Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00391)

Actually, I should have written the below in another
way. Further to Katinka's concerns that what you write
is hard to understand I am starting to believe that it
is formulated in such a manner as to be irrefutable.

Firstly, the issue of "conadunate but not
consubstantial". Consider the following from the SD
(I, 165-6):

"Again, here are more extracts from another letter
written by the same authority. This time it is in
answer to some objections laid before the Teachers.
They are based upon extremely scientific, and as
futile, reasonings about the advisability of trying to
reconcile the Esoteric theories with the speculations
of Modern Science, and were written by a young
Theosophist as a warning against the "Secret Doctrine"
and in reference to the same subject. He had declared
that if there were such companion Earths "they must be
only a wee bit less material than our globe." How then
was it that they could not be seen? The answer was: --


". . . . Were psychic and spiritual teachings more
fully understood, it would become next to impossible
to even imagine such an incongruity. Unless less
trouble is taken to reconcile the irreconcileable --
that is to say, the metaphysical and spiritual
sciences with physical or natural philosophy,
'natural' being a synonym to them (men of science) of
that matter which falls under the perception of their
corporeal senses -- no progress can be really
achieved. Our Globe, as taught from the first, is at
the bottom of the arc of descent, where the matter of
our perceptions exhibits itself in its grossest form.
. . . . . . Hence it only stands to reason that the
globes which overshadow our Earth must be on different
and superior planes. In short, as Globes, they are in
CO-ADUNITION but not IN CONSUBSTANTIALITY WITH OUR
EARTH and thus pertain to quite another state of
consciousness."

In other words, science cannot grasp the concept of
theosophical globes becuase they are not matter as
science concieves matter. Does this also mean that
science cannot also grasp ABC because of this same
reasoning?

Secondly, this was written in a recent post:

>>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.

Equations are just conceptualizations. They are formal
proofs that can be easily refuted based on
mathematical and logical procedures. Or, in other
words, equations are objective. Diagrams, pictures,
illustrations and the like are purely subjective. With
the ABC we are left to “intuit” patterns and processes
based on diagrams such as you have provided on your
various websites. I can “intuit” whatever I like from
those diagrams and what I do “intuit” could be
completely different from what you “intuit”. So who is
wrong? Well apparently I would be because I didn’t
“intuit” the diagram properly or because my brain is
too feeble to comprehend a complicated theory that is
ABC. And this brings me to my third point. 

A good scientific, or any other theory, should be able
to articulate an issue concisely so that people in
that field of scientific endeavour can grasp the
theory with relatively ease. Take the following also
written in a recent post:

>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.

In this one paragraph there is used terminology from
many different disciplines. I can personally see here
concepts from physics, biology, fractal geometry,
physiology, psychology and theosophy. Also, phrases
such as “differential triangulation of wave
interference patterns” appears as an attempt to add
sophistication to a sentence that could be articulated
in a much simpler manner. It is a technique I like to
use when I am debating with “laypeople” and I find
myself a little stuck: throw in a few big words,
something they don’t understand, and you win the
argument.

Leon, I am not too sure that this is a consequence of
many years attempting to explain ABC to people from
various backgrounds and disciplines. You seem to
answer such criticisms with excuses such as “the
theory can only be explained with such terms and
explaining the concept in any other way will only do
an injustice to the concept itself” or we are just too
stupid to intuit ABC. In the past thinkers with “big”
and “new” ideas went to painstaking lengths to explain
their theories clearly and concisely. A good example
is Darwin and his Origin of Species. Or, to put this
in other words, I can go to my ten year old cousin and
tell him about Darwin’s theory in one sentence; I
wouldn’t even know what word to begin with in trying
to explain ABC.

Regards,
Mic

--- Mic Forster <micforster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Leon,
> 
> I've been musing over your ABC for some time now and
> I
> still don't know what to make of it. As a person who
> has been trained as a scientist my greatest concern
> is
> how to formally and conclusively "prove" ABC. You
> have
> mentioned before that it would take unorthodox
> mathematics to even come close to demonstrating the
> theory. I am sure these are concerns that you have
> invariably encountered many times in the past. For
> my
> benefit, and for the benefit of others who are so
> interested, could you please outline some possible
> methodologies that may demonstrate ABC. Cheers, Mic
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness,
> live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com