Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00000)

There we go again, Brigitte. Non sequiturs and sly innuendoes. You answer 
my questions, and I'll answer yours. 

Besides, I don't remember saying anything about men or chimps. As Yoda (or 
even HPB might say, after writing about 1600 pages of impeccable and 
unassailable logic based on "fundamental principles" explaining the 
concluions of theosophical metaphysics, as well as Cosmo- and 
Anthropogenesis) -- "Unfounded assertions, reliance on questionable 
"authorities," and baseless opinions, do not an argument, make."

LHM 


In a message dated 08/31/02 3:49:52 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>You mean there is evidence that supports SD creation myth that man 
>does not derive from chimps ?
> 
> Brian
>
>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> 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@y... 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 consequencesthat
>> >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