Theos-Talk Archives (February 2004 Message tt00023)

Feb 5 2004

Dear Lenny:
Thanks:

An excellent set of replies -- different vocabularies and syntax show up
here.

Dal



Dallas

====================================

-----Original Message-----
From: leonmaurer@aol.com [mailto:leonmaurer@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:46 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Theos-World Consciousness, Mind, Matter (3=1)

Thought you might get a kick (and maybe pick up a few intuitive
insights) out 
of this final correspondence with a couple of contradictory scientists,
one a 
theoretical idealist and the other a materialist, who were fighting with
each 
other and didn't accept too well my butting in. (At least I distracted
them 
enough to break up the fight.:-) Of course, they had to stop arguing
with me, 
since, in their eyes, as objective reductionists, everything I say is
pure 
"pseudo scientific gibberish." But, then, these pundits, after ten years
of 
their babble, still haven't been able to explain the roots of
consciousness or its 
scientific connection with mind and matter... While everything I said is

perfectly consistent with all their accepted scientific theories such as

relativity, quantum and string physics. (Not that any of these
theories, taken alone, 
are any way near a clear picture of ultimate reality). In any event, I
hope 
you get a faint inkling of what I'm talking about. :-) Lenny

"A prophet can never be known in his own time."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: leonmaurer@aol,com
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Consciousness vs, mind and matter 
  
In a message dated 10/20/03 8:00:12 AM, sentek1@yahoo.com writes:

Leon Maurer wrote: 

(LM) OK... That's a good starting point for
considering that the zero-point (of no dimensions) is
ubiquitous in all hyperspace fields that exist in
different spatial directions (also called
"dimensions") and that are enfolded within, or
(depending on your point of view and understanding of
multidimensional fractal geometry) unfolded around our
metric space-time continuum.

bj:
So, the hyperspace fields are dimensional, but exist
inside a point of no dimensions, depending on our
understanding of them. 

LM:
Your sarcasm, based on your ignorance of fundamental transcendental
reality 
is noted and forgiven. But, how do you read what you said above in what
I 
said? A zero-point, and any spherical series of hyperspace fields that
surrounds 
it (and in fact must originate from its abstract motion of "spin" which
we 
might call its angular momenta force or "spinergy") cannot be conflated
-- since 
they are essentially opposites. The zero-point of no linear directional

dimension, as the Absolute, unconditioned abstract rootless root of all
cosmic 
Space, takes up no metric space and is, therefore, indivisible (yet, 
paradoxically, its spinergy is infinitely divisible). Its opposite
(rooted in its spinergy 
alone) is relative or conceptual space having linear coordinates in each
of 
the multiple hyperspace fields that emanate and fractally involve from
it. 
Therefore, these hyperspace fields are each infinitely divisible. And,
each such 
division can be considered as having a zero-point of origin, as well as
an 
infinite number of zero-points on their circumferences. 

Thus, no "thing" can "exist inside a (zero) point of no physical
(metric) 
dimensions." But, an infinite number of such zero points (of such zero
dimension 
-- and, therefore, coadunate or "entangled") can exist on the surface of
any 
spherical field in any space-time dimension or hyperspace field.
Apparently, 
you do not yet understand the rigid geometrical and coenergetic
principles, or 
the logic behind this concept of multidimensional hyperspace fields of 
varying phase orders of frequency-energy, as well as their locations
within the 
overall matrix of a primal cosmological space, like bubbles within
bubbles within 
bubbles, etc... With our limited physical 4-D Space-time continuum being
the 
third iteration of the fractal series of 10 (3+4+3) hyperspace fields --

starting from this Cosmos' zero-point "singularity" center of origin. A
good 
beginning toward understanding this, is a study of the multidimensional
mathematics 
and conclusions of Superstring/M-brane theory. (Although, they are still
far 
from understanding the connection such fields have with consciousness
per se.)

Ultimately, physics, to have a full picture of the cosmological reality,
must 
take these concepts (down to the "strings" of energy in each hyperspace
field 
and their zero-points of origin) into consideration -- in order to
understand 
the true connection between "consciousness" and "matter" (in its various

degrees of substantiation). Of course, that is of no concern to
cognitive 
psychologists. But, then, why would that interest them -- since all
they really need 
to know, from their epistemological point of view, is the neural
correlates 
of consciousness -- which involve only the effects, not the causes of
mind and 
matter nor their ontological relationship to consciousness?  

