Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00400)

In a message dated 03/21/03 11:25:13 PM, micforster@yahoo.com writes:

>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.

Right. Scientists say the same thing. Since, in their reductive mechanistic 
view, a theory to be scientifically valid must be stated in such a way as to 
be falsifiable. This means capable of repeated experimentation and 
observation, and either verification or falsification by equally valid 
counter experimentation and observation. But, how can this be done -- when 
we are speaking of transcendental aspects of fundamental, abstract reality 
that cannot be observed or measured physically, or explained mathematically 
or orally without the most complex verbiage or equations -- especially, when 
the only evidence we can make available is subjective, and, cannot be 
utilized as objective scientific observation for either verification or 
refutation? 

Therefore, all we can do, in presenting such a metaphysical theory such as 
ABC or theosophical metaphysics, is try to generate subjective images in the 
minds of students using logical word structures that, in effect, attempt to 
paint pictures. Sometimes, we even have to coin new words and invent new 
symbols, or use words in different contexts than they are usually 
mathematically or scientifically accepted. Since such words have to be newly 
defined, the ideas have to examined in writing and/or symbolically 
(metaphorically, diagrammatically, etc.) from many different angles or points 
of view -- based solely on certain fundamental principles that must be 
accepted as irrefutable propositions. Therefore HPB had to write over four 
massive volumes of more than 4,000 pages and millions of words to explain 
what is, fundamentally, a simple Absolute reality that has the potentiality 
of infinitely complex forms, coenergetic relationships, and conscious 
perceptions.  
>
>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 irreconcilable --
>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 because they are not matter as
>science conceives matter. Does this also mean that
>science cannot also grasp ABC because of this same
>reasoning?

As I explained above, that's exactly it. But, only with reference to 
classical, relativity and quantum physicists -- who reductively (and falsely) 
imagine the universe as being a 4-dimensional (including time) measurable 
(metric) continuum composed of particles separated by "empty" space.  
However, scientists who accept the newest scientific paradigm of 
Superstrings/M-branes have no trouble grasping ABC -- since both it and SS/MB 
theory are based on the same fundamental propositions -- which conclude that 
all forms of matter are simply differences in the vibration of "strings" of 
primal force or energy that exists on at least ten different, but connected 
"hyperspace" fields (emanated from zero-point singularities) that are each, 
"coenergetic" spherical "Membranes." This is exactly the "globes" (whether 
cosmic, solar or planetary) that are "coadunate but not consubstantial" -- as 
explained in theosophy. (For a symbolic picture of this, see the cross 
sectional field diagrams at: 
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

That is, in a nutshell, is the basis of the theory of ABC. (Although it would 
take a book to describe all the details of how our "consciousness" relates to 
that "non consubstantial matter" and how we perceive it on each level of our 
being.) To understand it fully in our rational mind, one would have to know 
every valid idea in every discipline of science, mathematics, psychology and 
philosophy, along with all the metaphysical teachings of occultism, and how 
they all relate to each other. And then, we wouldn't be able to separate the 
fundamental simplicity from its complexities (or understand how chaos and 
order are interrelated). Only, our intuition can achieve that comprehension. 
We either get it or we don't. If not, then all one can do is study and 
contemplate until one "sees the light." "nothing comes from nothing." What 
more need be said?   

>Secondly, this was written in a recent post:
>
>>>[Steve] 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.
>
>>[LHM] 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, coenergeti 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. 

If you combine the word descriptions I use to describe ABC with the symbolic 
(2-D cross sections of a spherical (global) hyperspace structure) diagrams 
and can realize what "coadunate but not consubstantial" means (and can 
visualize it in the mind's eye) -- you will have the same intuitive 
comprehension of the reality that I have. 

>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:

That only refers to "scientific theory" that is limited to objective 
observation only. But ABC is NOT a "scientific theory"... It is a "
metascientific" theory that can only be examined subjectively -- 
since the hidden hyperspace fields cannot be measured or observed using 
science's "physical" instruments or our objective senses.
 
>>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.

Well, all I can say is that you have to understand the meaning of the wordsI 
use that are necessarily limited in their normal meanings. That's the problem 
of trying to limit metaphysical description to the English language -- as HPB 
pointed out. Also, Unless I invent a whole new jargon or revert to a language 
that can handle metaphysical concepts like Sanskrit or Hebrew, I am forced to 
lift concepts and words from every branch of science, psychology and 
philosophy. 

To understand what I meant by "differential triangulation of wave 
interference patterns" you would simply have to ask me (or read all of my 
other posts and my ABC theory) to find where I explained how the visual 
system (and by analogy and correspondence how all the other sensory systems) 
actually works. Please understand that in these letters I am not "debating" 
but simply trying to explain the theory and answer any objections or 
questions from laymen or scientists as best I can under the circumstances.    
 

>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.

If I were to explain my theory "clearly and concisely, yet in painstaking 
length" -- you only have to read my entire collection of notes (including 
over 100 letters to scientific and theosophical e-mail forums) for a book I 
was contemplating. This collection is already almost as large as the "Origin 
of the Species" (and if I ever decide to publish it, it would have to be as 
detailed and lengthy as the Secret Doctrine). However, since the SD (which IS 
the theory of ABC) is already written, I've decided not to publish the book, 
and limit my teachings only to those who are interested in comprehending it 
for themselves.

As for being "too stupid to intuit" -- what dependency does intuition have on 
practical or worldly knowledge? The whole purpose of metaphysical teaching 
is to help awaken the intuition by completely bypassing the "ignorance" of 
knowing anything about the physical universe that science teaches us or the 
senses tell us about it.  

Best wishes,

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics

>Regards,
>Mic