Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00384)

Dear Cass, 

Since you seem to get the point, I have no wonder about where you are coming 
from. You are right, the knowing flows in both directions, the manifestation 
(us) must know itself while the self (it) that created the manifestation must 
know its creation. That is the nature of thought thinking within itself... 
And, why we know we are conscious and know that we know we are conscious. Thus, 
the thinker in us is the thought of the thinker who thought us up. I hope that 
clears things up a bit about where I'm coming from. :-) 

Leon 



In a message dated 12/25/04 9:14:57 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

>
>Dear Leon
>If you are wondering where I am coming from, it is 
>NOT THAT "IT" CAN KNOW "ITSELF" - MANIFESTATION - THE CAUSE
>BUT THAT "ITSELF" CAN KNOW "IT" - THE EFFECTS OF MANIFESTION
>Cass

Dear Leon
If you are wondering where I am coming from, it is 
NOT THAT "IT" CAN KNOW "ITSELF" - MANIFESTATION - THE CAUSE
BUT THAT "ITSELF" CAN KNOW "IT" - THE EFFECTS OF MANIFESTION
Cass

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:

Mauri, thanks for the good wishes. But, even if I am beating my head against 
a wall, maybe someday a few eager accredited scientists with theosophical 
leanings might pick up the ABC ideas and incorporate them into their 
radically 
new theories -- to come up with a respectable and provable "Unified Field 
Theory 
of Everything" that might shake up the rest of them. Then, perhaps, they 
could start collaborating on building that "pyramid" of theosophically linked 
scientific ideas that might wake up the rest of the world. In the meantime, 
all 
I can do is keep on promulgating the ABC ideas wherever and however the 
opportunities appear. Recently, I've been contacted by some interested 
scientists 
and engineers who are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. 
They apparently think that my combining of the source of consciousness with 
that 
of physical matter, and the conjoining of subject with object, linking mind 
to brain and awareness to will or intent, is just what's missing in their 
respective theories. As we begin to combine our various directions of 
thought, 
we'll see what the future brings. In the interim, I'll keep on plugging away 
through the various scientific and theosophical forums -- with the hope that 
some 
more thinkers and doers might start throwing their two cents in, and giving 
us wall bangers a hand with some useful ideas. :-) 

Best wishes,

Leonardo


In a message dated 12/17/04 1:21:10 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote, in part:
>> How fractal evolution works... 
>> This won't occur until scientists realize that consciousness (as awareness
>> and will or intent) is a universal aspect of fundamental reality related 
to the 
>> zero-point itself... That is everywhere (contiguous on the highest level 
of 
>> zero-point energy) and is the central origin of all fields of force... 
While being 
>> the basis of the so called "entanglement" or "action at a distance" 
between 
>> fundamental quantum particles on any level. With this ultimate 
understanding
>> they will also be able to synthesize information theory with relativity 
and 
>> quantum theories, along with recent theories of Aether physics, plasma
>> electrodynamics, holographic paradigm, etc., and come up with an entirely
>> new and synthetic scientific (physics, biology, cosmology, physiology, 
etc.)
>> paradigm. When all this is accomplished, science will be able to finally 
merge 
>> with religion... And, the rest of Mankind can go about learning these 
fundamental
>> truths, absorbing them (along with the eternality of spirit or self, and 
the unity 
>> and connectedness of all that they imply) into their souls, and cleaning 
up 
>> its act (that is now driving the world toward it ultimate destruction).
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Leon Maurer
>> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
>
>Leon, those kinds of efforts remind me 
>of the efforts of those "gods" like 
>Osiris during the "First Time" (Zep 
>Tepi) in ancient Egypt. So maybe if you 
>were to build a few impressive pyramids 
> or some kind of equally impressive 
>things, as well, would that help to 
>impressive the natives that more is 
>going on than meets the average native 
>eye ... ? Not that your ABC's might not 
>necessarily be seen as impressive 
>enough, maybe, in some sense, maybe ... 
>but then if your ABC's get the same kind 
>of interpretive treatment that the 
>pyramids have had from orthodox 
>Egyptologists, well ... ^:-/ ...
>
>Good Luck, anyway.
>Mauri
>
>PS Been reading Hancocks FINGERPRINTS 
>OF THE GODS, lately. Fascinating.