Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00263)

I can't see too much disagreement   -- besides some groundless debunkings a=
nd=20
ad hominem belittlements that I won't take too seriously :-) -- so, I'll ad=
d=20
my comments below wherever appropriate...

In a message dated 4/10/06 11:02:19 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>  =A0
>  Alot of what you say below makes sense. But I disagree with alot of it. =
I=20
> see howver no need to air our differences in public. So I reply below par=
a by=20
> para...
>=20
Why not?   I have no problems debating or discussing these fundamental trut=
hs=20
in public dialog -- just as I do with Evans, Hamiroff, Sarfatti, and other=
=20
philosophers and scientists who have disagreed with me on this and other fo=
rums=20
devoted to consciousness studies.   How else can I test and polish the ABC=
=20
theory against the knowledge and intelligence of such a wide and diverse=20
audience?   :-)

However, I don't like to waste energy explaining the finer details of ABC=20
privately to individuals -- unless they are accredited Ph.D. Scientist/Engi=
neers=20
who are seriously interested in helping publish the theory with me (along w=
ith=20
credit to Dr. Perchion) in peer reviewed scientific journals.   Besides, al=
l=20
my letters are being collated for eventual inclusion in the book, "On The=20
Threshold of a New Science and Technology" based on ABC theory, that I am=20
currently preparing for popular mass market publication.=20=20=20

Besides all that, we are still responding to and attempting to answer John=
=20
DeSantis' questions that started this thread. So, if you don't mind, since =
John=20
is still reading these letters, along with some others who may be intereste=
d=20
in what my theory says about it,   I'd like to continue in the same forum.
> =A0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:45:10 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, Thinki=
ng,=20
> Mind, Brain
>=20
> In a message dated 4/8/06 9:14:14 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Leon,
>=20
> You say: "Thereby, both the hard problems of consciousness and your equal=
ly=20
> hard problem of dream time vs. waking time, can be easily explained by th=
e=20
> ABC theory". But I believe John was asking for an explanation of the hard=
=20
> problem associated with the=A0 'dead time' state.
>=20
>=20
> Perhaps he did imply that... But his specific question was based on his=20
> experienced dream state time vs. awake state time.=A0
>=20
> As for 'dead time' vs. awake time, that would=A0 be similar to an NDE wit=
h a=20
> completely sequential life review (which I experienced around age 50) tha=
t=20
> went over every word and action of a full lifetime of experience in less =
than=20
> the several minutes that I was presumed brain dead... But, my experience =
was=20
> that I was actually out of body watching the whole show from up near the=
=20
> ceiling and laughing about how funny everyone looked moving in molasses-l=
ike slow=20
> motion as they came running to my assistance and trying to revive me.=A0 =
All I=20
> could conclude from that experience, was that consciousness does not ceas=
e=20
> after death, and that there's a great difference in time constant between=
 the=20
> waking state and the after death state -- similar to what John experience=
d in=20
> the dream state.=A0 I would assume that this also applies to the differen=
ces in=20
> fundamental frequencies of the coenergetic fields of brain, mind and memo=
ry=20
> that carry those modulated images or contents of consciousness on their=20
> surfaces.
>=20
>  =A0
>  [I agree having had time dilation experiences of my own. This is importa=
nt=20
> experiential data for after death consciousness. Thanks for related that =
to=20
> time dilation. The martial arts are training in bypassing normal consciou=
sness=20
> and taking advantage of time dilation. Being in the zone is similar which=
 is=20
> like being entangled with the future. Isakakov theory predicts these=20
> possibilities mathematically]
>=20
How?   All I see his mathematics doing is confirming my coenergetic field=20
theory -- since his micro leptons are simply smaller or less substantial=20
particles than the physical electron, and their magnetic fields must modula=
te=20
similarly in wave interference patterns of information on the surfaces of t=
he higher=20
order coenergetic fields in hyperspace that are radiated initially from the=
=20
Cosmic zero-point spinergy prior to their involution down to our physical p=
lane.

Therefore, since the micro leptons would have to obey the same cyclic and=20
fundamental laws governing   the electron particles they correspond to, the=
re=20
would be no change in their quantum dynamics (even though they appear in=20
different space time continua with different constants).   So, the basic eq=
uations of=20
quantum physics as well as relativity, with different empirical values=20
however, would still be applicable.   This. of course, also justifies the A=
BC=20
theory's concept of a continuous series of fractally involved coadunate but=
 not=20
consubstantial "coenergetic" fields -- extending from the infinite frequenc=
ies of=20
the zero-point spinergy to the finite frequencies of our physical space tim=
e=20
continuum.   With, all of it being "electromagnetic" in fundamental nature =
(your=20
statements to the contrary and your reference to QED and electrodynamics=20
referring only to the physical fields and their fundamental particles=20
notwithstanding).=20=20=20
>=20
> > I read your reply very carefully but was unable to ascertain how the AB=
C=20
> theory
> > allows for consciousness and self identity after death. You do suggest=
=20
> that memories
> > can survive from life to life. However, for most of us they are not=20
> remembered. So
> > could you elaborate on what ABC says about consciousness and self ident=
ity=20
> after=A0=A0
> > death?
>=20
> The self identity is postulated by ABC to be unchanged after death becaus=
e=20
> the zero-point center of the coenergetic fields surrounding it, represent=
ing=20
> our individual identity that resides at the neural plexus behind the nava=
l=20
> while alive, is the center of the outer spiritual field and its twin inne=
r=20
> fields that together represent our triune monad (or soul in theological t=
erms)=20
> consisting of the higher rational mind, intuitive mind, and the all encom=
passing=20
> individual spiritual field of consciousness. See human chakra-field diagr=
ams=20
> at:
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
>=20
>  =A0
>  [ What makes you think it's behind the navel?=A0 But I have read account=
s of=20
> its center at many different places ranging from the thalamus to the tail=
=20
> chakras we used to have. However, I like your descriptin of the contents =
of the=20
> soul.]
>=20
I choose the naval, simply because, according to my field crossection=20
diagram, that's the only place it could be in order to center it in the hum=
an aura=20
field, and put all the chakra points in the right places.   This is also=20
according to what I have gathered from all the Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, Her=
metic,=20
occult, masonic, and theosophical philosophical teachings.   Besides, that'=
s the=20
location Da Vinci placed it in his "Vitruvian Man" drawing. I'm sure he did=
n't=20
need any equations of quantum physics to be certain of that as well as all=
=20
the other things he knew about the true nature of reality. :-)=20
>=20
> According to ABC, since these highest order monadic fields must,=20
> theoretically, remain intact after death -- their zero-point center of or=
igin, which=20
> represents our individual self awareness and power of will or intent, can=
not=20
> change its condition or its functions because of the following process:
>=20
> After the death of the physical body, along with the brain and the discha=
rge=20
> of its mundane lifetime memories (which migt take up to eight minutes=20
> according to the Tibetan teachings), followed by the death of the Astral =
form body=20
> and its dissipation, along with the Prana or Chi (vital energy field) and=
=20
> lower (animal mind and instinctive mind) fields (which takes 49 days acco=
rding=20
> to the Tibetan Book of the Dead) the remaining fields (higher rational an=
d=20
> intuitive mind) along with the surrounding spiritual field that contains =
them=20
> (where the past and present lifetime memories are stored) -- being of the=
=20
> highest order corresponding to the initial Solar system's monadic fields =
appearing=20
> at the moment of its birth -- remains intact as long as the analogous Sol=
ar=20
> Monad fields, as an inseparable trinity, remain intact...=A0 And, continu=
es as=20
> such even during its sleep cycle, when its memories are stored in its=20
> zero-point spinergy, along with our individual zero-point spinergy contai=
ning all=20
> our experiential memories merged with it...=A0 All, to sequentially awake=
n again=20
> in a new cycle of Solar system rebirth and evolution, followed by the pla=
nets=20
> and their continued evolutions, to finally culminate with the further=20
> evolution of man on an even higher level of consciousness.
>=20
>=20
> Another way of looking at it, is to ask the question; How can a single ra=
y=20
> of zero-point force radiated from a single point source of infinite spine=
rgy=20
> of absolute immaterial space ever stop its impelled motion in such a spac=
e=20
> that has zero resistance?=A0 It's like asking, when and where does a sing=
le photon=20
> ejected from a stellar point source end its journey through interstellar=
=20
> space?=A0 So, how can the ray of human consciousness being the zero-point=
 the=20
> center of its monadic fields, ever cease its journey before it circles ba=
ck to=20
> its original source in the spinergy of the Solar System or the Cosmos its=
elf=20
> that originally radiated it?=A0 Can one know how long that takes without =
knowing=20
> how long the system that radiated it lives?=A0 And, is it possible to ima=
gine=20
> how a zero-point of absolute empty space which has to be located at the c=
enter=20
> of any triune rotating field created by a ray of zero-point motion expell=
ed=20
> from the rotating zero-point spinergy of that space, can ever change any=
=20
> aspect of its being other than angular direction and momental force of it=
s spin?=A0=20
> And, this, apparently, would have to be a conscious act.=A0 Even changing=
 the=20
> direction of a light ray on a predetermined path would require the consci=
ous=20
> placement of a mirror or refractor by an external operator.=A0
>=20
> Thus, since the zero-point of individual self consciousness at the Monad=
=20
> field's center cannot change, it remains conscious after death, with the=
=20
> previous lifetimes of memories stored in its surrounding field remaining =
intact and=20
> accessible by the more or less eternal zero-point of awareness as long as=
=20
> those fields continue to exist.=A0
>  =A0
>  [ You are rather confusing in the above paragraphs. First you say some=20
> information is stored in fields and then you imply it is radiating away.=
=A0I=20
> realize that Tibetian Book of the Dead says that the higher fields radiat=
e away.=20
> But that seems quite inconsistent with the memories being available in th=
e next=20
> lifetime. It also makes me think that your ABC theory is based on that bo=
ok=20
> which makes the theory inconsistent. How does=A0your theory resolve the=20
> radiation of information with the continued storage of information]
>=20
The Tibetan Book of the Dead does not say the "higher fields radiate away"=
=20
and neither did I.   All that we do say is that the lower 3 aspects of the=
=20
higher (adjacent to and above the physical) fields dissipate and eventually=
 die.=20=20=20
However, it does imply that the highest spiritual monad or triune fields=20
surrounding our zero-point center of self consciousness leaves the body aft=
er the=20
49 days and continues to survive along with all our past memories completel=
y=20
intact -- since this fundamental triune field is eternal with respect to th=
e=20
universal fields that radiated and gave it birth at the moment of its own=20
radiation (or emanation) from its spinergy and subsequent fractal involutio=
n.=20=20=20

