Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00374)

Where did I ever mention that Casteneda was my inspiration? And what has 
that has that do with my responses to your posts and your opinionated 
conclusions about the relationship between post modern science and theosophy? 
Is this just another side tracking trick yours to avoid getting into the 
meat of our disagreement with your opinions about the invalidity of 
theosophical metaphysics -- and the reasons for our non acceptance of the 
selective, non sequitur references you use to apparently validate your own 
logically and/or scientifically unfounded and, thereby, questionable 
conclusions? 

I'm getting tired of your avoidance of these issues (you bring up) and your 
use of such ploys to denigrate everything anyone says that disagrees with 
your negative conclusions about theosophy and your denigration of HPB's 
metaphysical teachings about it ... That, today, is getting closer and closer 
to being verified by many current scientific and philosophical thinkers. 

Perhaps, the following references -- along with a basic understanding of the 
new physics (http://superstringtheory.com/) might help you and our readers in 
clarifying my position with reference to your negative opinions about the 
validity of theosophical teachings -- as well as my ABC interpretation of 
them in scientific terms.

References (There's more, but this is fine for starters)

Books - Easy reading

Becker, Robet O. and Selden, G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the 
foundation of life. Morrow, New York. 1987. 

Burr, Harold. Blueprint for Immortality: The electric patterns of life. 
Neville Spearman, London. 1972. 

Goswami, Amit. The Self-Aware Universe: how consciousness creates the 
material world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York. 1993.

Sheldrake, Rupert. A New Science of Life. Tarcher, Los Angeles. 1981. 

Wilber, Ken. The Holographic Paradigm and other paradoxes. New Science 
Library, Boston. 1982. 

Young, Arthur. The Reflexive Universe. Robert Briggs Associates, Lake Oswego, 
OR. 1976. 

Books - Technical, but worth the effort

Bearden, Thomas. Gravitobiology: A New Biophysics, Tesla Book Co. San Diego. 
1989. 

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Ark, NY. 1983. 

Bohm, David. and Hiley, Basil. The Undivided Universe: An ontological 
interpretation of quantum theory. Routledge, NY. 1993. 

Nordenstrom, Bjorn. Biologically Closed Electric Circuits: Clinical, 
experimental and theoretical evidence for an additional circulatory system. 
Nordic, Stockholm. 1983. 

Popp, Fritz, et al. Editors. Electromagnetic Bioinformation. Urban & 
Schwarzenberg, Baltimore. 1989. 

Sheldrake, Rupert. The Presence of the Past: Morphic resonance and the habits 
of nature. Park Street Press, Rochester, VT. 1995. 

Journal articles

Basset, C. Acceleration of Fracture Repair by Electromagnetic Fields. A 
Surgically Noninvasive Method. NY Academy of Science 238, 242-261 1974. 

Bohm, David. A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter. 
Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 271-286 1990. 

Callahan, Roger. A Rapid Treatment for Phobias. Collected Papers, Interna
tional College of Applied Kinesiology. 1981. 

Callahan, Roger. Successful Treatment of Phobias and Anxiety by Telephone and 
Radio. Collected Papers, International College of Applied Kinesiology. 
Winter, 1987. 

Hamerof, S. Chi: a neural hologram? Am. J. Chinese Med., 2 (2), 163-70. 1974. 

Hamerof, S. Information processing in microtubules. J. Theor. Biol. 98. 
549-61. 1982. 

Lipton, BH. Microvessel endothelial cell transdifferentiation: phenotypic 
characterization. Differentiation. 46:117-133. 1991. 

Lipton, BH. Histamine-Modulated Transdifferentiation of Dermal Microvascular 
Endothelial Cells. Experimental Cell Research. 199, 279-291. 1992. 

Nijhout, HF. Metaphors and the role of genes in development. Bioessays 
12(9):441-446, Sep, 1990.

