Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01167)

Cass,

Where did this come from?   

It reminds of a dialogue I read many many years ago between Gene Roddenberry 
(Star Trek creator) and some sort of channeled Master Mind.   I can't recall 
where I read it first, but on rereading something very similar to it now, I see 
how Gene got a lot of his mystical stuff used in the series... And, while I 
didn't understand it at first, I may have been inspired by the memory of it, 
after I bumped into the Secret Doctrine, to dig deeper into the scientific 
aspects of theosophical metaphysics many years later.   

I also now recognize the sly humor of the teacher, who answers questions with 
just enough to lead the questioner into further questions and eventually 
figuring out the technical details for himself.   Perhaps, this earlier dialogue 
(which I must have subliminally absorbed) also helped me assemble the 
transcendental concepts underlying the ABC theory -- that allows the theosophical 
metaphysics to be expressed in modern relativity, quantum and string physics terms.

To answer your first question about, "Is it real or science fiction?" ... 
This student-teacher type dialogue, at least, seems to have set up the groundwork 
that Gene needed to develop his science fiction story lines.   Read this 
stuff carefully, and you might find where the ideas for all the mystical story 
line sequences and super technologies like "Beam me up, Scotty" transporters, 
holodecks, phazer weapons, anti gravity, etc., came from. 

Incidentally, I was acquainted with Roddenberry as an animation technical 
consultant before he got the Star Trek series underway and he decided to do it in 
live action rather than the highly realistic, Disney style animation I 
proposed.   But, that was long before computer graphics made all that possible at 
less than astronomical costs and long time schedules. (Incidentally, my auto 
animation process, Animascope, which converted live actors to cartoon illustrated 
characters, could have done it in the late 60's and early 70's -- but it was 
only in preliminary demo state in 1964 when Star Trek started production...   
So, judging from our conversations at the time, I'm pretty sure he had read 
most of the occult literature, including Blavatsky, if not also Leadbeater and 
Ouspensky. 

To roughly see how we link antimatter (dark fields) with matter (light 
fields) in the ABC model, check out the symbolic cross sectional "mirror" field 
diagram at:
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif

Best wishes,
Lenny


In a message dated 3/19/06 11:54:20 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:


