Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00023)

Hi, Leon:

I appreciate your link on superstring theory. 
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no way I can
allocate sufficient time to read Hawkings' books. So
may I make a suggestion. Sometime instead of merely
referring to the superstring theory, could you outline
at a high level how this explains consciousness and
avoid technical terms one would have to study Hawkings
to understand. I don't dispute the possibility that
an 11 dimensional model could map to objective
reality, but I am unclear how this could explain
consciousness, since it seems to describe the contents
of consciousness instead, or rather the noumenon of
the contents of consciousness, since eight of those
eleven dimensions are not phenomenal. At least I do
not perceive them.

Also, I am a bit confused why, if Hawkings posits an
11 dimensional space he is hostile to the idea of four
dimentions, which would seem to be included in that
model.

SS
--- leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Again, you take everything I say out of context, and
> quote one thing and 
> answer or ask questions referring to something
> entirely different. The link 
> referred to makes no bones about being entirely
> fictional and has no 
> relationship to the theoretical scientific analysis
> of fundamental forces 
> underlying the ABC theory. 
> 
> I haven't the faintest idea what mathematics you are
> talking about. If its 
> the mathematics of quantum gravity or string theory
> that confirms the logical 
> multidimensionality of the ABC or theosophical
> metaphysical view, it's 
> apparently you who doesn't understand any of it.
> 
> Therefore, any assertions you make regarding the
> invalidity of the zero-point 
> originated multidimensionality of the universe in
> the form of "coenergetic, 
> coadunate but not consubstantial" fields, are
> worthless -- unless you can 
> come up with an alternate theoretical view that
> explains the nature of 
> consciousness, mind and matter, and their origins
> and interrelationships, 
> that current science along with their contrived
> materialistic mathematics -- 
> related to the (theoretical and as yet unproved)
> "four dimensional space 
> time continuum" -- cannot explain. 
> 
> LHM
> 
> In a message dated 04/01/02 1:50:21 AM,
> bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> >Analytically, you can define any amount of
> dimensional space, there 
> >could be a hundred dimensions, in other words,
> although such a 
> >geometry might exist only in thought and not in the
> real world.
> >But apparently you can't read the mathematics. 
> >
> >You mention a device to produce free-energy, but 
> does it exist , or 
> >is that also just hypothetically (fiction/fantasy
> )?
> >
>
>http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/solwldcrystpos
> >ter.html#anchor1097781
> > 
> 
> > 
> Bri.
> >
> >> 
> >> In a message dated 03/23/02 3:51:32 PM,
> bri_mue@y... writes: '
> >> [Quoting Jerry Schueler, followed by the usual
> hodgepodge of non 
> >> sequitur historical and illogically prejudiced
> "proofs" (snipped) that the 
> >> theosophical chakra system of 7 fold coadunate
> but not consubstantial
> >> fields is a false, unscientific view.]
> >> 
> >> >Jerry: I find this something like using a shoe
> horn to get a small 
> >> >shoe onto a large foot. I take this "antiquity"
> business with a grain 
> >> >of salt. There is absolutely NO reason that
> anyone can show as to why 
> >> >7 is necessary or better than 6 or 5. The
> Enochian system works well 
> >> >with 6. Tibetan Buddhism works well with 5.
> Seven is arbitrary.
> >> >You will seldom find any 7-sheath models in
> Hinduism or Buddhism or 
> >> >Vedanta. Row was a Theosophist and was reaching.
> Most schemes have 
> >> >five or six sheaths. And are these sheaths
> principles or bodies? It
> >> >is still confusing. Judge and Besant both
> confounded bodies and
> >> >principle has a corresponding body or vehicle
> (upadhi). HPB says 
> >> >that each plane is associated with a principle.
> And so it goes, with 
> >> >Theosophists today still arguing and debating on
> what it all means.
> >> >This sevenfold division is very arbitrary and is
> NOT the way things 
> >> >are experienced. It is purely a Theosophical
> methodology and if we 
> >> >can all accept that, we will be better off.
> There is nothing wrong 
> >> >with having our own divisions of 7, and such a
> division works well 
> >> >for me, but we need to recognize and accept that
> it is arbitrary and 
> >> >NOT some kind of law of nature.
> >> 
> >> The above statements indicate that your ideas are
> perhaps based on 
> >> literally interpreted dogmas that fit with your
> own preconceptions and 
> >> with your, possibly, mistaken interpretations of
> the Buddha's as well as 
> >>since HPB's teachings -- which are quite
> paradoxical within themselves -- 
> >> both teachers were faced with two opposite states
> of existence along with 
> >> all the possible intermediate states, further
> confounded by their language 
> >> barriers or lossesin translation. Therefore, we
> must be very careful to 
> look
> >> at their contrary statements about divisions of
> space with very careful 
> >> consideration of the contextual nature as well as
> the stage of involution 
> and/or 
> >> evolution they are referring to -- coupled with a
> thorough understanding 
> of and 
> >> ability to apply fundamental principles -- before
> making any judgments 
> that we 
> >> are tempted to cut in stone. 
> >> 
> >> Maybe we should also stop looking at
> contradictory historical ideas and 
> >> other people's concepts to gain knowledge of
> metaphysical truths, and 
> >> start thinking for ourselves based on fundamental
> principles... That is, 
> to 
> >> scientifically derive in our own minds where all
> these different divisions 
> >> come from, and how they fit in with the overall
> truth; Which is that, the 
> >> differentiation's of primary space and its
> fundamental "spinergy" is 
> >> ultimately infinitely divisible... With "strange
> attractors" along the way 
> >> that bring, at different stages, differing
> degrees of order out of the 
> >> initial chaos. Thus the basic divisions or
> "orders," "phases," "planes," 
> >> "fields," etc., could be any number from two to a
> googolplex. Although, 
> >> lower numbers from two to twenty-one tend to
> repeat themselves 
> >> the periodically along the way. 
> >> 
> >> Therefore, there's no reason for the divisions of
> "coadunate but not 
> >> consubstantial fields" of nature not to be based
> on fundamental laws of 
> >> energy involution and evolution, starting from
> their zero (laya) points of 
> >> origin. 
> >> 
> >> Since this starting point is composed solely of
> abstract motion or 
> >> circular spin, its emanations must obey the fixed
> laws of cycles and 
> >> periodicity which govern all the harmonics of
> vibrational energy
> >> fields -- regardless of their spectrums,
> >> phases or orders of frequency -- from astral
> light to physical sound 
> >> (and even lower to gravitational waves). 
> Therefore, all the field
> >> involution's must follow the same laws of musical
> harmony -- which can 
> >> be divided into either octaval, decimal or
> duodecimal scales -- as HPB 
> >> repeatedly pointed out. As for these divisions,
> they can also be broken 
> >> down into two, three, four, five, six, seven,
> ten, twelve, etc., 
> >> subdivisions or harmonics. 
> >> 
> >> Since complete harmonies on the physical plane
> can be generated, 
> >>> starting with the simplest seven fold system,
> this is the basis of 
> choosing 
> >> the 7 chakras which correspond with the octaval
> musical harmonies, and 
> >>color scales or spectrums we directly experience.
> But, in some cultures 
> >>>where their musical scales are based on the
> decimal or duodecimal system, 
> >> it is common to choose such a "chakra" (center)
> or 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/