[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Consciousness and Cosmogenesis

Nov 01, 2002 12:55 PM
by leonmaurer

I would like to offer a recent dialogue with a scientist on the Cognition and 
Consciousness Journal's Mind/Brain online forum, that seems to be pertinent 
to the study of universal and individual consciousness from a theosophical 
point of view. Perhaps, it may also awaken some new insights with respect to 
the second fundamental principle and the laws of karma, cycles and 
periodicity, as well as offering some scientifically consistent answers to 
the problem of understanding the involutional basis of Cosmogenesis and the 
interrelationship of unchanging consciousness or awareness and changeable 
matter or form. 

Incidentally, while not yet entirely accepted by mainstream science, the 
unified field theories of Superstring/M-branes, with it's 3 physical and 7 
enfolded hyperspace dimensions, is not too far away from these scientifically 
rooted theosophical views -- although it has not yet considered anything more 
than the phenomenal aspects of universal energy fields. (For a clear 
layman's view of the scope of this new scientific paradigm, go to )

I hope this proves interesting in light of HPB's prediction that science will 
soon be faced with irrefutable answers to their most profound questions that 
may bring it closer into agreement with the fundamental principles of 
theosophy and its metaphysical conclusions.  


In a message dated 10/12/02 10:39:51 AM, writes:


>As an added question... Since you insist on downgrading both Alex's and my

>theories (which could be integrated, since my theory agrees with his/her

>theory of "geometric mental space") -- what logical and scientifically

>consistent theory do you have that better explains the fundamental origin,

>nature, genealogy, ontology and epistemology of thought, qualia, awareness

>and will? Or, IOW, what holds together the brother-sister act of

>consciousness and matter?



>The assumption seems to be that the sensorial world is broken down and

>then put back together again, just as it is. In other words, the world is

>reconstructed on a spatial template.

That's closer to but not exactly my assumption. We can't deny that the 3-D 

world we see in our mind's eye, is the near perfect image of the 3-D world 

that exists in our surrounding space. Therefore, we can say that the 

objective world is broken down into pixels by the rods and cones in the 

retinas that are directly related to corresponding "coherent" point source 

rays of light reflected from the objects of perception. (This laser like 

characteristic of each such image point is certainly a reasonable enough 

basis for a holographic field theory of consciousness.)

Therefore, I can proceed to hypothesize that from that initial transformation 

of image information onward through the neural system, these pixels are 

further transformed into analogues electrical wave forms by the brain's 

electrochemical neurological network that, when images in left and right 

brain from either left or right eye (or both) are combined, create 

holographic interference patterns in the dual brain's combined em field. This 

field is then transferred holistically (by a form of inductive resonance) to 

the higher frequency order mind/memory fields in Kaluza-Klien hyperspace. 
The image patterns from both left and right brain are then reconstructed into 

a continuous holographic 3-D image by the single zero-point at the center of 

these "consciousness" fields that are coadunate and "entangled" with all the 

zero-point centers of the higher order field of each rod and cone, as well as 

with the corresponding zero-point sources of reflected light from the object 

world. The result is a complete 3-dimensional image in our mental space that 

has apparently infinite depth outward in front of our eyes, and appears to be 

as if viewed from a single (zero dimensional) focal point between and behind 

the eyes. (Naturally, the lower order mass/energy fields would appear to be 

completely transparent to the higher order mind/memory fields.)  

>If this is so, then one would expect spatial extension to be primal. That

>is, the first thing and the last thing, with all the objects that can exist

>in that space added to the template as they are perceived.

Spatial extension is primal -- since space is nothing more than a series of 

nested triune transcendental hyperspace and metric space fields of descending 

frequency orders or phases that are spherically extended out to an apparennt  

multidimensional infinity from a single zero-point singularity -- with each 

field linked to each other through their coadunate zero-point centers. The 

templates are carried by the modulations of the energy frequencies on the 

surfaces of the enfolded field phases.

>I've pointed out that all the physical evidence seems to point to no primal

>geometry. It doesn't seem to feature in the way the vision is processed.

>Optical illusions seem to indicate that we are easily fooled by geometric

>illusions. This all points to a visual geometry that is added on to some

>other kind of perceptual substrate or scaffold.

What physical evidence? How can we physically measure the dimensions of the 

inner holostic field we perceive? How do you think the holographic image out 

there that we see is processed in here? What scientific proof is there that 

vision -- as we experience it in holographic 3-dimensionality that closely, 

if not exactly matches the objective outer world we can measure -- is 
processed in any other way than as I hypothesize?  

This reference to illusions is also an inappropriate example, since most 

optical illusions are based on 2-D graphical images that have no relationship 

to the real world 3-D holographic image that we actually "see" in our 

mental/memory space. It's the 2-D image analogs and their twisted geometry's 

that cause such illusions, since the mind/memory forces the perceptive 

awareness (our-selves) to compare apples to oranges, so to speak, and make 

best fit decisions. Since most graphical illusions also contain more than one 

fit, the consciousness can only oscillate between them. Some illusions also 

have to do with the fatigue levels of the rods and cones, due to short term 

chemical changes and reversible reactions throughout the neural system.  

