Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00041)

Mauri, 

On behalf of everyone on this forum whose mailboxes are already cluttered 
with much nonsense, I wish to thank you for your pointless comments and further 
ramblings.

However, since you still insist on spilling out a lot of unrelated words 
reflecting disconnected and vague thoughts that apparently refer to my theory of 
ABC, confusedly and unexplainably conflated with string, relativity, quantum, 
theosophy and other "more or less mayavic" (whatever that means) theories -- I 
won't take the trouble to answer your profound lack of understanding, 
questions, or conclusions. (At least, not at this time.:-)

Wondering why? 
<\^:-[> 



In a message dated 10/29/03 2:56:34 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon's ABC's and some of his posts tend to 
>remind me about the "proofs" in String Theory 
>re the unification of Quantum Mechanics and 
>Einstein's Relativity. Apparently there's 
>been, so far, as far as I know, at least 5 
>such equational "proofs." More to come, 
>maybe? That is, apparently the "quantum 
>world" ("small/micro world") is not 
>describable/compatible in terms of laws we're 
>"used to" to some extent (which laws 
>reference the "large/macro world" or 
>Einstein's Theory of Relativity), so, unless 
>I'm wrong, String Theory was introduced as a 
>theoretical perspective by which one might 
>unify the apparent incompatibility between, 
>in effect, "small" and "large," Quantum 
>Mechanics and Relativity, respectively. 
>But/"but" ...
>
>Anyway, those strings bring to mind Leon's 
>ABC's. But why not basically admit, per 
>whatever "apparent/applicable sense making 
>terms," to a "unifying theory/view" that (as 
>per Theosophy and the Esoteric Tradition, 
>incidentally) ... that that might kind of 
>boil things down to essentials (or 
>"Essentials"?) out of which might be seen to 
>arise the depencent arisings (or karmic 
>reality) of apparent or "ordinary reality" 
>which, in turn, might be seen as having at 
>least two aspects: "mayavic" and "less 
>mayavic" in keeping with at least two 
>aspects: "mayavic" and "less mayavic" in 
>keeping with at least two aspects: "mayavic" 
>and "less mayavic" in keeping with at least 
>two aspects: "mayavic" and "less mayavic" in 
>keeping with ... etc, etc, etc ... Well, 
>maybe that kind of thinking might not go over 
>too well with some people, so I guess some of 
>those "unifying" equations (no matter how 
>many there might be a few years from now, for 
>whatever reason ...) might seem more proof 
>related, somehow, in general (ie, apparently 
>sort of regardless of whatever the "proof," 
>in turn, might lead to, in general, I tend to 
>suspect).
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri