theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: Leon's " Pi as a fractional number?"

Mar 07, 2005 09:22 PM
by Mauri



leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:


M wrote: <<But how can that ratio be infinite and
exact (at the end of a long row of
carry-outs) at the same time? Either
things are infinite, or they're not,
seems to me.
<<Nevertheless if the ratio wasn't exact, then either the radius or the
circumference would be variable and the mathematical circle (or the metaphysical
sphere) wouldn't exist as a measurable entity of fixed size (even if infinite).
But then, we have to be able to recognize the difference between metaphysical thinking and material thinking as well as understand the difference between actual knowledge (whether based on subjective or objective evidence) and speculative opinionating that leads us around in circles. :-) >>

I tend to agree, in a sense, but would add that I tend to see "actual knowledge" (inasmuchas it's karmic/mayavic) as having a kind of speculative/opionative aspect to it (in terms of "dependent arisings re initial assumptions in contrast to Beness") that, I feel, might be seen as leading us humans around in circles simultaneously with karmic/mayavic "sense making" (with or without quotes "re esoterics").

<<[Mathematics can have exact limits --
even to an infinite set of infinities
according to Cantor, Minkowsky,
Einstein, Bohm, et al. :-] >>>

M>But "can" and "do" are two different
things, eh ...
<<Sometimes. Although, that may depend on individual choice based on either
reasonable or unreasonable logic or true or false speculation. :-). >>

Maybe I should've tried to be more specific about a "more esoteric" kind of sense/context I had in mind for "do" and "can"... As I tend to see it, the "can's" and "do's" on this plane might alternatively be interpreted as having karmic/mayavic contraints by way of initial assumptions, dependent arisings, and so, as I tend to see it, "logic" and "reasonable/unreasonable" on this plane are something that, regardless of their usefulness, have a way of chasing their own tail or karma/maya (like my circular speculations, eg). Mind you, I qualified that speculation with that word "usefulness," (should I emphasize ...), so ...

But, as for correct mathematics which is pure in both reason and logic (in
contrast to the sometimes unreasonable if not fallacious logic of speculative
wondering) "can" an "do" are synonymous.

Yes I agree that there are all sorts of interpretive usefulnesses. Isn't that why we have, eg, the Esoteric/Wisdom Tradition and Theosophy, among other things ... except that, as I tend to see it, (just speculatively speaking, eh ...), there would appear to be some students of Theosophy who appear to have some interest in transcending even the karma/maya of Theosophy and the Esoteric/Wisdom Tradition ... In the meanwhile, one might think ... whatever ... Anyway, good points, there, Leon, in a sense. Kindly note that I didn't even put any esotericy quotes on that "good." So there (just when you might've thought ... ^:-/ ...). But sorry about the circularity of my speculating.

<<That is why mathematics is considered as, possibly, the only "exact" science.
Especially, since it can explain both physical and metaphysical reality. >>

"Exactly." How about some esotericy quotes for a change ...? Well, not that some esotericy quotes might not get kind of circular looking at some point, maybe, but ... ^:-/ ...

<<Ref; Pi as a useful ratio that can be (and is) applied invariably in both areas of reasoned or intuitive thought -- e.g., the perfectly spherical fields,
lines or forms surrounding any "zero-point" on both the metaphysical and the physical levels. Therefore, that (Pi as an exact ratio) is the one reality holding the entire universe together and the one fundamental truth that karma can't do without. (I thought HPB already explained all this quite thoroughly in the Secret Doctrine.:-)
Most assuredly, </:-)>
Leon... >>>>>>>>>>>>

"Most assuredly"... ? I thought HPB said something about the SD being an "exoteric version"... Yes I tend to agree with you that there are various usefulnesses/models in comparitive terms, but/"but"... Seems to me that there might be a kind of "alternative scenario" (just speculatively exoterizing here) where "most assuredly's," per whatever angle on realitites/truths, might sort of "alternatively" be evaluated by way of reading between their lines (per a kind of gnostic/esoteric/experiential approach in contrast to what might be seen as a sort of comparatively more exoteric/literal approach ...) ... "in a sense," maybe, in some cases ... ^:-/ ...

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Incidentally, regardless of how things may seem (dire enough, I suppose, in some sense, among other things ...), but would you believe (speculatively or otherwise) that I have quite often been trying to keep at least one foot on some sort of ground that I have been trying to detect kind of "more assuredly" (maybe even "most assuredly" in some comparative sense ...) before having had a chance to speculate about it too much. On the other hand, or same hand, inasmuchas we all have our own ways of defining "ground," (per whatever "assuring" variant) ... ^:-/ ...
















[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application