Also, much of the relationships of geometry, such as perspectives, have to be 

learned, such as interpreting leaning buildings when we look up at them as 

being perfectly vertical. Many illusions use these learned anomalies to 

trick us into interpreting straight lines as curved, parallel lines as 

converging, etc. In any event, none of this negates the idea of an 

interconnected spherical field geometry being fundamental -- no matter in 

what phase of Cosmogenetic field involution they occur. How we interpret the 

actual geometry of our visual field through our mind/memory/awareness system 

is quite another thing that depends much on our experience, learning ability 

and intelligence.

>Others have argued passionately and convincingly that a language, even

>a language such as the language spoken, forms the scaffold onto which all

>else is added (or, that all perception is interpreted as or translated into

>a language).

The two opposite poles of consciousness (subjectivity) and its corollary, 

matter (objectivity) came into existence at the moment the first energy field 

of the universe emanated out of the "spinergy" of the primal zero-point 

singularity. Language only appears at the last stages of evolution of 

biological forms -- that were all conscious starting from their single celled 

beginning during the final physical phase of Cosmogenesis (that had to 

involve in multiple phases or hyperspace dimensions from the first near 

infinite frequency/energy, to the finite frequenci/energies of the last 

physical phase). All this involution had occur prior to the evolution of the 

matter/energy that we observe in our space-time continuum.

>Others argue for the breakdown of the perceptual world into its symbolic

>or relational components eg "point-field" or "focus-peripheral".

Makes no sense. Those are just words without any apparent scientific or 

logical causation behind such relationships.  

>How does our clear cut geometry resolve the actual visual field that is

>furry around the edges?? How does it resolve the extra sensitivity that we

>have to transient peripheral events?? Clearly our actual perceptual field

>begins with light/dark differentia at the extreme peripheral, transient

>motion or change closer in, structure and depth closer than that (geometry)

>and colour, clear edges and focus at the centre of our vision.

That may be so. But, What does "furry around the edges" mean? The geometry 

is already there in the physical world that we can take our rulers out and 

measure. The fact that the subjective image is most sharp at the center of 

our vision has to do with the mechanisms of the retina's rods, cones and 

connective neural system that transfers their coherent optical images into a 

holistic electromagnetic analog on a point for point basis to form inner 

holographic image interference patterns in our visual or subjective space 

(enfolded higher order field phase) that is an exact geometric replica of the 

outer physical objective space after holographic reconstruction by point 

source rays of coherent "inner light" projected from the zero-point's 

spinergy. Much of the visual limitations you speak of have to do with the 

necessity for convergence and focus in order to be able to concentrate on a 

particular point in the image field without distraction from the peripheral 

areas (other than being alert to motion in those areas). This has to do with 

our survival inherited from our hunter and hunted forbears. Much can be said 

about it from a psychological or evolutionary POV -- although it has nothing 

much to do with the inner and outer field geometry's and image 

transformational processes being discussed.

These are nothing more than field effects on the informational level, that 

have to follow logical and lawfully consistent image transformational and 

transfer/transmission processes. In this theory, the zero-points of 

awareness/will (that are everywhere) emits coherent rays of the highest 

frequency order "light" that reconstructs the hologram carried in the 

mind/memory field circumferences (that are nowhere). The fact that we learn 

the meaning of these images and take the most practical shortcuts to 

perceptive recognition's and responses based on sometimes wrongly conditioned 

or misapplied memory as well as inattention and distraction, doesn't change 

the basic nature or structure of the analogous geometric field we perceive 

(i.e., look at, but not necessarily "see").

>Why, then, would geometry be the template? You mention the importance

>of geometry in most if not all fields of science. But equal with geometry

>is energy/mass. Earlier big bang theories such as the primeval atom and

>Gamow's hot big bang placed a much greater importance on the history of

>the energy mass of the universe than the geometry.

That's because the only things that could be measured and examined 

reductively was the energy/mass. But the forms of energy/mass are built of 

interacting fields of energy that are all fundamentally spherical in nature 

(unless interfered with by other impinging fields that break their symmetry). 

In any event, the geometry of the primal fields before the breaking of their 

symmetry is as fundamental as is their energy/mass equivalency -- e.g., The 

nature of DNA can much better be understood if we see the geometry's and 

resultant topologies of their amino acids and proteins as being fundamental 

to their functions. Could that be why the artists and architects of the 

Bauhaus took as their motto, "form follows function?" They could just as 

well have based that on their conclusion from nature that "function follows 

form." In any event, what we consciously experience of the universe itself, 

through the mechanisms of vision alone, is nothing but it's geometry (which 

is as fundamental as its force or energy).

>Time is also an essential component. All phenomena occur 'in time'. Why

>isn't time more important than geometry? When you close your eyes, when

>you dream, as long as you are alive there is a clear relationship with time.

>Geometry plays a major role in vision and a lesser role with other senses.

>For free thought, say the contemplation of pure math problems, it plays

>no role whatsoever.

