Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00386)

In a message dated 03/18/03 9:21:49 PM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>>LHM: As Krishna, representing the Absolute (or "all Presence") 
>>said, "I create this entire universe out of one small part of myself 
>>and yet remain separate"
>
>SS: A point for your consideration. If "Krishna" created anything, he 
>was active, which we are told the Absolute is not. This might 
>therefore refer to the universe as conscious ("manifested" to use 
>Blavatsky lingo) instead of the universe as unconscious 
>("unmanifested.")
>
Point well taken. But, who told you the Absolute is not active? Blavatsky 
said that motion can never cease, and the Absolute reality has to have motion 
as its fundamental basis -- in order, as I see it, to justify the fundamental 
laws of cycles and periodicity. Conscious or unconscious only refers to 
living organisms that are either awake, asleep or under narcosis. But that 
deep sleep is when we are truly in spirit -- which is Absolute (or potential) 
consciousness. It's difficult to distinguish between human consciousness 
(which we should call awareness) and Absolute Consciousness or Spirit -- 
which is everywhere -- latent or potent, awake or asleep, aware or unaware... 
But, nevertheless, always there. A particular field of consciousness can 
emanate from that zero-point and be potentially conscious -- but not aware of 
its consciousness before it involves, at least, into its triune monad. 

"Creation" is simply the expression of that abstract motion of the Absolute 
(which can only be considered as spin of a zero-point) -- the moment that 
nonlinear angular force of spin emanates and expands into a linear monadic 
field of universal radiant energy. Without that first step, there cannot be 
any universes, conditioned realities or expressed consciousness. Krishna (as 
father-mother) is just the personification of that Absolute Space -- 
consisting of an infinitude of zero-points that, by the force of their own 
nature, create a myriad of separate universes -- without in any way 
diminishing the infinitude of Krishna him/herself... Who is Absolute 
Consciousness forever unmanifest. And, simply, a potentiality of infinite 
possibilities dependent on its fundamental laws of zero-point rooted. 
infinite "spinergy" along with the infinite information it carries in its 
infinite velocities or frequencies on its infinite numbers of axes.

>Another point for your consideration: consciousness implies the 
>existence of a noumenal reality which preceded consciousness since 
>noumenon can exist without phenomenon but not phenomenon without 
>noumenon. However, the SD makes it clear some of these ideas precede 
>each other in thought but not necessarily in time. So there is that 
>subtlety as well. You have picked the most difficult part to 
>expostulate upon.

Yes, the problem of time reverts back to the spinergy itself -- which, while 
carrying all the information later extended in linear time, is actually in 
infinite duration -- since its angular spin velocities range through infinite 
frequencies on infinite axes, and thus, its time constant is zero. The 
difficulty is trying to explain this in verbal terms that can be comprehended 
intuitively. But, for myself, I can imaging such an infinitesimal point and 
such infinite spins, and therefore can understand that the future, present 
and past, written in the encoded patterns of such spins are the sum of the 
zero-point moment in non linear unconditioned time, but become spread out 
linearly after manifestation in conditional time. Therefore, the initial 
emanation into conditioned fields of consciousness, occur instantaneously. 
It follows that what we think of as past, present and future, are all 
compressed in that ultimate moment of initial expansion from the zero-point 
spinergy of unconditioned reality into the fully manifest conditioned 
reality. Thus, each passing moment of "now" always contains the sum of the 
past present and future -- which we can only think of as one preceding the 
other. However, they are actually coincidental.

>> LHM: "Remember, this Cosmos is only one out of an infinite number of 
>> possible universes.

>Which could mean, since all this has to do with consciousness, that 
>your universe is different from mine, and not that they are separated 
>geographically. That would be the esoteric interpretation, since the 
>popular idea is that they are separate in space, as in light millenia.

I don't understand what you mean. You are still confusing individual 
consciousness as a potentiality of spirit -- with awareness. Certainly, I 
cannot be conscious or aware of what you see in your mind's eye. What I am 
talking about is the Conscious universe or the Spirit of Brahma, of which 
each of our inherent spiritual consciousness is a reflection of -- whether we 
are awake or sleeping, aware or unaware. As for "consciousness" or 
"unconsciousness" as spoken of by the cognitive psychologists and 
anesthesiologists (and what I think you are referring to) -- that's a horse 
of another color. What they really mean is awareness and unawareness. 
Consciousness in my discussion has nothing to do with that, but is just 
another way of considering Spirit as opposed to Matter. Thus, this 
"Consciousness" or ability to perceive, is the inherent nature and function 
of the zero-point -- which is everywhere. While the phenomenal 
"consciousness" you speak of, is dependent on the functioning of the brain, 
the focussing of our attention, or the utilization of our imagination.

