Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00064)

Dear Adelasie,

With reference to my previous posts about ABC theory and its relationship to 
the leading edges of current science, as well as the current ethical, moral 
dilemmas of science -- I thought this recent dialogue between scientists on 
the Journal of Consciousness Study online forum, re their current ideas about 
reality and natural order, might be enlightening.

LHM

--------------------------------------------------------
>From jsjnson@eskimo.com (Joe Johnson)

John McCrone said it best on 2/21, as below. I would simply add, with
more specificity, an argument that may explain the structure of natural
order in relation to the conscious journey of mind. Or, perhaps someone
can tell me where I go wrong. :-)

[John McCrone]
My route is to say consciousness, as we experience it, is an
intensification of stuff that is already happening in complex adaptive
systems. Understanding this is a journey exploring a broad terrain
rather than a linear race from a start point to a finishing line. The
journey can never be completed (the Hard Problem disposed) because there
is always more terrain to enjoy. But you can get a sense of the lay of
the land after a while. Especially once you've climbed enough hills to
see that "consciousness" is part of a more general landscape of physical
forms. 

So the biggest "improper" statement is to tell a reductionist that the
secret of consciousness might not lie in a single causative
mechanism. Instead, the answer is smeared across a wide terrain. That
you will have to pass through philosophy, sociology, psychology,
neurology, biology and certain areas of mathematics to glean all the
intriguing detail. 

A reductionist just wants to dig for gold in the one spot - and thus to
be the person who discovers the prize and takes the glory. A race has
its winners and losers. A journey can only offer a certain personal
satisfaction.
-----------------

[Joe]
1. Natural order is a singular constraint, a fundamental, coherent
necessity implicit in all expression, but subjective; ultimately beyond
complete definition.

2. The only information we have about natural order is of relationships
in the language of common experience, i.e. metaphoric.

3. Any particular is the expression of natural order; with implicit
dimension, certainly, and perhaps also explicit.

4. Physical order is the dependent, explicit subset of implicit natural
order.

5. Every state or process is an abstraction that exists as a virtual
object in mind. By definition, mind is the perceiver and manipulator of
virtual objects.

6. Every such object is an expression of a higher abstract necessity, of
which the object is a particular. (Abstractions can be thought of as
simply virtual representations of particular things. But where process
in relationships is concerned, the particular result is always the
expression of some more abstract necessity. This is the subtle and
generally neglected point where abstract/particular joins the lexicon of
natural order to explain its structure.)

7. Implicit necessity "A" (why anything exists rather than not) created
explicit expression "B"; in which differences and limits are created
perceived mainly in metaphors of time, space and energy. "A" continues
to operate upon emergent properties of "B" resulting in increased
complexity "C," and its own emergent properties. Likewise, "A"
operating on "B, C," raises complexity "D" and its emergent properties,
and so on. The point we make is that nothing exists that is not
reducible to the implicit order of "A" because "A" is the all-inclusive
abstract necessity of which all subsequent are particular expressions at
various levels of complexity.

8. Evolution is the boundless directed path of increasing complexities
across time and space, each level with its emergent properties. There
is no abstract of this process that is not a particular of higher
abstracts, all the way up. It is the nature of abstractions that there
is no finite top. The highest abstract ("A") is all-inclusive.

9. Every process of this path expresses the implicit necessity of
natural order "A". Every process deemed physical expresses both an
explicit subset of natural order as well as the implicit necessity of
natural order. The explicit set is "signed in nature," and is
quantifiable; the larger implicit set is neither, and in our view is
subjective but reflects fundamental natural order "A."

10. A degree in the complexity of physical objects is reached that is
able to support the creation and manipulation of virtual objects. Mind
may be defined as the perception and manipulation of virtual objects.

11. The pursuit of order in relationships between quantifiable virtual
objects is relatively simple and straightforward as physical science, a
subset of natural order; what we recognize as "means."

12. The pursuit of order in relationships between non-quantifiable
virtual objects is not so simple. It requires an appreciation of the
structure of natural order: that the implicit necessity "A" is
subjective, relating not to the explicit parts but to the implicit
whole; what we recognize as "ends."

13. The question of ends is revealed to mind only by degrees. The
accumulation of experience with particulars takes the form of an arrow
that points in the direction of higher more inclusive abstracts and
ultimately, as some report, to the direct inclusive experience of "A." 
The path is increasing degrees of the self-awareness of Kosmos and its
fundamental subjective qualities, from the inside-out, in terms of the
contrived illusion of differences and limits. Perhaps it points to a
world implied by the Christians' meaning of "the second coming" in which
civil order has taken a form that more completely expresses the higher
qualities in the necessity of "A."