Therefore, all that one has to do to understand this, is to imagine how the=
=20
fields of individual human consciousness are analogous to the fields of=20
universal consciousness and correspondingly involve fractally in exactly th=
e same=20
manner, directly from the zero-point spinergy -- which is in accord with th=
e=20
ancient sages' (Hermes, Pythagorus, Plato, etc.) statements, "The macrocosm=
 is the=20
mirror of the microcosm," "As above, so below" "The universe geometrizes,"=
=20
etc., and their reported knowing "The music of the spheres."=20

Thus, by visualizing in my imagination, and concentratively tracking throug=
h=20
my senses, thoughts, intentions, awareness, etc., in both efferent and=20
afferent dorections, and proving (to myself, the stationary observer of all=
 the=20
intricacies of the coenergetic transformations of my inner being) that my A=
BC=20
theory is correct and logically and coenergetically explains everything tha=
t=20
reductive science cannot explain -- I also can see that the statements of t=
hose=20
ancient masters of wisdom are entirely true.=20=20=20

Even Iskakov, like Einstein, had to intuitively and imaginatively assume th=
e=20
existence of fundamental particles (i.e., zero-point source energy) in the=
=20
form of waves radiating out of a singularity before developing mathematical=
=20
equations to symbolize their relationships and dynamics that we can measure=
 and=20
experience on the physical plane.=20=20=20

Actually, my theory is not based on anything said in the Tibetan Book of th=
e=20
Dead, as you assume... But a good deal of it is based on the same things=20
Einstein and Iskakov saw when they read Blavatsky'e Secret Doctrine (that, =
I'm=20
sure, the writers of the Tibetan Book of the Dead must have also known).