> And this?
>  Unstable gravity waves unlock as yet unknown secrets of quantum physics to 
> make the picture crystal clear.
> Q: (L) Can we free associate about these gravity waves since no bookstores 
> are open at this hour? Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that 
> correct?
> A: And....
> Q: (L) And hmmmm....
> A: And antimatter!
> Q: (L) Is the gravity that is a property of antimatter "antigravity?" Or, is 
> it just gravity on the other side, so to speak?
> A: Binder.
> Q: (L) Okay. Gravity is the binder. Is gravity the binder of matter?
> A: And... Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal 
> through unstable gravity waves!!!
> Q: (L) Is antimatter ethereal existence?
> A: Pathway to. Doorway to.
> Q: (L) Are unstable gravity waves... do unstable gravity waves emanate from 
> 7th density?
> A: Throughout.
> Q: (L) Do they emanate from any particular density?
> A: That is just the point, there is no emanation point?
> Q: (L) So, they are a property or attribute of the existence of matter, and 
> the binder of matter to ethereal ideation?
> A: Sort of, but they are a property of anti-matter, too!
> Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?
> A: Everything.
> Q: (L) Can you generate them mechanically?
> A: Generation is really collecting and dispersing.
>  06.22.96
> Q: (L) One of the crop circles you interpreted was an "astronomical twin 
> phenomenon." What is an astronomical twin phenomenon?
> A: Many perfectly synchronous meanings. Duplicity of, as in "Alice through 
> the looking glass."
> Q: (L) Double images. Does this relate to matter and antimatter?
> A: Yes, and...
> Q: (L) Gravity and manifesting on one side and manifesting a mirror image on 
> the other...
> A: Yes, and... Astronomical.
> Q: (L) Okay, that relates to stars and planets... astronomical in terms of 
> another universe, an alternate universe composed of antimatter?
> A: Yes, and....
> Q: (L) Is this alternate universe of antimatter the point from which 
> phenomena occur or are manifested in our universe?
> A: More like doorway or "conduit."
> Q: (L) Is this alternate universe the means by which we must travel to 4th 
> density? Is it like a veil, or an abyss of some sort?
> A: Think of it as the highway.
> Q: (L) Is something going to happen in terms of interacting with this 
> antimatter in order to bring about some sort of transition to a new universe?
> A: No. Realm Border is traveling wave.
> Q: (L) Okay, you say "traveling wave," and then you say that antimatter is 
> the highway. Does this mean moving through antimatter or interacting in some 
> way with antimatter via the the impetus of the traveling wave, or realm 
> border?
> A: Bends space/time, this is where your unstable gravity waves can be 
> utilized.
> Q: (L) Utilizing antimatter by creating an EM field, which destabilizes the 
> gravity wave, allows antimatter to unite with matter, creating a portal 
> through which space/time can be bent, or traveled through via this "bending." In 
> other words, producing an EM field, bringing in the antimatter, IS the bending 
> of space/time? Is that it?
> A: Yes.
> Q: (L) Unstable gravity waves... antimatter... destabilizing the gravity 
> waves through EM generation allows the antimatter to interact with matter which 
> then creates a portal... is it in the antimatter universe that all this 
> traveling back and forth is done by aliens when they abduct people?
> A: Close. They transport through it, but most abductions take place in 
> either 3rd or 4th density.
> Q: (L) Is this movement through the antimatter universe, is this what people 
> perceive in their abductions as the "wall of fire?" The coming apart. The 
> demolecularizing?
> A: No. That is TransDimensional Atomic Remolecularization.
> Q: (L) Okay, if a person were passing into the antimatter universe, how 
> would they perceive it?
> A: They wouldn't.
> Q: (L) Why?
> A: No space; no time.
> Q: (L) Antimatter universe has no space and no time... so, the antimatter 
> universe is possibly where the poor guys of flight 19 are stuck?
> A: Yes.
> Q: (L) And you can get stuck in this place?
> A: Yes. And if you are in a time warp coccoon, you are hyperconscious, i.e. 
> you perceive "zero time" as if it were literally millions of years, that is 
> if the cycle is connected or closed, as in "Philadelphia Experiment."
>  Q: (L) All right, let's get on to our questions here. Let me ask about the 
> tetrahedron. Terry, you ask it, because you know more about it. (T) The 
> Tetrahedron, triangle mathematics that Hoagland is working with in conjunction 
> with the Mars/Cydonia region where he supposedly discovered this...
> A: Energy consolidator. EM Wave capturer.
> Q: (T) Ok, so itD+$"os an EM wave capturer. Does it also emit EM waves?
> A: Close. Channels and enhances, when used properly, and in pristine 
> conditions.
> Q: (T) Hoagland is not talking about... whatever he's talking about, as far 
> as the mathematics go, of the tetrahedral triangles within the sphere, which 
> I'm assuming this planet is calling the sacred geometries, but are 
> physics-type things of different densities, which may not actually be right. OK, this 
> doesn't apply just to Mars, this is, every sphere has these same properties...
> A: Yes.
> Q: (T)... a golfball, a base ball; I know they're not perfect spheres, they 
> have dimples; all the way up to the sun, and so forth and so on, of any size, 
> made out of any material, as long as it's a sphere, it will have the same 
> properties.
> A: No. Must be magnetized.
> Q: (T) OK, it's a magnetized sphere; something that has a magnetic field 
> around it.
> A: Yes.
> Q:(L) Is the tetrahedral configuration a property of the magnetism?
> A: No.
> Q: (T) OK, my question is, the sphere has to be able to generate a magnetic 
> field, like the earth has a magnetic field, like Mars generates a magnetic 
> field...
> A: Or be magnetized by installation of internal magnetic generator.
> Q: (L) OK, what's the purpose of this? What's the purpose of these 
> tetrahedrons? What are the...
> A: Purpose is not proper term. It is a reflection of universal balance.
> Q: (L) OK, well, this guy J__ says that they are designated by different 
> monuments on the planet's surface...
> A: Nonsense!!! Artificial constructed tetrahedrons are placed on strategic 
> locations on the planet's surface in order to utilize magnetic fields 
> properly.
> Q: (L) Who places these artificially constructed tetrahedrons at these 
> points?
> A: The artificial constructors.
> Q: (L) And who are they?
> A: Whomever they may be. Nineteen degrees north and south.
> Q: (T) Those are the numbers that Hoagland came up with, with his stuff. On 
> most of the planets, and our sun, we seem to have major events happening, or 
> have happened...
> A: Hawaii.
> Q: (T) Yes, Hawaii, Puerto Rico... let's see, 19 degrees north and south, 
> Phillipines, I think, is somewhere close, on the south side. Major volcanos... 