14. The most primitive expression of "A" is the breaking or hiding of a
perfect symmetry. As a constraint, the lower particulars of symmetry
are most generally expressed in the meaning of conservation law. Its
higher abstracts presumably point toward "A": notions such as justice,
integrity, aesthetics, beauty, love, etc. that resonate, not
surprisingly, with our higher intuitive values. Again, consciousness is
not a problem at all. It is simply the increasing self-awareness of
Kosmos - perhaps our collective flight from eternal sameness to
reconstruct our highest nature into the contrived realm of differences
and limits.

15. I would say that abstracts of symmetry are the places to dig, but
the path becomes endlessly complex and inclusive. For most of us, the
end is perhaps not achievable in this life, but the journey is
everything.

Joe Johnson

---------------------------------------------
In a message dated 03/01/02 5:19:39 AM, adelasie@surfari.net writes:

>Dear Leon,
>
>I appreciate very much the information you offer, that related to 
>science itself as well as your own experiences and those of your 
>friends and acqaintances. It is a rare privilege to be allowed inside 
>the realm of science in such a way. 
>
>Sometimes it seems as if the world, and humanity with it, may be 
>trembling on the brink of destruction. We have such power and so 
>little control, so little ethical understanding of what we are doing, 
>it seems. It sounds puny and trite to say it, in the face of such 
>huge issues as now face humanity, but I do believe that each one of 
>us has the power within to change everything. If we realize that we 
>are a part of all life, that the center of our being is the same as 
>the center of all, of the universe and everything in it, then we can 
>realize also that every act makes a difference. We have so many 
>opportunities every day to make choices in accord with the law of our 
>nature, our best ethics, our highest ideals. Our choices, even the 
>smallest most insignificant-seeming decision, have the power to be 
>the one thing needed to make a difference for all. There are no 
>little things. I wonder, can we expect our governments, our military, 
>our leaders, to be better than we are? Given the tremendous issues at 
>hand, do we have time to procrastinate? Is any one of us so perfect 
>that we never behave in a selfish, thoughtless, or greedy manner? It 
>seems to me that this is one area where theosophy can be tremendously 
>beneficial to the individual, helping him to discover how to become 
>part of the solution instead of remaining part of the problem. And 
>such an individual can become a positive factor in the human 
>equation. 
>
>In the meatime, I suppose it helps also to practice acceptance. After 
>all, if this is the state of our world, it is so because we helped to 
>make it so. And if we are doomed by our technological/scientific 
>expertise, then maybe this time we will learn the lesson we have been 
>trying to teach ourselves for so many eons, that all life is one and 
>that everything counts. 
>
>Best wishes,
>Adelasie
>
>On 26 Feb 2002 at 2:11, leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Adelasie,
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the advanced technology that follows the leading edge
>> of new scientific discoveries that have any relationship to the
>> fundamental energies of interest to theosophy, are mostly under the
>> control of the government... Whose primary interest in the face of
>> their current world views and concerns, are military applications,
>> followed by the vast economic potentials for those who supply the
>> weapons of war, as well as the communications, defense materials,
>> record keeping, and control systems necessary to carry out worldwide
>> military operations and protect the lives of soldiers in the field --
>> among other military considerations. Also, most of these products also
>> have potential civilian applications of great economic value. Thus,
>> in the face of the nature of the military as well as the political
>> mind, the exigencies of their work, as well as the eventual economic
>> considerations, along with the plums of material gain that are held
>> out for the successful civilian application of their discoveries and
>> inventions -- ethical considerations have to be put aside by the
>> government and military leaders, as well as the technologists who work
>> on these advanced scientific and technological projects.
>> 
>> On the other hand, the theoretical and experimental scientists who
>> discover the fundamental theories that stand behind these
>> technologies, are for the most part highly ethical and moral in their
>> private lives, but do not let these considerations effect their
>> thoughts or interfere with their work as they unfold the secrets of
>> nature in their perennial search for ultimate truths (and/or potential
>> fame and gain from their discoveries) without being inhibited by the
>> possible harmful applications of their work. There are also many
>> scientists -- while fairly religious, and even theosophical thinkers,
>> as Einstein, and many of his colleagues and followers were -- who
>> still cannot control the applications of their theoretical work, even
>> though they decry the possible misuse of their discoveries for non
>> ethical or immoral purposes. 
>> All they can do is warn us of the possible consequences or dangers,
>> as Einstein did in his later writings... (Even though he was the one who
>> was impelled by Leo Szilard to inform President Roosevelt of the
>> Nazis' search for atomic weaponry based on their theories, that led
>> the US toward developing the A-bomb.) 
>> 
>> So, there's a fine line to be drawn between those who use science
>> intentionally for nefarious or unethical purposes, and those who use
>> it for what appears to be good purposes in the face of their world
>> concerns. But, even those applications may cause harm (or "collateral
>> damage") -- as well as save lives in the defense of their family,
