Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00021)

Thank you for your prejudicial and negatively interpretive review of 
Goswami's book -- which confirms my claims that your main purposes here are 
to discredit (using every possible unfounded and opinionated means) any and 
all scientific references that might verify theosophical metaphysics (or my 
confirmatory ABC theory) concerning the multidimensional "coenergetic but not 
consubstantial" field nature of universal reality.  

The only "hatred" I referred to was your apparent hatred of theosophical 
metaphysics (as presented by HPB) being considered as a valid theory of 
universal origin. History is perfectly acceptable in its place, but when 
used as a "proof" to invalidate a modern scientific theory that may or may 
not be consistent with theosophical metaphysics -- it has no place... And, 
use of it as such by you, constitutes another evidence of your prejudicial 
tricks to discredit HPB in particular and theosophy in general -- by drowning 
us in non sequitur historical information of no particular relevance to the 
theosophical topics under discussion. 

LHM 

In a message dated 04/01/02 5:41:21 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon: "Goswami, Amit. The Self-Aware Universe: how consciousness 
>creates the material world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York. 1993 -- to find 
>out the "hard time" modern physics is having answering the "hard 
>problems" of consciousness."
>
>In fact I did read Goswami, but what he writes has not much to do
>with HPB as such. 
>
>In fact what you mention, "so above so below", that is from the Tabula
>Smaragdina written in the 9th century and translated in Latin during the
>Renaissance in Italy. But if you contantly interpret these historical
> as "hatred" it is no surprise that under these circumstances you can 
>also not get the real facts of the mathematics down, as you will 
>interpret these also as "hatred." That you don't want to study history
>and see where the ideas you claim really came from is therefore your 
>2e problem. 
>
>
>Goswami has published several books presenting an idealist 
>
>interpretation of quantum mechanics, the best known being "The
>
>Self Aware Universe" . In 1996, Goswami and Henry Swift began
>
>publishing an on line bulletin called Science Within Consciousness, 
>
>carrying articles on idealist quantum metaphysics. In his publications,
>
>
>Goswami presents two principal claims.
>
>
>
>Firstly, quantum physics is best explained within a framework that 
>
>hovers between idealism and neutral monism. More precisely, the 
>
>underlying "stuff" of the universe that, according to Goswami, is 
>
>revealed by quantum physics should be understood as consciousness. In 
>
>Goswami's terminology, however, consciousness is not the same as 
>
>mind, but an unknowable something that transcends both mind and 
>
>matter. Perhaps, in Berkeleyan fashion, one could interpret Goswami
>
>as saying that it is a transcendent consciousness that causes the
>
>properties of the macroscopic world to emerge.
>
>
>
>Secondly, he claims that quantum mechanics provides support for
>
>claims of a variety of paranormal phenomena. Psychic phenomena, such 
>
>as distant viewing and out of body experiences, are examples of what 
>
>he calls the non local operation of consciousness, which he attempts to
>
>
>support by means of an unorthodox interpretation of the EPR paradox.
>
>It has been formally demonstrated that the seemingly coordinated 
>
>behavior of two particles at a distance implied in the EPR paradox 
>
>cannot be used to transmit information as this would be an attempt
>
>to explain an imperfectly instantiated paranormal phenomenon by 
>
>means of ad hoc hypotheis. Goswami's solution to this problem is to 
>
>invoke a principle of his own, which he calls downward causation by 
>
>consciousness. His idea is that consciousness collapses quantum waves 
>
>of possibility into actual events, and that conscious intention can 
>
>correlate two quantum objects. This would purportedly explain how,
>
>for instance, telepathy could be possible.
>
>
>
> Goswami's quantum metaphysics thus goes beyond the construction of 
>
>an idealist philosophy. In his publications and on line bulletins, Goswami
>=
>
>
>
>
>has invoked his interpretation of physics to endorse a variety of New Age
>
>
>claims ranging from psychokinesis and remote viewing to channeling 
>
>and healing. We shall return to such uses of quantum metaphysics in the
>
>
>following section. Goswami's own professed purpose is to show that 
>
>physics not only has suggestive parallels with Indian monistic idealism
>
>
>(as Capra did),but to demonstrate that a philosophy of monistic idealism
>
>
>is the only reasonable ontological framework within which it is possible
>
>
>to make sense of the world of quantum mechanics. The rhetorical 
>
>strategies employed to do so are highly reminiscent of those found 
>
>in "The Tao of Physics". The idealism that Goswami refers to is a kind
>of
>
>"philosophia perennis" a popular idea during the Renaisance. As I 
>
>mentioned before this universalizing view of religion is constructed 
>
>by a liberal use of synonymization and pattern recognition. Thus, the 
>
>twin elements of the Indian concept of nama rupa, generally
>
>translated as "name and form", are assimilated to Western philosophical
>
>
>and psychological terminology by being interpreted as "transcendent 
>
>archetypes" and "immanent form", respectively. See also my remarks 
>
>about John Dee and others of that period, Renaisance.
>
>
>
>The Hindu term brahman is explained as a synonym of the Christian
>
>Holy Spirit, and so on. The range of idealist philosophies quoted in
>
>support of Goswami's own thesis is far vaster than Capra's. In The Self
>
>
>Aware Universe, there are references to Vedanta, Daoism, Mahayana 
>
>Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, Platonism, Yoga, and a host of other 
>
>traditions. Goswami's physics is equally unorthodox. The traditional 
>
>Copenhagen interpretation is explained in passing and the more upto 
>
>date theories of decoherence do not enter the discussion, whereas 
>
>theories that might support Goswami's own views are referred to 
>
>throughout his text . 
>
>
>
>It can be noted that recent statements of quantum 
>
>metaphysics share their perspective with other New Age popularizations
>
>
>of the topic: the developments of the first forty years are 
>
>overemphasized at the expense of the advances of the last few decades.
>
>
>
>Goswami constructs the same straw man as Talbot in "Mysticism and 
>
>the New Physics"pp. 45 f., by claiming that the view of
>
>consciousness as an epiphenomenon of material (neurological) 
>
>processes reduces consciousness to the status of an illusion; "Self Aware
>
>Universe" p. 6
>
>The argument may have had some validity during the time Of 
>
>behaviorism, but is out of place in works written in the early
>
>1990's.
>
>
>
>Adopting such an idealist interpretation would, according to Goswami, 
>
>have much wider implications than just supplanting one view of the 
>
>world with another. 
>
>
>
>By embracing philo sophical materialism, the worldview underpinning 
>
>classical physics is also said to foster materialism in the everyday
>
>sense of the word, i.e. the wish to hoard possessions.Consequently, 
>
>quantum metaphysics is not only a way of understanding physical reality,
>
>
>but ultimately a path to reconcile science and religion, make us accept
>
>the spiritual experiences, heal our alienation and, ultimately, effect
>a
>
>major social transformation:
>
>
>
>"If ordinary people really knew that consciousness and not matter
>
>is the link that connects us with each other and the world, then their
>
>
>view about war and peace, environmental pollution, social justice,
>
>religious values, and all other endeavors would change 
>
>radically."(Goswami "Self –Aware Universe" p. 8. This
>
>utopian agenda is central to Goswami's project.)
>
>
>
>In order to further his idealistic interpretation, Goswami, like
>
>others in the the quantum metaphysical genre that I mentioned in an 
>
>earlier posting to you (Leon), combines a view of physics shared
>
>with very few scientists with a description of Indian
>
>philosophy that is hardly defensible from a historical point of view.
>
>Rather then being a presentation of modern physics in any
>
>conventional sense, "The Se!f Aware Universe" appears to center on the
>
>need for spiritual transformation and the possibility of seeing the birth
>o=
>
>
>f 
>
>a new age. Significantly, paratextual markers in Goswami's The Self 
>
>Aware Universe contribute to labeling his work as neither a work of
>
>popularized physics nor a book on idealist philosophy, but specifically
>as =
>
>
>
>
>an example of New Age literature. The endorsements and comments on 
>
>the back flap are thus not principally those of fellow physicists, but of 
>
>New Age spokespersons healer Larry Dossey, an anonymous reviewer 
>
>from the Yoga journal. The preface is an endorsement by an even more 
>
>controversial quantum metaphysicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who became 
>
>known for his Capra like assertion that there are significant parallels
>
>
>between modern physics and traditional shamanism.  
>
>  
> =
>
>
> Bri.