Re: Theos-World The SD and Laplacian thinking.
Feb 23, 2002 12:51 PM
Nice to know that you have no ax to grind.
The quote from me that you used as the basis of your opinionated response,
even though partially correct was still taken out of context -- which, if not
so taken, would have made your response, if not entirely wrong, the answer to
the wrong question.
That's all that was pointed out. -- and further clarified by me to show that,
if you studied the SD and found in it the various references to particles,
multidimensional fields of consciousness, zero (laya) points, energy,
electricity, light, and their interrelationships on all multidimensional (3+7
fold) coenergetic (chakra) field levels, from spirit to matter-- reading
"between the lines and in the words" while looking from the inside out and
the outside in, linearly and non linearly, using both your left and right
brain simultaneously -- you would agree that HPB gave us a clear picture of
the fundamental framework of cosmogenesis "zero to infinity" along with a
method thinking from microcosmic "quantum" (atomic) to macrocosmic structure
that underlies many of today's scientific theories...
Most of which, admittedly, are partially wrong outside of their limited field
of application, and none of which, individually, contain the entire picture
of physical and metaphysical reality... But which, taken together, tell the
whole story -- about a universe that is both relative and absolute, spiritual
and material, metaphysical and physical, and extends as multidimensional,
interpenetrating and descending coenergetic fields or phases of electrical
energy from the zero-point to infinity (and all that's in between on each
"coadunate but non consubstantial" field of consciousness) -- as HPB stated
clearly throughout the Secret Doctrine and in all her collateral writings...
All of it being in close parallel agreement with the underlying basis of
thinking that motivates Superstring/M-brane theorists -- who recognize that
the universe is "one thing" in all its varied aspects from consciousness to
matter, and are searching for a consistent mathematical equation to explain
it. Some even say that such an equation might be as simple as 0 = 0, or
(gravity equation) + (antigravity equation) = 0, or (action) + (reaction) =
0. Doesn't this, possibly, trigger in serious students a better
understanding and conviction of the validity and workings of karma?
Although, little of this modern synthetic (zero-point energy and infinite
field oriented) scientific approach can be "proven" using the material
instruments and the reductive thinking of experimental physics available to
scientists today. -- even though, the new mathematics of chaos, complexity,
superstring/M-brane, quantum gravity and simplicity theories, etc., including
fractal geometry, tensor analysis, infinite sets, etc., is moving the present
"cutting edge of science" closer and closer to a Universal Field Theory that
will soon close the gap between deductive theosophical thinking and inductive
scientific thinking -- neither of which are solely spiritual nor solely
material, but encompass both these aspects of universal reality... Thus,
bringing consciousness and matter, brain and mind, body and soul, into closer
and closer mutually dependent and fully comprehensible relationship.
See my ABC [chakra-] field theory -- that is in consistent agreement with
both theosophical metaphysics, as presented and discussed by HPB, and current
"leading edge" scientific theories which are attempting to "marry" all
classical and modern physics theories (some of which have been "proven" only
in their limited field of application) -- into a single "Grand Unified Theory
of Everything" that, ultimately, will be identical to and consistent with the
fundamental principles and the conclusions of theosophical metaphysics.
The words, "Laplacian thinking" tells me nothing at all. Your opinions
regarding theosophical metaphysical concepts based on the opinions of others,
without any logical basis or thoughtful analysis, are just that --
opinions... Which doesn't in any way diminish your right to answer direct
questions or ask them.
But, the problem I see is that you skirt around the issues illogically, with
nothing more than vague historical references, referral to questionable
"authorities," and ad homonym arguments, that have nothing to do with the
ideas and questions you profess to be answering or commenting on -- while
using a blanket put-off by offhandedly categorizing them as "Laplacian
thinking." (Whatever that means?) In any case, my arguments and conclusions,
based on thoughtful study and synthesis of theosophical metaphysics with
leading edge scientific thinking, stands on their own. It's a shame that you
profess to make opinions about them based on little or no understanding of
either of these "scientific" (whether from an objective or a subjective
viewpoint) approaches to universal reality.
Also, it's too bad that you don't quote the entire letter thread you are
supposed to be responding to -- since, if you did so, others in this forum
might be better able to understand what I am talking about -- and, perhaps,
see for themselves how you distort your responses by quoting my arguments and
conclusions (if not those of other "theosophists") incompletely, and out of
context. So, perhaps your historical research and conclusions, which appear
to be based on that same sort of biased thinking, is why you feel so
oppressed by those thoughtful theosophists who question your veracity and
Sorry about calling a spade a spade, but that's how I see your correspondence
when it comes to matters of theosophical metaphysics, its fundamental
principles, and their relationship to current scientific thought -- that have
nothing to do with historical research designed, ostensibly, to show that
theosophy as presented by HPB is bag of second hand, derivative nonsense....
As you seem to believe, depending on the opinions of other historical
commentators without intellectual analysis or synthesis. I don't mind (nor
do I think Blavatsky would) your arguing against our parallel theories and
conclusions, but I'm sure both of us would appreciate your doing so logically
The "ax you appear (in my view) to be grinding, perhaps, is that, for some
unknown reasons (and certainly not logical ones it appears, judging from your
writings) -- you seem to be in disagreement with all the ancient and modern
"Masters of Wisdom" and their "occultist" student-teachers (and,
consequently, deny the validity of their metaphysical, ethical, moral, and
spiritual conclusions) whose common teachings underlie and support all of
Blavatsky's "bouquet" of commentaries on them.
With no intent to vilify you personally... In contrast to so called
"Laplacian thinking"(?) -- I see biased "reactionary thinking" in that...
Which I hope is not the case -- since, if so, all your selective historical
research, and your conclusions based on them, also comes into question.
In a message dated 02/22/02 10:54:17 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>Leon, I have no ax to grand this is a villification of yours, and
>reminds of the arguments people of the Flat Earth Society will use
>against anybody that doesn't agree with their claim that the earth
>Why do I and others not have the right to have answers, and ask
>I did not "mis" quote you at all, my quote was correct. Although I
>appologise I did not re-quote your whole long mail, I admit I don't
>like that either, although it is done with my mails all the time on
>However to answer the rest of your previous longer mail, everything
>you brought is exactly Laplacian thinking, including all your charts.
>As the SD is Laplacian thinking, notting else. You did not provide
>anything that holds scientificly above water that shows otherwise.
>Including the chakras, they are imaginary.
>I know you and Dallas won't accept anything I say, but why don't you
>ask Mic Foster if the SD is Laplacian thinking or not, maybe you and
>Dallas will be willing to read him on it.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application