I can say that, because I know, first hand, that both of them had access to=
=20
the Secret Doctrine -- which, through the reported knowledge of ancients sa=
ges,=20
described those relationships with respect to analogous fields, "like wheel=
s=20
within wheels within wheels" (from the Vedas, Brahmanas, and Upanishads, BT=
W)=20
-- long before they came up with their theories... And, the fact that I fou=
nd=20
practically the entire basis of the theory of ABC in that same book, gives =
me=20
good reason to believe we are all on the same track, and that the basis of =
all=20
our theories have come directly out of that book... With their mathematics=
=20
just being a contrivance, using the scientific language of physics, so as t=
o=20
give their theories a falsifiable basis both mathematically and empirically=
.=20=20=20

As for the predictions... ABC theory predicts whatever all those other=20
theories predict, and perhaps, even more.   And, whatever aspect of total r=
eality=20
their mathematics covers, is either a part or all of the same facts of natu=
re=20
and reality that ABC explains in words alone that fully describies the=20
geometrical and topological images of overall reality -- which requires bot=
h=20
imagination and concentration to fully comprehend. Actually, the only mathe=
matical=20
formulas that I can think of to symbolize this theory, is (zero) 0 =3D 00 (=
infinity),=20
E=3Dmc^2 (with 'c' being the vacuum speed of analogous light on each fracta=
l=20
order of coenergetic fields) and 1=3D3 with respect to the multidimensional=
=20
spherical geometry of any existing stable field in any phase differentiated=
 space=20
time continuum -- the central zero-point of which must be conscious (i.e., =
aware=20
and willful).=20=20=20

Of course, since this cannot be falsified or proven empirically, I present=
=20
this aspect of the ABC theory philosophically, under the principle as state=
d by=20
Einstein that, "When you have eliminated all other possibilities, what rema=
ins=20
must be the truth."   After examining all other theories of science regardi=
ng=20
the source of consciousness and connection with matter, I think this is a=20
reasonable conclusion.   (At least until someone comes up with a better one=
 that=20
has the same simplicity and reasonableness. :-)

> The reason we can't access these past life memories easily in our next=20
> life, I would assume using the same logic, is that the lower fields that =
are=20
> newly formed (along with the growth and development of the brain-body fro=
m=20
> conception to birth and up to around 3-4 years of age) that represents ou=
r sensory=20
> efferent and afferent systems that ultimately take over the full attentio=
n of=20
> our awareness and will and drown out all higher orders of memory storage.=
=A0=20
> Also, since those past life memories in the Monad fields are of a much fi=
ner=20
> vibrational patterns and lower energy -- probably because of the disparit=
y in=20
> diameter and surface area of these fields as well as the differences betw=
een=20
> their zero-point center spinergy's -- such past life memories become=20
> overpowered by the gross experiential sensory images the developing body=
=20
> encounters...=A0 Until, at some time in our lives, we begin to wake up an=
d start meditating=20
> on the real questions of, "Who am I, Where did I come from, Where am I=20
> going, and How long will it take to get there????" :-)
>  =A0
>  [ Agreed. I recall having tunnel/falling nightmares in which I recalled=
=20
> elements of my previous life when very young]
>=20
Just like my nightmares triggered by a wallpaper of spiral vortex designs=20
next to my crib that I kept falling into in terror and coming through the c=
enter=20
point into frightening dreams that I now realize were visions of past lives=
 in=20
primordial times -- when there truly were dragons and dungeons. :-)
>=20
> Thus, the past life memory remains unheard and unseen by the individual=20
> consciousness -- except in the deepest and most concentrated meditative s=
tates,=20
> when all the outer and inner sense mechanisms are turned off.=A0 When in =
the=20
> waking state, such a condition would be like trying to hear someone talki=
ng who=20
> is standing behind a radio loudspeaker between you both that is speaking =
at=20
> the same volume, but much closer to your ears.=A0
>  =A0
>  [Does that mean that after death but before new life, we get to remember=
=20
> all our previous lives?]
>=20
It certainly does...   At least for some who have already been in touch wit=
h=20
their higher mind before death.   For then, how could they know all their p=
ast=20
karma and which zygote to choose in order to work it all out in the proper=
=20
sequence and circumstance at the time they choose to be reborn?    But, the=
n,=20
like the teachers who know, I would assume that only those who have become=
=20
enlightened before such rebirth can know what is the correct choice to make=
 --=20
since the degree of consciousness and knowledge during the final after deat=
h=20
state, must depend on the degree of enlightenment before death.   That aspe=
ct of=20
reality, as I know from my studies, is a very complex subject that doesn't =
allow=20
us to make any generalizations -- since all of us are of different minds an=
d=20
different degrees of self knowledge, and the ways of the soul or higher min=
d=20
must be as infinite as the universe itself.
>=20
> All in all, I think this model explains these subjectively perceived time=
=20
> disparities at different levels of awareness in waking, dream, after deat=
h, and=20
> meditative trance states -- along with all the other hard problems of=20
> consciousness -- simply, clearly and parsimoniously ... While being entir=
ely=20
> consistent with proven theories of science, from relativity to QED...=A0 =
And, at the=20
> same time, resolving all their incompatibilities, paradoxes and=20
> indeterminacy's noted at their interface between the zero-point and the q=
uantum particles.=20
> =A0
>  =A0
>  [ Here is where our disaggreements come in. Your theory of higher order =
EM=20
> waves is not consistent with QED. Nothing you say is relativistic, or hig=
her=20
> dimensional. In fact, yours is a non-theory. It's just a grouping of word=
s=20
> that you claim explains things. But any new words could be sunstituted to=
 the=20
> same effect. What matters is relationships and the few relationships you=
=20
> mention, like the fields being EM fields is inconsistent with known scien=
ce.=20
> Nothing in your non-theory explaind time dilation. Just saying it does is=
=20
> insufficient. You have to offer a mechanism that explains how it happens =
like for=20
> example the one you offered to explain why past life memories are not=20
> remembered. That was a signal-to-noise explanation and was believable. Bu=
t I see little=20
> of such explanation in the rest of your prose.]
>=20
Sorry about that.   I would assume, according to my involution diagram whic=
h=20
is generated from a single zero-point ray of G-force radiated from the prim=
al=20
spinergy, that since all the fractally involved fields are in essence linke=
d=20
together through their zero point centers, including the lowest order=20
electromagnetic fields on our physical space time continuum -- that the ent=
ire=20
multidimensional field array, being one universal holism would be made of t=
he same=20
thing with the same electromagnetic nature, and following the same electrod=
ynamic=20
laws -- which, throughout, are fundamentally based of the original spin of=
=20
the primal point and all its derivative points that are eternally entangled=
,=20
along with their fields, as well as the information they carry on their uni=
fied=20
surface as wave interference patterns. (i.e., coadunate but not consubstant=
ial)=20


