[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Theosophy and Science

Mar 06, 2002 07:33 PM
by leonmaurer

Dear Adelasie,

You're Welcome. 
Thank you for your interest. 


In a message dated 03/05/02 8:20:12 PM, writes:

>Dear Leon,
>Thanks very much for this enlightening material. It is very 
>gratifying to find that such ideas are circulating in the scientific 
>community, although it doesn't surprise me, in view of the tremendous 
>impulse from inner planes that humanity has received in the past 
>century or so. I recently had the opportunity to attend a forum with 
>a young scientist from the NIH who is a theosophist. He was asking 
>about theosophical points of view and input regarding bio-research in 
>several areas. I would like to give him the URL to your website, if 
>you would be so kind as to post it again.
>Best wishes,
>On 2 Mar 2002 at 21:45, wrote:
>> 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 (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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application