Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00135)

In a message dated 02/04/02 9:56:18 PM, cronjev@hotmail.com writes:

>Theosophy was a relatively recent discovery for me, and I have found 
>all written matter I have come across up till now very informative.
>
>I do find however that most of the discussion revolves around the 
>concepts of the Universe as it viewed and documented a hundred years 
>back.
>
>>From what I understood of the definition of Theosophy, is that it 
>should try to explain everything, reconciling science with religion 
>and mysticism.
>
>How much new ideas and concepts have been developed in recent years, 
>and where can you read about it?
>
>A zealous newbie ...
>
>(I have put down the Universe as I understand it in a badly written 
>form www.geocities.com/cronjev - I need more information.)

In a message dated 02/04/02 9:23:20 PM, cronjev@hotmail.com writes:

>I understand that my premise is a long shot when evaluated superficially,
>I agree completely that it does just transplants the mystical aspect to 
>another level.
>
>The theory does still have certain merits, it just requires a change in
>perspective.
>
>My main objective is to define the great unknown according to Theosophy.
>I agree with, and fully believe in every aspect of all the Theosophical 
>documents I have read, but further simplification is possible.
>All the Theosophy articles I am continuously referred to by everyone on the 
>discussion group, can't and doesn't reflect scientific knowledge we have
>only started discovering in the past few years. Although they do contain
>the same truths, the spirit of Theosophy as I understand it is killed at the
>same time. Namely to reconcile the most advanced scientific knowledge with
>the knowledge from religion and mysticism.
>
>Regarding my logic, I would agree that the logic isn't explained properly,
>let me try to shed some light on my reasoning once more.
>
>Regarding the logic that nothing is nothing, and nothing can come from
>nothing. Expressed mathematically it would read 0 = 0, and the logic is
>true. But you can also write it as 1-1 = 0. And then if you examine the two 
>in the equation separately, you can't say they are nothing, although they
>are zero if you examine the equation as a whole. If you apply this 
>mathematical concept, which puts nothing in relation to infinity, thus
>0 = 1/infinity ... for all practical definitions of infinity. Then you will
>be able to express everything in the Universe according to the equation that 
is 
>developed from there. And such a mathematical model would explain Hawking
>to Blavatsky with ease.
>
>This is the basic concept that my Universe theory is based on. A 
>mathematical equation for Blavatsky's 'the great unknown'.

I don't know if any of that will stand scrutiny, either scientifically or 
theosophically, as a valid expression of the "great unknown," -- since it 
still argues from the logical causally fallacious position of an arbitrary 
assumption that matter and energy are generated from nothing -- without 
giving an explanation of how that process actually works. Besides, it isn't 
mathematics that decides the nature of the universal truths, but the universe 
itself, as it is, that allows man to discover the mathematics that can 
describe it. 

All energy is based on motion. But, such motion cannot come from non motion 
(the zero-point-instant alone). Therefore, the primal zero-point must be 
accompanied by a surrounding abstract "angular motion" that can only be an 
inherent attribute (the spinning) of the zero point itself. Since there is 
no friction or resistance of primal space to slow such spin motion, its 
angular velocity (and frequency) would potentially be infinite (as would its 
information carrying capacity) -- and thus, its energy (as angular momentum) 
would also be infinite. I call this primal abstract angular motional energy 
circling the zero-point, "spinergy." As explained in previous posts, it is 
the root of cycles, and all subsequent energies linked to all phenomenal 
fields, from spiritual and mental energy-substance to physical mass-energy. 
(Ref: E=mc^2).

This is how (1) zero relates to infinity, and how manifest energy and linear 
motion comes from (2) "something" -- which, we must conclude, are the two 
orders of reality, existing abstractly (as noumena) within the unity of (3) 
eternal (timeless) primal "Space." These aspects of the "great unknown" (or 
primal monadic root) constitutes the fundamental "trinity" that ultimately 
resolves, upon manifestation, into the triune phenomenal universe, and is the 
root of all subsequehat is, was, or ever will be.

This verifies Blavatsky's statement that the unknown Absolute source, the one 
"reality" -- "unknown," simply because finite mind beings are unable to 
experience, observe, or measure it -- is "BOTH empty and full." (i.e., Empty 
at its "zero-point," and full in its surrounding infinite "spinergy", or, 
empty of form and phenomena, but full of infinite potentialities, etc.).

>From this infinite potentiality, or "diversity within a unity," the whole 
universe involves and evolves to form the seven fold "coadunate but not 
consubstantial" field nature of all beings -- in accordance with the 
fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity that underlie the laws of 
electricity (from a scientific standpoint) as well as the laws of karma (from 
a mystical or theosophical standpoint)... These laws are analogously similar 
in governing the cause and effect chains (action<-->reaction<-->action) 
within and between the various coadunate fields, their vibrational 
information carrying processes, as well as the inductive process for 
transference of such information from one field to another. 

Unfortunately for many of us mathematic dunces :-) -- the working of these 
laws can only be fully described scientifically (on the material plane) by a 
combined geometrical (at least 10 dimensional vector analysis) and a subtle 
form of infinite set numerical mathematics that requires symbolic 
multidimensional diagrams as well as abstruse linear and non linear 
equations. Thus, positing a fundamental "simplicity" that leads to an 
evolving "complexity" -- following fixed laws of both information 
acquisition, storage and transformation, as well as physical particle and 
energy interactions and reactions -- is the only logical way to describe a 
singular universe that revolves (involves and evolves) cyclically and 
periodically from chaos to order and from order to chaos -- with constant 
change along the way -- leading to higher and higher levels of gained and 
retained diversified experience, knowledge and wisdom. This could be the 
only logical conclusion that will hold up in the court of both intuitive 
theosophical and rational scientific inquiry.

As far as modern science goes, the latest multidimensional theories of 
Superstrings and Membranes, which is getting closer and closer to the 
theosophical truths -- has been fully presaged in the Secret Doctrine (as was 
relativity and quantum physics)... And, aside from its complex mathematics, 
its underlying logical assumptions are similar to what was described above 
regarding the metaphysical relationship of the zero-point with its 
surrounding "spinergy" or zero-point energy (ZPE). Unfortunately, mainstream 
science still hasn't given up its materialistic bias, and, aside from the 
speculations of Superstring theorists, all the theories of quantum cosmology 
(Hawkings, et al) and quantum physics (Penrose, et al) still ignore the gap 
between the primal source and the "Big Bang" (on the material plane) -- which 
theosophy, along with my ABC holographic field theory, has covered relatively 
clearly (as the apparently valid linkage between deductive theosophical or 
"metaphysical" science and reductive-inductive "physical" science at its most 
advanced stage). As a description of a complete and consistent causal system 
from zero to infinite diversity (and vice versa) I don't think it could be 
explained in any simpler or more logically valid terms. 

I hope this clarifies things a bit, and indicates that the simple (as well as 
complex) scientific and logical explanation of the "Great Unknown" as well as 
its Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis has already been fully defined in the 
Secret Doctrine... (Should one be intuitive enough to read "through the 
*blinds*, *between* the lines, and *in* the words" -- as HPB advised her 
students). 

LHM 
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html