> (F) Phillipines is on the north side, that's not in the Southern 
> Hemisphere... (T) I'd have to pull out a global map to see what the 19 degrees are. On 
> Mars, Cydonia resides at approximately 19 degrees, the Giant volcano, the dead 
> volcano on Mars is approximately 19 degrees, the stuff that they found on 
> Venus, the major things, are at approximately 19 degrees. The sunspots are 
> approximately 19 degrees, the red spot on Jupiter... (L) Do the tetrahedrons spin 
> within the sphere? Do these power points of the tetrahedron spin?
> A: Energy fields flow in balalnce.
> Q: (T) Is there... now, am I correct in the fact that there's a direct 
> relationship here to the real Hebrew Star of David, to these tetrahedrals?
> A: Yes.
> Q: (T) Yes. So that that symbol is not a religious symbol, as such, but a 
> very important... (L)...power symbol.
> A: Yes. So is pentagon.
> Q: (T) So is the Pentagon? These are part of what humans describe as the 
> sacred geometries.
> A: Yes. You as Atlanteans knew this, and lived by it in many ways. For 
> example, the pyramid recharges by capturing exactly half the energy points, thus 
> allowing a positive imbalance buildup to be captured, then expended.
>  Continue to Part II
>  Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity 
> that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity 
> that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of 
> being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
> A: Geometry is the correct model.
> Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - 
> geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? 
> Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it 
> something extra?
> A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity 
> model. The model, if completed, would give one an insight into the 
> synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
> Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, 
> mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
> A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could 
> visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be 
> squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
> Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that 
> quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what 
> was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is 
> sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
> A: No, not extended, expanded.
> Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding 
> the modelling of consciousness?
> A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory. Proving is 
> a concept we should now be moving beyond. The currently imposed protocol for 
> "proving" theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a 
> plane if you must first prove that there is a sky?
> Q: (C) So, don't try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I 
> guess.
> A: Pretty close.
> Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
> A: No. We are lauging at 3rd density scientific protocol!
> Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more 
> question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity 
> correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
> A: First of all, you live in a "matter" universe, from your perspective. 
> There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to 
> perceive as of yet.
> Q: (A) But, my question was ...
> A: Who/what is Mandlebrot??
> Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
> A: Are we?
> Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous 
> because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, 
> as to 'what' - some fractal images are also called 'mandlebrot.'
> A: And where does this lead, Ark?
> Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
> A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
> Q: (C) What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
> A: Be careful of the quotemarks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: 
> "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before 
> ye."
> Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of 
> 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be 
> deciphered.
> A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over 
> this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
> Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert here. You 
> have said that Service to Others means 'giving all to those who ask.' We are 
> asking, so why aren't you giving all?
> A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
> Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of existence! I 
> mean, other people are channeling sources that just dump endless answers to 
> anything and everything...
> A: Other people are channeling ________..
> Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts that we 
> are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of 
> dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
> A: Phi.
> Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably 
> related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
> A: Carbonari.
> Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an 
> integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are 
> using the term 'dimensions' is not what physicists are familiar with in 
> using this term.
> A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to 
> mean different things from the physicists!
> Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is connected.
> A: No, not phi, dimensions!
> Q: (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things 
> that you have said about it...
> A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
> Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was 
> more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about 
> dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said 
> there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that 
> different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are 
> infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in 
> some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and 
> each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible 
> slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
> A: That is good.
> Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely 
> many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, 
> there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and 
> there are really infinitely many of them as well?
> A: No.
> Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, 
> and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
> A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
> Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were 
> related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various 
> densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means 
> there is more freedom?
> A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
> Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and 
> consciousness.
> A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
> Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
> A: Okay.
> Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 
> 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different 
> geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the 
> distance.
> A: Yes...
> Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as 
> we have been discussing... they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen 
> is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these 
> similar ideas without having access to channeling?
> A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without 
> knowing it.
> Q: (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd who talks 
> about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks. He doesn't sound whacko, 
> but he talks to these stones on a daily basis and these stones talk to him, 
> and these rocks have consciousness, they have memories. I wrote to him, but I 
> would like to know if his experiences are authentic and not just his 
> imagination?
> A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers where 
> none may exist.
> Q: (L) Is anyone able to tune into the consciousness of rocks?
> A: What if they are really tuning to a consciousness through the rocks?
> Q: (A) To A consciousness? Whose consciousness or what consciousness? 
> Universal consciousness?
> A: Another.
> Q: (A) Another consciousness. (L) Do rocks have consciousness?
> A: Refer to material re: 1st density.
> Q: (L) Yes, well it has been previously said that 1st density does have 
> consciousness... that even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us 
> back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks 
> and/or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks?
> A: The latter is closer.
> Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to 
> communicating.
> A: Right.
> Q: (L) What other consciouness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY 
> other or a specific other?
> A: Closer to former.
> Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness 
> unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of 
> some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher 
> densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible?
> A: Close.
> Q: (A) So, you can tune to dead dudes or Cassiopaeans. (L) Is the 
> consciousness of human beings something that has cycled from minerals to plants through 
> animals to evolve into consciousness of 3rd density mind, as we understand 
> it?
> A: In a roundabout way.
> Q: (L) Was each of us, sitting here, at any point in the remote past, using 
> time loosely, a critter, so to speak, or a plant or a tree?
> A: You still be a critter, baby!
> Q: (L) So, leaving out time, the stream of consciousness that makes us as 
> individual units, branches out and extends into lower densities, or connects to 
> them like a tree?
> A: Maybe.
> Q: (A) Concerning these rocks, I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect 
> that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this 
> vaccum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is 
> nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a 
> certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA 
> molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure 
> of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to 
> obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still 
> there. They call it the 'phantom DNA.'
> A: The "phantom" is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within 
> the DNA structure.
> Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of 
> the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some 
> nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself?
> A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
> Q: (C) Wouldn't it be like leaving an impression in a cushion? (A) Yes, but 
> this is a vacuum. (L) I guess that a vacuum isn't what we think it is. There 
> is something there that is not amenable to our perception. (A) So, 
> consciousness resides in a DNA structure. (C) Well, going back to the rocks, is not all 
> consciousness connected? (A) Yes, but the funny thing about these rocks is 
> that they have the ability of tuning one consciousness to another 
> consciousness so that even if, in principle, all consciousness is one consciousness, yet 
> there are separate consciousness units, which at some level they connect, yet 
> at our level they seem to be separate, so there is something about rocks. 
> (C) Maybe its the fact that they are so simple. (A) Yes. But, it seems that a 
> rock would do it, but dirt would not, so what is so special about rocks? (L) 
> Okay, this anthropologist, Michael Harner, was doing some field work, and it 
> says here that Harner went to the Peruvian Amazon to study the culture of
> the Conibo Indians. After a year or so he had made little headway in 
> understanding their religious system, when the Conibo told him 'if he really wanted 
> to learn, he had to drink ahayahuasca. Harner accepted, not without fear 
> because the people had warned him that the experience was terrifying. The 
> following evening, under the strict supervision of his indigenous friends, he drank 
> the equivalent of a third of a bottle. After several minutes he found himself 
> flying into a world of true hallucinations. After arriving in a celestial 
> cavern where a supernatural carnival of demons was in full swing, he saw two 
> strange boats floating through the air that combined to form a huge dragon 
> headed prow not unlike that of a Viking ship. On the deck he could make out large 
> numbers of people with the heads of bluejays and the bodies of humans, not 
> unlike the bird-headed gods of ancient Egyptian tomb paintings. After multiple 
> episodes, which would be too long to describe here, Harner became
> convinced that he was dying. He tried calling out to his Conibo friends for 
> an antidote without managing to pronounce a word. Then he saw that his 
> visions emanated from giant reptilian creatures that resided at the lowest depths 
> of his brain. These creatures began projecting scenes in front of his eyes 
> while informing him that this information was reserved for the dying and the 
> dead. 'First, they showed me the planet Earth as it was aeons ago before there 
> was any life on it. I saw an ocean, barren land, and a bright blue sky. Then 
> black specks dropped from the sky by the hundreds and landed in front of me on 
> the barren landscape. I could see that the specks were actually large, shiny 
> black creatures with stubby pterodactyl-like wings and huge whale-like 
> bodies. They explained to me in a kind of thought language, that they were fleeing 
> from something from out in space. They had come to the planet earth to 
> escape their enemy. The creatures then showed me how they had created life on