This, of course fulfills the ancient Hermetic aphorism that "the center of=
=20
the universe is everywhere, and its circumference is nowhere" as well as=20
Krishna's statement in the Bhagavad Gita, "I create this world with one sma=
ll part of=20
myself and yet remain separate (and, implied, undiminished)."=20=20=20
Interestingly, I can't imagine how it can be said to say that, if it weren'=
t speaking=20
directly from the primal zero-point about the infinite spinergy with its in=
finite=20
intelligent information intimately surrounding and eternally linked to itse=
lf.=20
:-)   Also, Krishna is depicted in human form as being androgynous (and is =
why=20
I refer to that universal symbol of the highest Hindu god as "it").   But,=
=20
then Krishna in his anthropomorphic form, is simply a symbol of the true=20
reality, and seems to metaphorically fulfill the Biblical statement that "'=
God' (the=20
universe's intelligence coupled with consciousness) created 'Mankind' in (i=
ts)=20
own image." It's interesting also that, corresponding to the triune field o=
f=20
the universe's initial monad, Krishna has three names, and also when we add=
=20
the physical world onto this, It (he-she) has "four faces" and is also depi=
cted=20
as rising out of the water (symbol of space) carrying a triton (symbol of t=
he=20
trinity of space, consciousness, and substance).=20=20=20

> In addition, not only explaining the possibilities of almost every=20
> reportedly experienced psychic phenomena as well as ASC, and NDE -- ABC g=
ives=20
> credence to the mathematics of string and M theories postulating the exis=
tence of=20
> multidimensional hyperspace fields within, around and between all physica=
l=20
> particles and metric space in this "space-time-continuum"... Implying, as=
 I see=20
> it, that each altered state or level of consciousness, whether waking,=20
> dreaming or after death, relates to a different space-time continuum with=
 different=20
> time constants in conjunction with all other functions governing the=20
> properties of such coadunate but not consubstantial hyperspace-time conti=
nuums.=A0
>  =A0
>  [Here you are hopelessly delusional. Lofting has the same problem, think=
ing=20
> that his specualtions are basic to all of science. Both of you cannot be=
=20
> right. More likely neither of you are right. You both need a little more=
=20
> humility.]
>=20
Sorry you see it that way.   It's not a question of who is right or wrong,=
=20
since we are both looking at the same thing from different points of view t=
hat=20
QED, QFT, Relativity or the Standard Model have yet to consolidate with one=
=20
another and come to terms with.    As far as Lofting's ideas go, with refer=
ence=20
to the I-Ching and it's fractal geometry's and arithmetic's, I agree entire=
ly=20
with it, and think it is perfectly consistent with the geometry and topolog=
ies=20
of my ABC field theory.   You did mention, if I remember, that you thought =
I=20
had something in my exploded octahedron diamond diagrams that can be infini=
tely=20
fractalized without changing its overall fundamental shape.   If you examin=
e=20
the geometry's of both our theories, and their dichotomies, trinities,=20
hexagrams and other dynamic combinatorial's in full depth, you may be able =
to imagine=20
how they describe the true reality from one level of consciousness and=20
density, or tenuousness of substance and their associated lepton's magnetic=
 fields,=20
to another -- both analogously and correspondingly... And, thereby, underst=
and=20
how the zero-point and the surrounding spinergy, whether compressed as pure=
=20
"original spin" or expanded through the fractal fields of the Cosmos, are t=
wo=20
separate aspects of a single reality... Just as Krishna sees it -- from bot=
h=20
its zero-point of consciousness looking outward, and its infinite universal=
=20
forms looking inward.   When you can do that, and forget all the mathematic=
al=20
nonsense you were taught in college, you can join our club. :-)=20

> Therefore, it becomes obvious that the zero-points in each level of such=
=20
> existent realities are forever entangled or coterminous with each other i=
n=20
> absolutely empty (of substance) primal space -- which must be infinitely=
=20
> divisible and infinitely expandable... Thereby, giving that absolute begi=
nning=20
> infinite possibilities of expression and impression in accord with fundam=
ental laws=20
> of cycles and periodicity based on original spin, and demystifying all=20
> eastern and western transcendental, metaphysical and religious philosophi=
es and=20
> theologies with respect to their miracles, personal god-creators, and vic=
arious=20
> atonement's, etc., etc.
>  =A0
>  [Here you go inconsistent with yourself again. Now there are zero-points=
 at=20
> each level where previously there was but one for each person. But I like=
=20
> the poetry: "Original Spin" instead of "Original Sin". However, nothing y=
ou say=20
> is demystifying. To rhe rational reader, everything you say is mystifying=
,=20
> being couched in=A0erudite words that are basically meaningless. Besides=
=20
> Isakakov theory, a real mathematical theory, supersedes you at every poin=
t. Saying=20
> he got it from Blavatsky is at the same level that you say everything els=
e=20
> came from her SD, and I have already pointed out how incorrect that is. Y=
ou even=20
> said that Isakov theory is simple.]
>=20
Well, it is.   Just like E=3Dmc^2 is simple...   In contrast to Schr=F6ding=
er's=20
and Heisenberg's complex equations that prevents us from ever finding out h=
ow=20
consciousness links to matter, both noumenally and phenomenally, or=20
ontologically and epistemologically.  The problem here, as I see it, is tha=
t you haven't=20
taken seriously or understood the meaning of Einstein's remark that=20
"imagination is more important than knowledge."=20=20=20

The word-pictures I've tried to explain using what you call (due to lack of=
=20
or not relying on imagination, I presume:-) "erudite" and "meaningless" (I =
wish=20
you would point out those particular words and maybe I could help you=20
understand what they mean) come from clear pictures in my imagination of th=
e entire=20
structure of the universe and its field dynamics between the zero-point and=
 the=20
entire space time continuation -- in the same holistic form that I saw it=20
when I read Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine (through the same eyes and imaginat=
ion of=20
Einstein, whom I could easily identify with, since we both had the same=20
curiosity as well as a talented understanding of music and art in our imagi=
nation=20
since we were kids) -- without a gap, a paradox, or an indeterminacy, and t=
hat=20
logically and satisfactorily explains every transcendental and metaphysical=
=20
aspect of the universe that science cannot explain.=20=20=20

Therefore, in my mind, I have no "delusions of grandeur" when I'm simply=20
describing what I have observed and logically constructed with my own thoug=
hts and=20
intuitive ideas (along with the help and teaching of my late friend and=20
collaborator, Dr Perchion) -- that no one has yet to show me where we are w=
rong.=20=20=20

As far as I'm concerned, Iskakov's equations are meaningless with respect t=
o=20
linking consciousness with matter, mind to brain, or proving any of the=20
relationships of time in the different states of consciousness -- from waki=
ng,=20
through dreaming to after death. All they do is confirm the metaphysical dy=
namics=20
of his "information energy field" or "lepton gas" which is consistent with =
my=20
theory of hyperspace coenergetic fields.   So, there is no reason to separa=
te=20
my theory from his equations -- which I still claim are relatively simple w=
hen=20
compared to those of Schrodinger, Dirac, or Heisenberg with respect to=20
verifying the laws of karma and reincarnation, as Iskakov claims.   All of =
which is=20
entirely consistent with the metaphysical teachings in the Secret Doctrine=
=20
(which I know Iskakov must have read -- since in his explanation, he practi=
cally=20
quotes Blavatsky.:-).   Students of the Secret Doctrine who read it will=20
certainly know what I mean.   See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos648.h=
tm
Also, since the early 1980s, after Perchion gave a copy with his notes to=20
Zel'Dovitch, the Secret Doctrine might very well have become a respected te=
xtbook=20
at Russian science and technical institutes.

All, you seem to be doing with your denials, as I see it, is using the same=
=20
groundless techniques of debunking (that was described in the article I pos=
ted=20
some weeks ago) both myself and others who believe the universe is a=20
scientifically consistent holographic unity -- in my view, based on a serie=
s of=20
fractally involved fields composed of a continuous line of primal force tra=
veling=20
around, through, and between field to field in an endless and beginnings Mo=
bius=20
path, originating out of, within, and through an infinite series of coaduna=
te=20
zero-point spinergy's of infinite divisibility and infinite extensibility. =
=20=20

Picture that, if you can... But if you can't, show me some other geometry a=
nd=20
topology of space that accounts for zero-points of emptiness forever linked=
=20
to our gross fields of mass-energy based on the formula E=3Dmc^2 (in our me=
tric=20
space time continuum) -- that is also consistent with QM -- with no paradox=
es,=20
inconsistencies or indeterminacy's between them, and that also accounts for=
=20
and expains the mechanisms of all the wakeful awareness and willful (i.e.,=
=20
intentional) manipulation of those gross fields' phenomenal effects, along =
with=20
their analogous dream images, and disembodied, after death thoughts and ide=
as.=20=20=20

Hint: http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif   </:-)=3D =
0

Good Luck... And,

Best wishes,=20

Leon=20

> Leon
>  =A0
>  [Richard]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:42:30 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, Thinki=
ng,=20
> Mind, Brain
>=20
>=20
> Good question John.=A0 That's about as equivalent in difficulty of explai=
ning=20
> by conventional science as is Chalmers' question of how do we explain the=
 ex
> perience or qualia of consciousness? Or, looking at it from another point=
 of=20
> view... How do we explain the binding of mind to brain?=A0 That question =
was=20
> asked about ten years ago, and so far, after science has since taken it u=
p=20
> seriously as one of its most important "hard problems" to solve, no one h=
as=20
> managed to come up with a satisfactory answer based on conventional physi=
cs...=20
> Since, there is no way that we can link *subjectivity* -- that has no phy=
sical=20
> basis, and therefore cannot be measured or observed -- to *objectivity* t=
hat,=20
> according to the scientific method, must relate everything capable of bei=
ng=20
> observed and experienced to physical objects or particles whose existence=
 and=20
> relative properties can be physically sensed or otherwise objectively mea=
sured=20
> and compared empirically.=A0
>=20
> In my view, I agree with Chalmers, that there cannot be a reductive=20
> scientific answer ... So long as science is locked into eliminative mater=
ialism based=20
> on the fixed presumption that consciousness cannot exist as a fundamental=
=20
> and solely subjective aspect of primal or absolute (non phenomenal) space=
=20
> itself -- that is forever separated from the physical existence of phenom=
enal=20
> matter... Yet, paradoxically, must be intimately and interdependently lin=
ked with=20
> it like two sides of a single coin... The basic assumption being, that th=
e=20
> universe and all its functions and properties, whether subjective or=20
> objective, noumenal or phenomenal, awake or asleep, is essentially one un=
ified and=20
> inseparable existent reality. =A0 Literally, a duality within a triune un=
ity.
>=20
> <Snip>
>=20

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