>-- 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.