>>LHM: "Therefore, this "Mother" of the present Cosmos (or conditioned 
>>reality) ?? is the "unconditioned reality" that cannot be conceptualized

>Cannot be presented in sensory terms, to be precise, since sensory 
>terms are by definition phenomenal and not noumenal. In more humble 
>terms, we cannot visualize it (visual phenomena), imagine what it 
>sounds like (auditory phenomena), etc., since phenomena exist only in 
>our consciousness and not exterior to ourselves. In recognition of 
>that problem English philosopher Henry More said in the seventeenth 
>century that it was "absolutely inconceivable" but it turned out in 
>the 1920s in Scandinavia that they seem to have solved that problem. 
>Quantum mechanics describes reality in terms which are totally 
>abstract, the downside being that nobody who lacks a background in 
>advanced mathematics can understand what they were saying (the 
>popular books on QM are completely worthless, IMO) and those who do 
>have such a background, while understanding them, do not know what 
>they are talking about. I think it was Ernst Schroedinger who said 
>that last comment first, but I am not sure. A completely abstract 
>representation of reality is completely non phenomenal (no visual 
>images, etc.) and therefore avoids the problem. Then the guy who 
>wrote my college text in advanced physics went and drew pictures of 
>electron orbitals, the electron in a box problem, and so forth. 
>Shocking.

All very true. But I am not thinking about consciousness in sensory terms. 
When one is in Samadhi or bliss consciousness, one's entire sensory system is 
completely shut down. When I experienced an ADS, some 40 years ago, my 
visual perception was outside of my body and looking down at it from above. 
And, I could not have been using any of my physical senses. At the time, I 
had not yet formulated my ABC theory, or completely understood the SD, and I 
was completely shocked to see the blue pallor of my own face from outside 
while watching my partner attempting to resuscitate me. As a trained 
scientific observer, that experience was enough to turn me away from 
reductive science and toward digging deeper into occult metaphysical theories 
-- especially after I found out that Einstein probably intuited E=mc^2 from 
reading the SD.

That's why quantum physicists, neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, 
roboticists, AI computerists, or other reductive physical scientists -- will 
never get a handle on what consciousness really is, or how it works, or what 
aspect of the universe makes it possible. Nor will they ever solve the 
conundrum of whence came life? Explain the nature of the experience of 
consciousness? The non-locality of consciousness? Nor the binding of mind and 
brain? (Please substitute "awareness" or "perception" for all those 
consciousness' -- which the mainstream scientists keep insisting on 
confusing.:-) 

>Anyway, equations are conceptualizations. They just are not 
>phenomenal representations, which is to say, representations in 
>sensory terms, with pictures, sounds, colors, and so on.

Right. That's why I only use visual symbolic diagrams, and focus my ABC study 
of consciousness on the visual processes which can deal directly with radiant 
energy in directly perceptible, coenergetic spherical fields within fields 
within fields that correlate with multidimensional hyperspace 
Superstring/M-brane theories and their topological and fractal space 
mathematics.

>>LHM: "But we can imagine its motion as being a continuous spinning of 
>>its zero-point, like the center point of the axle of a spinning wheel.

>The problem is, if you imagine anything, you are putting it in visual 
>terms, which makes it phenomenal. That is why QM is totally 
>abstract. As soon as we draw pictures we change everything.

Human consciousness (or, at least, the processes between sensing and 
perception) is definitely phenomenal. But, even in quantum physics, diagrams 
are helpful. e.g., The best way we can understand quantum chromodynamics is 
to see it pictured in Feynman diagrams. The diagrams change nothing, but 
simply clarify or concept of the reality a bit better. 

My ABC theory is thus focussed on the fields and their coenergetic 
holographic processes -- that considers sensory information transformation 
and transfer (after the neural electrochemical transduction), as solely field 
effects having to do with their electrical wave nature. Thus, the mental 
visual image occurs in the Planck zero-point "vacuum" space after the brain 
does the preliminary processing and generates its holographic electrical 
field that is resonantly and inductively coenergetic with the sub-quantum 
zero-point fields. Quantum physics, thus gets left far behind. (Although 
Bohm's and Pribam's interpretations come pretty close when combined with 
Superstring/M-brane theory.) 

As far as I'm concerned, the study of consciousness (as perception) is 
strictly a problem of electricity and geometry and has nothing much to do 
with quantum gravity or particle-wave theories -- which are looking in the 
diametrically opposite direction. Even M-brane theory may be wrong in 
considering the zero-point fields as enfolded within the metric fields... 
Since, in my view it is just the opposite... With the metric fields enfolded 
within the higher order frequency phased hyperspace fields (of 10 dimensions) 
which permeate the vacuum between all the quantum particles (as a continuous 
plenum that extends out to the full diameter of the gravitational field on 
the macrocosmic level)... Surrounds the human body on the microcosmic 
level... As well as each cell or organ at yet smaller dimensions... Down to 
each particle on the quantum level. The fact that each of these fractal 
series of hyperspace fields have their own zero-point centers, it accounts 
for the non locality of consciousness. e.g., We feel the pain at the point of 
trauma, we smell in the nose, see in the eyes, hear in the ears, taste on the 
tongue, etc., and we locate distances and directions of image or sound by 
differential triangulation of wave interference patterns, etc. 

Best wishes,

LHM

http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif