Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00140)

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) ... ^:-/ ...