Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00563)

Hey Mic,

That's a dandy! It looks like HPB was right again, (just as Leon 
reminds us) and we may be getting into a whole new realm of conscious 
cooperation between the inner and the outer. If a Nobel Laureate 
Stanford scientist is thinking this way, others much surely take 
notice.

Thanks,
Adelasie

On 18 Feb 2002 at 15:14, Mic Forster wrote:

> 
> Adelasie,
> In the latest issue of New Scientist I think they answer your question
> in regards to metaphysical philosophy and mainstream science. I shall
> provide a quote to demonstrate my point: "What are the fundamental
> building blocks of the Universe? Once we were told they were atoms.
> Then it turned out that these were not fundamental at all, but made of
> protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made
> of quarks. Deeper still, we now learn, come tiny vibrating strings and
> membranes living in space of 10 or 11 dimensions. But we all expect
> that one day physicists will finally discover the deepest structures
> of nature. Won't they? "Not necessarily. Maybe it's impossible to
> discover these deepest structures. What's more, maybe it doesn't
> matter what they are. That's the startling claim of Robert Laughlin, a
> Nobel laureate at Stanford University. According to Laughlin, it may
> be that what we call reality is a spontaneous phenomenon, emerging
> like a wave out of some forever unknowable cosmic medium." Samuel, E
> (2002). What lies beneath. New Scientist, 9th February 2002, Pp: 24 -
> 27. Slowly getting there!! Mic
> adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net> wrote: Dear Leon,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. You always put these scientific issues in
> better perspective for me. It seems from what you say here that
> science is indeed moving toward discovering its link with metaphysical
> philosophy. How widespread is this trend? Is it anywhere near
> mainstream? And what about the question of ethical application? >From
> a layman's point of view, it seems that science is moving in some
> alarming directions: military science, genetic technology, nuclear
> power, etc. Does the theosophical philosophy inform science in any
> way?
> 
> Best wishes,
> Adelasie
> 
> On 18 Feb 2002 at 2:26, leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Maybe this definition from the American Heritage dictionary might
> > clear up the confusion a bit:
> > 
> > Syn'chro'nic'i'ty - n
> > 1. The state or fact of being synchronous or simultaneous;
> > synchronism. 2. Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully
> > related, conceived in the theory of Carl Jung as an explanatory
> > principle on the same order as causality.
> > 
> > The first is the scientific meaning that refers to the simultaneous
> > time of occurrence of two different actions or activities that
> > depend solely on linked chains of cause and effect. For example, the
> > sounds of speech that are synchronous or simultaneous with the
> > movements of the mouth and lips, or the simultaneity of a light
> > coming on when the switch is thrown. Today, the scientific theory of
> > Chaos that links the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in Africa
> > with a tornado in Kansas, as well as the theory of
> > Superstrings/Membranes that links together the 10 dimensional fields
> > of energy in both the material as well as the immaterial vacuum of
> > physical space, all depend on the same concept of cause and effect
> > as does the fundamental principles of theosophy. These theories
> > along with relativity and quantum theories (as they are correlated
> > by Superstring theory) are what HPB predicted would happen in the
> > 20th century to eventually bring theosophical science and physical
> > science together in perfect synchronicity... As I've tried to show
> > by linking together all the above mentioned scientific theories in
> > my theosophically rooted ABC multidimensional [chakra]field theory. 
> > 
> > The second definition, as posed by Jung in his introduction to the
> > Wilhelm translation of the I-Ching -- in order to explain its
> > oracular power that depends on the apparently random throwing of
> > coins while thinking of a question to effect the changes in the
> > hexagrams and, simultaneously, their interpretations -- refers to
> > his theory that the simultaneity of the patterns of actions that
> > occur on the physical plane are synchronous with the similar
> > patterns in the mind, and also those on the higher universal
> > planes... Implying a causal link between these different fields of
> > action. The Native American's interpretations of the environmental
> > signs, that they assume come directly from their Great Spirit Guide,
> > also relates to this definition. 
> > 
> > All the above, it seems, would certainly confirm that there is no
> > possibility of coincidence or synchronicity without lawful cycles or
> > chains of cause and effect -- as held by theosophy. 
> > 
> > I hope this helps clarify the meaning of the word "synchronicity" in
> > its various usage's.
> > 
> > LHM
> > http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
> > http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.htm
> > l
> > http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafiel
> > d
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>