LHM 


In a message dated 03/20/02 2:46:29 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>What you write is already in the Set-material of 1969, and that is 
>probably where Carlos Castaneda read it, whom you among others 
>mentioned as your inspiration.
> Bri.
>
>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> 
>> In a message dated 03/15/02 2:53:12 PM, bri_mue@y... writes:
>> 
>Jerry: The Planetary Chain, or Gupta Vidya Model as I call it, is the 
> bedrock of Theosophy. The fact that it is entirely mayavic and a
> "finger pointing to the moon" is ignored by most Theosophists."
>> 
>Bri.: Yes, Theosophy describes a septenary cosmos as an 
>interdependent whole, yet Theosophists cannot explain then 
>why "occultism" and Theosophy are rejected by modern science , when 
>Theosophy supposed to "encompass" all the sciences.
>> 
>> And, what value as "proof" of anything does that rejection 
>by "modern 
>> science" have (based on nothing more than their negative, 
>scientifically 
>> "religious" belief that nothing exists other than what can be 
>physically 
>> sensed and measured with their "material" instruments)? 
>Unfortunately, for 
>> those followers of the established scientific dogmas, the new 
>mathematics, 
>> such as that used by Superstring theorists, is beginning to punch 
>big holes 
>> in those beliefs -- since zero-point "vacuum" energies in the form 
>of 
>> "coadunate but not consubstantial" primal energy fields cannot be 
>seen, 
>> touched or measured physically (although the "Casimir effect" has 
>> inferentially "proved" their existence -- to the consternation of 
>many 
>> reductive scientific believers in the classical and most current 
>scientific 
>> dogmas.
>> 
>In the Middle Ages, truth was dogma, acquired by revelation and 
>decided by authority; but as the philosophers of the Enlightenment 
>declared, science is the enemy of dogma precisely because it is not 
>arcane. Admittedly, Pythagoras thought that the ideas of natural 
>philosophy should be kept under wraps, and so, somewhat oddly, did 
>Francis Bacon. But the essence of modern science is to be as explicit
>> >as possible: "show your working", as they say in maths exams. 
>Science 
>> >may sometimes be hard, but it is ultimately democratic. Only the 
>> >initiated can be party to the thoughts of the tribal witch doctor 
>or 
>> >medireview priest (or of Pythagoras, if he had his way), but the
>> >ideas of science are laid out for all to inspect.
>> 
>> Yes, but only those members of the 'academic" community with the 
>proper 
>> credentials are allowed to comment or make tentative judgments 
>about their 
>> validity -- or be peer reviewed and published in their 
>current "scientific" 
>> journals (or "bibles"). 
>> 
>> Science "democratic"? What a joke.
>> 
>> Besides all that, the following is just another example of the 
>attempt to 
>> denigrate theosophy and any scientific description of it by 
>selective 
>> negative "associations" and "opinionated generalizations" (as 
>Daniel so 
>> succinctly pointed out).
>> 
>A strategy Theosophy often use is a simplistic form of pattern 
>recognisiton. For example Theosophists will claim chemistry 
>demonstrates the indestructibility of matter, and this is the belated 
>scientific insight into the "occult" doctrine that the universe is
>eternal and only temporarily goes into the unmanifested or pralaya 
>state.
>(SD 1:552) 
>Secondly, although the atomic theory of matter was well developed by 
>the late nineteenth century, it had not yet been convincingly
>verified at that time. Many chemists, and a few physicists, still held
>open 
>the possibility that matter might be continuous. Thus, the chemistry 
>of
>the 1880s could not define the "boundaries" that distinguish chemical 
>elements by other means than overt differences in appearance or 
>behavior in various reactions. This is an insight that makes
>chemistry approach the "occult" belief that all matter is ultimately a
>variety of manifestations of a unitary prima materia.(SD 1:546)
>> 
>> Well, isn't it?
>> 
>A second argument is based on the strategy of synonymization.Devas 
>and genii are declared to be the same entities that science calls
>forces .(SD 1:478.)
> The chemical terms molecule, atom and particle refer tothe realities 
>that "occultists" name Hosts, Monads and Devas.(SD1:548.)
> The periodic table of Mendeleeff is explained as consisting of seven
>families of elements plus an eighth (that only fits awkwardly into the
>system) is said to correspond to the Hindu allegory of Aditi, the
>Mother or Infinite Space who accepted seven of her sons and rejected 
>the eighth (SD 1:553.)
>> >
