Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00081)

Dear Sham,

Thankyou you so much for your prompt response and additional information.
Please realize that I have a minimal background in math. I have a high
school course on geometry on video that I plan to review, none since the
tenth grade! Yet, my prior e-mail may very well be important. My main
interest is theosophy and how it might inform medicine and pathology. I'm
searching for the solid and logical basis for theosophy so I can better
communicate within my own field of knowledge. I know in my heart of hearts
that this logical basis exists. Zero seems intimately involved and is a
wild and crazy "number", no doubt a sacred symbol. I've taken note of it's
being promient, the only entity, the first entity, and on the paranirvanic
plane(Cosmic Monadic). I've taken note that Unity is within the nirvanic or
cosmic atmic plane; duality in the cosmic buddhic; triplicity in the cosmic
manasic. I'm wishing all to jive and need others to help and check things.
Thanks.

Gene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shampan-e-Shindh" <shampan@zip.com.au>
To: "Theosophy Talk" <theos-talk@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:36 AM
Subject: Theos-World 0 .. is or is not


> Mr Carpenter wrote,
>
> "It might be more accurate to refer to 0 as both being and
> non-being,
> existant and non-existant rather than as non-existant. The term
> non-existant might be best reserved for the will aspect itself
> rather than
> consciousness of the will aspect. This jives nicely with the
> circle as
> dividing/uniting it's inside area with the outside."
>
> Totally agreed on that part. "Non-existent" is an inappropriate
> term. What I actually meant was, more as in 1 to 9 are numbers
> materialistically (in the most obvious common notion) existent. 0
> is the non-materialistic, or lesser materialistic than any other
> no. sitting on the line of abstractness, as soon as the concept
> of that "non-materialistic-existent" occurs, the other numbers
> seem to be effected ...making all no. a doubful existent, but
> together they all exist, and that existence is .... the whole
> "one" or 1 the number itself, which was the main grounds of my
> theory. But also opens up whole new discussion which yours has
> just implied. .
>
> . The point is, as soon as abstractness or 0 comes in the
> numbers world, the whole concept of mathematics start getting a
> new dimension. Same as looking at two dimension geometry without
> knowing the third, perhaps there are more, one we know of already
> "time" perhaps the 4th.
>
> As far as will, knowledge, consciousness goes, ...I fail to see
> the definite links with no.s so distinctly fixed. I will read
> your explanation again.. Let me get to the bottom of this.
>
> This rusty brain has been too much involved with volunteer social
> work, radio broadcast, record remastering, amateur music analysis
> as recreation and tourism, other odd jobs for a living; for too
> long...:))
>
> But please keep educating, I will catch up.
>
> Thankfully,
> Sham
>
>
>
>
>
>