(snip)

(LM) Of course, this is hard to visualize as well as
explain, since infinite Absolute or primal Space
itself is beyond our finite comprehension, and must be
(as the fundamental ground from which manifests all
hyperspace fields along with all configuration space
fields) infinitely divisible and infinitely
expandable.

bj:
So, it's beyond comprehension, and must therefore be
the ground of all being. But then, some people enjoy
an ignorance beyond all comprehension, and yet it
seems doubtful whether the universe if founded on that
ignorance.

LM:
Again you put words in my mouth that satisfy the materially prejudiced
ideas 
and thoughts in your own head. From my point of view, its the ignorance
of 
the actual transcendental realities on the part of matter-only oriented
science 
that is the problem in these discussions. I didn't say "beyond
comprehension" 
I said, "beyond our 'finite' comprehension" -- which referred to our 
inability to understand the relationships between any abstract ideas
without breaking 
them down to finite things, such as particles, waves, objects, numbers,
etc.  
I can't help if such finite thinkers can't conceive of, or even
comprehend 
that a zero-point-instant of no dimension can create spherical fields of
energy 
of infinite spatial dimensions as well as infinite divisions of time.
Or, that 
many spherical hyperspace-time fields (each having three spherical 
coordinates in their own realms of differing frequency/energy phase
orders) can exist 
inside a higher energy order space-time field having three different
spatial 
coordinates on its own energy phase level.  

Unfortunately, for the scientists studying consciousness and trying to
link 
mind to brain today, this type of abstract thinking goes far beyond the
finite 
thinking at the quantum levels of the observable space-time they have
limited 
themselves to think about. Such finite thinking can only lead to finite

comprehension, and therefore will never be able to understand the true
analogous 
and corresponding nature of the infinite coenergetic and holographic 
informational connections between consciousness, mind and matter on the
cosmic level, or 
perception, mind and brain on the human level. 

(GS) I also disagree that "infinite Absolute or primal
Space" is "infinitely divisible and infinitely
expandable." If I may replace the word 'Space' with
'Reality' here, I'd say that it exists only as an
entirety. It can't be expandable, since it already is
All That Is, and if we choose to focus on some
particular piece of it, even if that piece is seen as
being like a holographic part, then we're no longer
talking about the overall "infinite Absolute or 
primal Space {or Reality}"

LM: 
Unfortunately, this argument still confuses what I meant by infinite
absolute 
or primal space... That, in my view, can be seen as either being the
absolute 
zero-point and its spinergy before' its manifestation into infinite
levels of 
multiphase hyperspace, or as being that entire manifestation itself that
can 
inflate spherically to an infinite circumference, and involve fractally
as 
fields within fields within fields, etc., of lower and lower phase
orders of 
energy, to eventually create a continuous surface composed of lines of
force 
containing an infinite number of zero-points... Each in turn, which can
become the 
origin of additional involved hyperspace fields at varying levels of 
frequency-energy. (None of this, BTW, contradicts any quantum or
relativity effects or 
observations that are limited to our physical space-time
frequency/energy 
phase order spectrum.)  

In order to visualize this initial inflation and subsequent fractal 
involution of the primal fields of energy emanating from the primal
zero-point or 
cosmic singularity -- to eventually form our entire space-time continuum
(composed 
of a fractal geometric series of coadunate but not consubstantial
hyperspace 
fields) -- we have to examine the symbolic geometrical cross section
diagrams 
of such field's origination and involution at:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif 

Naturally, I don't expect anyone to accept this model of reality as a 
scientific fact. But, it will have to be considered, if a final new
scientific 
paradigm is to eventually evolve that underlies a true "unified field
theory of 
everything" -- that must include both the actual ontological and
epistemological 
relationship between both consciousness and matter as simultaneous, 
"dependently arising," opposite (subjective and objective) realities.  

bj:
Well, how about infinite, absolute ignorance?
Depending on your understanding, it seems as though
that is all that is, that is, all that is as it is, is
it, as is. 