Who ever implied that geometry was more fundamental than time? For the 

Universe to begin prior to the "big bang" (which we can only measure on the 

physical phase of its involution and evolution) -- abstract motion and 

absolute non motion were the only fundamentals. Out of those beginnings, 

expressing themselves as multidimensional spherical geometry's around a 

stationary point, came energy/Mass, inertia, entropy, and time (simply as the 

measure of change within the field of 3-dimensional space -- not as a 

directional dimension, even though contrived to be used as such in order to 

make Einstein's intuitive 4-dimensional space-time continuum mathematics 

work out satisfactorily). As for geometry playing a lesser role than the 

senses, I do not think that is true, since the aural sense is closely linked 

to geometry, as is the tactile (and pain) sense which are dependent on the 

geometry of the sound space as well as the body space. We can always ask, 

where is a conscious experience felt, seen, heard, or coming from or located 


As for free thought, how can we separate the equations we "see" in our mind, 

and write down on paper, as being independent of the geometrical mind space 

around them, or surrounding the paper, pencil, and hand we write them down on 

and with? No matter what we are thinking, we can never separate those 

thoughts from the 3-D space we are always at the center of. Such thoughts 

are always somewhere else out there (even if that "out there" is in the mind 

field) some distance away from the point of awareness that is considering 

them. There also has to be a close geometrical relationship between what we 

see, what we are thinking, and what we do with our body within the visual 

field. This could only occur coordinately if there is a direct field 

connection between these different aspects of our being. Since these 

connections are below our perceptive awareness, their practice (such as 

writing, playing music, speaking, singing, etc.) creates new reinforced 

neurological channels in the brain and corresponding patterns in the 

mind/memory fields that make such actions apparently automatic. 

>If there were a universal template for consciousness (that is borrowed from

>the perceptual world) it would be time. But something approaching qualia

>is more likely.

I doubt that either time or qualia has anything to do with the geometry of 

perception, since qualia is the perception or experience itself, and can only 

be the awareness function of the zero-point center of consciousness -- which 

is separate (a different aspect of fundamental "space") from the "field" 

images or contents of consciousness. And, time is nothing more than the 

"measure of change" which is dependent on the frequency order or phase 

of the multispacial field of action it is associated with. In any such field 
it is 

inversely proportional to the speed of the "light" in that field -- with the 

speed of light in the higher order hyperspatial fields being much faster than 

in the physical space-time continuum. Thus, images or forms in those fields 

are progressively longer lasting as they get closer to the frequency of the 

first expressed field of the primal zero-point spinergy itself (which is of 

infinite frequency, momentum, and velocity -- and, thus, of infinite 


>I've no doubt that yours and Alex's theories play a role. But presenting

>them as primary may be a little optimistic. And expecting to find a little

>world inside the brain that geometrically mirrors the world outside is

>just silly. There is no need of that UNLESS a homunculus with independent

>ability to interpret visual information is to view it. If this is the

>case, we (the entire human) are the homunculus and the geometry is 'out 

>there'. Now what happens?? Another round of breaking down and rebuilding?

Silly, from your point of view, perhaps, but perfectly logical and consistent 

with scientific reality from the point of view of image information transfer 

through a long chain of field transformations, breakdowns and 

reconstruction's -- until the image is finally experienced in all its reality 

by an individual observer. But, then, what makes you think that we expect to 

find "a little world inside the brain that geometrically mirrors the world 

outside." I don't think any of us electromagnetic field theorists or 

holographic geometricians have even implied that... Since most of our 

theories are concerned with the image information in the brain's holistic em 

field -- which are outside of the brain's neurology... (And in my case, 

include the higher order consciousness fields which are not even in the same 

spatial order as the brain or its em field)   

As for the homunculus, since my claim is that it is the coadunate zero-point 

centers of the enrire body/brain/mind/memory fields that do the viewing and 

interpreting, where could we expect to find such a singular "little man 

inside." As you said, perhaps we are (the entire human) the homunculus, and 

the geometry is out there (as well as reconstructed "in here"). Don't we go 

through that breaking down and rebuilding, every time we see or sense another 

image in our mind? Doesn't the process extending from the broken down dot 

matrix retinal image to the reassembled brain field hologram (and beyond, to 

the mind/memory fields) also do just that? Must we trace every sensation -- 

from impression, through processing and transmission, to reception -- in 

order to prove that all the senses work the same way and follow the same 


Is there any better way to explain the reversible dynamic processes that 

allow both awareness and will to travel up and down the same pathways, 

and ties together all our sensory cortexes with the kinesthetic cortex that 

controls all our actions within the 3-dimensional geometry's of both the 

outer objective and inner subjective worlds (that we directly experience as 

if they were one, and as if we were one with them)? Where else could our 

"unity in diversity" stem from -- other than the ubiquitous and coadunate 

zero-point within its surrounding spun out and involved spinergy fields  

(which can take infinitely diverse active forms without losing their 

interconnections through their static zero-point centers or tangent 


Best wishes,

Leon Maurer

>Kind Regards,

>Robert Karl Stonjek.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application