>> friends, or countrymen. It's hard to say, then, what constitutes the
>> ethical and moral use of science and its resultant technology -- in
>> the face of these disparate concerns on all levels of government,
>> defense and economics -- that, ostensibly, as they see it in their
>> limited views, contribute to the well being of the majority of people.
>> 
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the concerns of the leaders of countries, don't always
>> correspond with the needs of the people (as contrasted with their
>> "wants"). Vide, the continued use of fossil fuel as a source of
>> energy required by almost all scientifically based technologies, that
>> causes pollution and damage to living beings as well as to the ecology
>> of the Earth's biosphere. 
>> 
>> This can only change, when science and theosophy become merged into
>> one "Gupta Vidya" or Grand Unified Theory of Everything (including
>> consciousness) -- that all mankind can accept as the only truth
>> necessary to govern both their personal and communal lives on Earth.
>> 
>> Referring to the many scientists and engineers who worked successfully
>> on the first Atomic bombs during WW II, many of them were quite
>> disturbed by the application of their work in destroying so many lives
>> at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- But, their mitigation was that so many
>> more lives of their own countrymen were saved by not having to face a
>> costly invasion of Japan. This, of course, doesn't reduce the moral
>> responsibility for so many lost lives... And, some scientists went
>> through difficult emotional problems, depressions and nervous
>> breakdowns after the war ended. 
>> 
>> For example, one of my close friends, Dr. Sebastian Perchion, a
>> nuclear physicist and engineer who was instrumental in designing the
>> trigger mechanism on the initial A-bomb, had a nervous breakdown soon
>> after Hiroshima. And, after three years in a Trappist monastery doing
>> penance, he went to Nepal following in the footsteps of another
>> disallusioned scientist, Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Dass) and became a
>> Llama of the Ningmapa sect of Tibetan Buddhism. Returning to the US,
>> after several years in a Tibetan monastery, besides changing his
>> profession to become a nuclear biologist (like Leo Szilard) he studied
>> theosophy in depth for over a year (orally, through me, as a "reader"
>> and interpreter of the SD, since he was semi-blind as a result of the
>> flash of the Alamagordo "Trinity" test bomb) -- and later, based on
>> this study, became my collaborator in helping correlate the ABC theory
>> with modern relativity, quantum and string theories. During this
>> period, he taught me the fundamentals of relativity, quantum and
>> string physics, with emphasis on the technological and engineering
>> aspects which aligned with my professional training as a chemical
>> engineer along with a strong background in physical chemistry coupled
>> with electronic and mechanical systems and industrial product design.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, Dr. Perchion died (in 1987) before completing the
>> mathematics necessary to justify the ABC theory as being, at least,
>> analytically consistent with all the other modern theories of physics.
>> Since that time, however, the mathematical developments of 10
>> dimensional Superstring theory leading to the 11 dimensional M-brane
>> synthesis, are finally beginning to mathematically justify the ABC
>> concept we envisioned as a direct scientific interpretation of the
>> theosophical Cosmogenesis theory of "coadunate but not consubstantial"
>> field involution and evolution -- as described symbolically by HPB in
>> the SD. 
>> 
>> The difference in thinking however is that most M-brane theorists
>> still look at the their theoretical developmental problem from a
>> materialistic or reductive "particulate" point of view -- while ABC
>> considers it from a geometrical waveform "informational" direction --
>> giving the photon "field" nature primacy over the electron "particle"
>> nature as described by conventional physics... Thus, allowing ABC to
>> consider energy transformations using coherent (laser) light
>> transformed in a spiral-vortex pattern through specialized crystalline
>> structures, as well as to incorporate an explanation of consciousness,
>> perception and organic "life" energies as part of its technological
>> and theoretical, as well as its humanistic aspects. 
>> 
>> Thus the ABC approach toward zero-point energy transformations are
>> based on inductive resonance processes acting between coadunate fields
>> of "information," similar to the "coenergetic" transformational
>> "consciousness" and "perceptive" processes in sentient beings (whether
>> in wakeful or dream states) that do not require any mechanical action
>> or moving parts. 
>> 
>> However, while most of the theoretical work is soon to be completed,
>> none of the "reduction to practice" of potential technologies related
>> to healing, ecological damage repair, "free" non polluting energy,
>> antigravity, space drives, information storage, etc., has been carried
>> out -- while my colleagues and I have been and are still studying the
>> potential misapplications, and deciding how to avoid or divert them...
>> Hopefully, to prevent the mistakes made in the past (and present) with
>> technologies stemming from materialistic thinking and personal greed
>> -- without prior theosophical, karmic, and other ethical and moral
>> considerations. 
>> 
>> I hope this gives you some further food for thought, both from a
>> technological as well as a theosophical scientific point of view, with
>> regard to the future potentials of these new scientific "paradigms"
>> that will begin to be applied in the very near future -- whether
>> through development of ABC or through the current work in zero-point
>> M-brane physics -- both of which are in close agreement with
>> theosophical principles and metaphysical philosophy.
>> 
>> LHM

>
>