LM: 
Apparently, the only "infinite, absolute ignorance" there is, is in the 
finite minds of those who might think that this C limited space-time
continuum is 
all there is between their consciousness and minds, or the infinite
potential 
awareness of the absolute zero-point and the mind's infinite degrees of 
imagination empowered by its infinite potential of willfully controlled
force. But, 
if that's the enclosed bucket they wish to swim in, then they'll never
see 
what's holding up its floor, walls, and the sky above it.  

The real ignorance is not seeing the essence of things by being blinded
or 
misled by their reflections, or like Plato said, "Their shadows on the
walls."  
To get a true picture of reality, we must see the universe also from the

inside out or bottom up rather than only from the outside in or top
down, as 
reductive science looks at it. In this view, it's like a hall of two
way mirrors 
between one plane or level of consciousness (related to phase orders of
the 
nested coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic fields) and
another... And to 
see what's on the other side of each of those mirrors, one must be able
to 
turn on the light there and look in from the dark side.  

(LM) This agrees with the somewhat vaguely accepted
idea or concept that Planck or "vacuum" space -- which
is between all fundamental quantum wave-particles (or
"wavicles") in configuration space -- is also
infinitely divisible and, essentially, is everywhere.

bj:
Except in those clear instances where it is not, which
is generally everywhere.

LM:
Be interesting to hear about those clear instances when it is not?
(Although, 
I know you are trying to make a joke out of this, since you have no 
understanding of what I am talking about -- so I'm not expecting too
clear an answer -- 
or even a cogent question. :-) 

(GS) If something is essentially everywhere, then it's
not in any particular place.

bj:
That is, it's neither here nor there, as would seem
evident.

LM:
You're both right, and both wrong -- so long as you continue to think
the 
zero-point and its dimensionless (but not forceless) "spinergy" is not
attached 
to or causative of anything. But, since it is (referring to the fields
of 
energy that emanate and involve from it) and has to also be in the
vicinity of 
what it is causative of, we can also locate it within the metric of any 
hyperspace field (which, except for our lowest energy level metric
space-time 
continuum, are invisible and undetectable by us or our instruments).
Thus, it is 
everywhere and can be localized anywhere. Of course, this doesn't
detach or 
"unentangle" it from anywhere else it is localized (yet still non
located in primal 
non-dimensional space -- which is, also, everywhere). I'm glad you both
can 
see that from your self contradictory points of view. :-)    

But, to clarify a bit further... It follows, that manifest space has to 
extend from zero to infinity and contain an infinite number of
zero-points spread 
out through all its involved hyperspace dimensions, and therefore
locatable at 
every local coordinate position in each such hyperspace field. All one
has to 
do to comprehend this, is to envision such fields as an infinitely
repeating 
fractal series of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles -- with every
bubble 
having its zero-point center of origination, plus two additional points
at 
their poles that are tangent to the adjoining and surrounding bubbles.
Thus, the 
true manifest reality is capable of being infinitely divisible and
infinitely 
expandable into innumerable universes. Therefore, we might then be able
to say 
(and see) that "The absolute is relative and the relative is absolute"
-- 
without violating any law of nature that, in any hyperspace-time field,
must be 
based on the fundamental laws of cyclic based symmetry and energy
conservation 
-- no matter what hyperspace field that energy is relative to. 

Since consciousness is at the center of everything, all we need to do to

comprehend this reality is to focus (concentrate) our mind on that
point, which is 
the center of our own consciousness, and follow the Mobius path of
energy 
that connects the self that "sees" the point with that mental image of
the point. 
Until that is done, no amount of words will convince anyone that an 
understanding of the true reality is available to our conscious
perception. Although, 
I'm sure the transcendental psychologists (and most Buddhist
philosophers) 
will understand exactly what I am talking about.

And I expect you'll continue to "carefully construct" sardonic, 
scientifically based philosophically speculative arguments conflating
consciousness with 
matter ostensibly refuting everything I've said. ;-)    

Best wishes, 

Leon Maurer


 
Yahoo! Groups Links