Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00279)

What neurobiological theories are you referring to? And what makes Hofstadter 
an authority? 

But, I suppose you consider those assertions and references as a really 
rational answer to our refutations of your unfounded assertions and 
prejudicial opinions. 

Obviously, your dependence on questionable authorities and obliquely labeling 
anything that refutes your false statements as "anti intellectualism," is a 
sure sign that you don't know what you are talking about. 

Of course, I understand how you must, "at all costs," convince us that only 
non-Americans like you are "rational" and "intellectual"... (Whatever that 
means in your conceptions? :-)

LHM

In a message dated 08/30/02 9:59:56 PM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>Brian: If neurobiologists are correct, most brains will come to 
>understand reality if properly nurtured. It is ignorance which provides
>the necessity for just-so stories, with all the tragic consequences that
>follow when people defend a flawed worldview at all costs. 
>
>The number of ant-rational responses has been increasing on this list 
>lately. There is a good book I have been reading two weeks ago, and 
>that is good for all to read dealing with Theosophical literature.
>
>It is Richard Hofstadter's: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Its
>available in almost all bookstores today, for free in most libraries.
>And covers all of the issues brought up here lately.
> 
> Brian
>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> 
>> In a message dated 08/29/02 6:08:02 PM, brianmuehlbach@y... writes:
>> 
>> > If your belief is based on "inner feelings" (the "inner man") , 
"religion"
>> >("Theos-" ) or even so-called "common sense" as you might claim, it
>> >is far more likely to be wrong than theories based on scientific evidence.
>> >
>> > If what you claim is based on more then religious faith then
>> > present the evidence that supports SD creation myth, the posting below
>> >and the content of your two previous postings. And I' be glad to discuss
>> >them. 
>> > 
>> >Brian
>> 
>> Waste of time -- since all your "limited" physicalist scientific evidence
>> is based solely on the lowest or densest "material" plane of universal 
>> involution and evolution, and hasn't a clue about the cause, nature,
>> experience, or mechanisms of consciousness, thought, perception, 
awareness, 
>> etc... And, cannot discuss the relationship between, or "binding" of brain 
>> and mind from an objective scientific level, or explain ESP, ASC, action 
at a 
>> distance or quantum entanglement, and other seminal questions that 
>> completely baffle established reductive science (but not theosophical 
>> "deductive science"). 
>> 
>> Besides, the SD does not support the "creation myth" of universal origin 
ex 
>> nihilo, since its teachings re universal Cosmogenesis -- originating 
lawfully 
>> out of the primal singularity or zero-point of infinite potential angular
>> momenta or "spinergy" -- are based solely on fundamental cyclic laws that 
>> are logically and mathematically sound... Some of which (re: "coadunate 
>> but not consubstantial enfolded fields" in at least three to ten+ 
dimensions,
>> following laws of electricity as well as quantum and relativity physics,
>> zero-point energy, zero-point origination of all fields, etc.) has been 
fully 
>> confirmed by the cutting edge developments of Superstring/M-brane theory
>> that has falsified or modified much of conventional modern physics (which
>> they admit, doesn't have to be correct or truthful, so long as it works 
in the 
>> limited area of its concern... i.e., The metric physical "space time
>> continuum." 
>> 
>> So, the fact that quantum physics can give us digital computers, CD's and 
>> cell phones, doesn't mean it knows anything about how the metric physical 
>> universe composed of the "particles" they work with, came about, or 
>> originated... And, from where or what? As for anthropological opinions of 
>> Man's origins and evolution -- their "evidence " is so sparse, and their
>> conclusions so far from being "scientific" as to be completely ignored as 
a 
>> basis of logical discussion.
>> 
>> Suggest you seriously study the "Secret Doctrine" and find out for 
yourself 
>> what it really teaches, instead of basing your prejudicial denials of
>> theosophy and bashing of HPB on second hand opinions, Nazi propaganda, and 
>> flawed physical science.
>> 
>> LHM
>
>