>"There can be no conflict between the occult and so-called exact 
>Science, where the conclusions of the latter are based on a
>substratum of unassailable fact".(SD 1:477.)
>> >
> The last proviso is important. The correspondence between science
>and occultism is not complete. In fact, science is only now (at the 
>end
>of the nineteenth century approaching the stage at which occultism has
>been for thousands of years. Like other spokespersons of the Esoteric 
>Tradition, Blavatsky constructs a distinction between the bigoted and 
>contradictory beliefs of materialistic scientists and true or real
>science (For the term "true science", see SD 1:514.) which, by 
>definition, is not materialistic.(SD 1:518.)
>> >
>Blavatskyan Theosophy thus builds on the presupposition, by now 
>familiar, that science is a body of doctrines, and constructs the 
>characteristic dichotomy between two forms of science. (For 
>spiritualized science described as true science, see SID 1:496. )
>> >
>The split between the two is a historical phenomenon, and Blavatsky 
>blames certain individual thinkers for this split. Bacon was an early 
>culprit due to the materialism of his method, the general tenor of
>his writing and, more specifically, his misunderstanding of spiritual
>evolution.(SD I 481) 
>Descartes was a "worshipper of matter". (IU 1:206.)
>Newton's materialistic mistake was to posit the law of gravity as a 
>primary force rather than an effect of underlying spiritual causes .(
>SD 1:490) 
>Other scientists were "spiritually" inclined, and these are 
>selectively approved of Thus, some of the more speculative passages 
>from Newton's writings are quoted in support of a spiritualized 
>interpretation of gravity.(SD 1:490 .)
> But then, Blavatsky claims, on shaky grounds, that Newton arrived at 
>his
>ideas by reading Boehme.(This claim originated with the English 
>Christian theosopher William Law 1686-176, and remains controversial)
>> >
>Kepler is admired for his way of combining scientific and esoteric 
>thought.(This claim originated with the English Christian theosopher 
>William Law 1686-1761) and remains controversial) The positive side of
>> >
>Descartes' work was his belief in magnetic forces and alchemy. (1U 
>1:206.)
>> >
>> >However, even the greatest scientists are merely rediscovering
>> >ancient knowledge, expressed through cryptic symbolism in Indian 
>> >scriptures and also transmitted by a lineage of Western occultists 
>> >including Paracelsus and assorted kabbalists and alchemists.
>> 
>> Well, aren't they? 
>> 
>> >Next, theosophical spokespersons such as Alice Bailey and 
>Leadbeater 
>> >lived in an intermediate age. The quasi-physical language of
>> >mesmerism was on the wane, its results explainable in secularized 
>> >terms such as "the subconscious" or "hypnosis".Theosophists still 
>defend
>> >the existence of paranormal phenomena in the seance rooms of the 
>> >mesmerists, but only that the scientistic vocabulary of mesmerism 
>had 
>> >become marginalized. Even an ardent defender of mesmerism such as 
>> >Leadbeater attempts to explain mesmerism in terms of other forces, 
>> >more in tune with the science and scientism of his own time. 
>> >
>> >"Magnetism", he explains, is in reality a cascade of tiny particles
>> >poured out from the sun, absorbed by the human body and circulated 
>as 
>> >a-vital fluid through the nerves much as blood is circulated 
>through 
>> >arteries and veins. A healthy man radiates some of this fluid, 
>which can
>> >
>> >then be absorbed by those who lack it. (Leadbeater Some Glimpses 
>of 
>> >Occultism, pp. 154 ff.) Whereas Mesmer's own theories are 
>pastiches 
>> >on the theories of electromagnetism of his time, Leadbeater 
>created a 
>> >personal synthesis of atomic theory and vitalism to explain the 
>same 
>> >phenomena, an explanation still common among theosophists today.
>> 
>> What has this discredited Neo-theosophy, have to do with the 
>current concepts 
>> of theosophical principles and their irrefutable and logical 
>conclusions, 
>> based on the fundamental teachings of the most ancient wisdom and 
>knowledge 
>> -- that came long before both partially fallacious, so 
>called "occult" 
>> science, and equally fallacious "classical" and "modern" science 
>reared their 
>> mutually contradictory heads? We don't need "selective" pseudo 
>history or 
>> prejudiced and opinionated assertions to "prove" that. Post modern 
>science, 
>> of course, with its new paradigms -- close to theosophical 
>metaphysics, by 
>> the way -- may soon prove to be another story. Let's wait and see -
>- rather 
>> than base our judgments on hearsay and unscientific historical 
>guesswork
>> 
>> LHM
>>