Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00144)

Well, I suppose (speculate?) that if anyone can understand what you are 
talking about -- that says it all. 

With that, I suggest we put Pi to sleep... Considering that all of us logical 
thinkers have exhausted anything reasonable to say about it before (and 
after) you started your spin on it using completely unrelated and undefined words 
culled from the theosophical literature and randomly assembled in incoherent 
sentences, etc., etc., etc., maybe, in a karmi/mayavic/beness sense? Or 
something else... so... what else? huh?

See... You've even gotten me doing it. </:-)> 

Leon...


In a message dated 03/08/05 1:26:23 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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) ... ^:-/ ...
>