> the planet in order to hide within the multitudinour forms, and thus 
> disguise their presence. Before me, the magnificence of plant and animal creation 
> and speciation and hundreds of millions of years of activity, took place on a 
> scale and with a vividness impossible to describe. I learned that dragon-like 
> creatures were thus inside all forms of life, including man.' At this point 
> in his account, Harner writes in a footnote at the bottom of the page: 'in 
> retrospect, one could say that they were almost like DNA, although at that time, 
> in 1961, I knew nothing of DNA.' So, I would like to know what was the 
> source and nature of these nearly universal visions that occurs in these 
> shamanistic practices; the various creatures including serpents and bird-headed dudes, 
> and so forth? What is the source of these hallucinations?
> A: Be more specific.
> Q: (C) In these chemically induced trances, why is there the common 
> experience of seeing these bird-headed or serpent-like creatures?
> A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain the connection 
> to its roots.
> Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human beings have 
> reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we have reptilian genetics?
> A: Yes.
> Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?
> A: Yes.
> Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?
> A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord 
> parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.
> 
> 
>  Return to Hoagland - Part I
> 
> 
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/19/06 4:51:33 PM, apjmaop@ig.com.br writes:
> 
> 
> > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "glen_swift" wrote:
> > >
> > > The phenomena of channelling raises a number of interesting
> > > questions for this discussion group, basically along two different
> > > lines:
> > >
> > > 1) If channelling is real, and not just people pretending, then what
> > > is actually happening?
> > >
> > > 2) Do the discourses of channels offer any possible insights into
> > > the nature of consciousness?
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone who's had direct experience of someone
> > > channelling doubts that the phenomena is real, though many who
> > > haven't consider it to be a total fraud.D+A"D〓
> >
> > This is a great post! The suggestion I make to Glen is that there may
> > be a third alternative beyond materialism and idealism. The mechanisms
> > that generate consciousness in the living brain may also generate some
> > kind of non-material physical wave (i.e., based on energy/information)
> > that (sometimes?) continues to exist after death. In this case, it is
> > not consciousness that creates physical reality, but physical reality
> > that finds a way of existence of waveforms after biological death. Of
> > course, quantum theory is involved in this possible phenomenon.
> > I am open to this possibility, although there is no scientific proof
> > for or against it.
> >
> > Alfredo Pereira Jr.
> >
> Your suggestion seems quite reasonable. In my ABC theory, I posit that the
> universe consists of a descending series of fractally involved, coadunate 
> but
> not consubstantial, spherical fields, within fields, within fields, in 
> triune
> monadic iterations that stem from a spin motion, G-force or Spinergy of near
> infinite angular momentum at the primal zero-point or original 
> "singularity."
> 
> 
> If this model is valid, each triple series of fields would necessarily step
> down in frequency-energy spectrum from near infinite to near zero in our
> space-time continuum at the fourth iteration inward. This arrangement 
> corresponds
> closely with the multidimensional hyperspace fields of string theory, M
> theory, or quantum field theory... Although, I don't know how far they 
> have gone
> into considering the ontology, epistemology, and, specifically, the
> electrodynamics of their postulated 6 fold hyperspace fields -- that must 
> be, somehow,
> coenergetically linked intimately with our 3d space-time continuum and its
> fields of radiant energies, -- including our brain waves. :-) In addition, 
> this
> model would not appear to violate any fundamental scientific laws of 
> physics,
> such as conservation, symmetry, enthalpy, entropy, thermodynamics, QED, QM, 
> QCD,
> etc.
> 
> Since each field is electrical in nature, information recorded as wave
> interference patterns on their surfaces could be transferred from our lowest 
> plane
> of reality to the highest plane (longest lasting, since closer to zero-point
> time or infinite duration) by inductive resonance processes.
> 
> Since each such field would have analogous particle effects, quantum theory
> should be applicable (with certain modifications, perhaps) on each level or
> field of consciousness... Under the assumption that consciousness, as both
> awareness and will, are functions of the absolute zero-point itself that is
> "entangled" with all zero-points throughout our configuration space. Thus,
> accounting, not only for the non locality of consciousness, but also the 
> possibility of
> ESP phenomena such as clairvoyance, telepathy, channeling, NDE, ASC, etc.,
> etc. This model could also add credibility to the holographic paradigm of 
> Boeme
> and Pribram -- while extending relativity theories into each higher level of
> the fields of consciousness. It also appears to be consistent with most
> ancient Eastern and Hermetic philosophical sciences, as well as the 
> Cosmogenesis
> disclosed in the ancient Book of Dzyan and the numerological system of the
> Chinese I-Ching.
> 
> On a far out level of thought, I can imagine this model fully explaining the
> binding of mind (as a hyperspace field) to brain (through its overall EM
> field) as well as making Chalmers "hard problem" a moot question -- since it 
> would
> resolve to the zero-point that is entirely a separate aspect of the primal
> beginning, as is its surrounding "G-force," or "Spinergy," that is the
> fundamental source of matter. And, thus, pure consciousness would, 
> necessarily, be
> outside of all space and time and not subject to any objective analysis of 
> its
> subjective functions. Therefore the only way to know or to explain qualia 
> is
> to experience it individually and directly.
> 
> It appears, therefore, that the "third mechanism" you suggest could very 
> well
> be the inductive-resonance process that allows the transfer of holographic
> information from one EM frequency spectrum level or mass-energy order to
> another, as we step up through the ascending fields of mind, memory, and 
> other
> aspects or levels of higher consciousness... All of these levels being of 
> one or
> another degree of substantiality.
> 
> We might say then, that those who subscribe to this theoretical "third way"
> conception could call themselves "monistic substantialists"...
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]