Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00711)

In a message dated 4/17/06 9:43:48 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>   
>  I just read all the relevant material written by Lipton that's available on 
> the web.
>   
>  I agree with Lipton. I do not agree with you and what Blavatsky says is 
> just the longstanding Hindu belief that everything including atoms and electrons 
> has consciousness.
> 
Well, if everything you base your ideas of consciousness on is "belief," I 
believe you are looking in the wrong direction when you think -- just because 
Lipton is a scientists and uses science as his crutch (which is limited to 
biology and psychology that in my view are not "hard sciences") -- everything he 
says is the truth.   I need much more than that to convince me that you are 
right in saying I'm wrong.             

It's also apparent that you have not studied Blavatsky's metaphysics in depth 
and therefore you have no right to make out of context assumptions about what 
she is concluding.   Also, if you wish to make such blanket judgments, please 
quote the statements you are referring to, as well as the related metaphysics 
that she claims justifies it.   

In spite of all your nay saying, my ABC model is simply a logical and 
scientifically consistent interpretation of the metaphysics explained thoroughly 
enough in the Secret Doctrine to enable the intuitive student, especially one with 
some engineering and scientific background, to understand the interrelationsh
ips between consciousness and matter, as well as with all its coenergetic 
fields, particles, forms, and their physical properties.   No matter what 
arguments used to refute it, consciousness can only be an a-priori aspect of 
fundamental reality that is a necessity for the initial radiation, involution, 
evolution and ultimate formations of substantial matter -- starting from the cosmic 
singularity, where they both must have their initial joint coadunate existence, 
until that initial cosmic zero-point reflects itself in every zero-point at 
the center of origination of every coenergetic field throughout the cosmos.   
This fundamental fact of nature, while as counter intuitive now as was 
relativity when Einstein intuited it, will, in my view, be the basis of the new 
scientific paradigm that will eventually override both relativity and quantum physics 
-- while including some modification of the holographic paradigm of Bohm, 
Pribram, Susskind and others, as well as the string and M-brane theories of Kaku, 
Greene, Whitten, and others.

If you can't swallow that, step outside of the scientific boat you are 
trapped in, and find out what fixed and fundamental realities there are in the 
universe that are keeping it afloat.   Such realities can only be intuitive -- that 
is, if one has any working imagination at all.   I'm sure Einstein wasn't 
joking when he said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

>  What Lipton says is limited to cells and bacteria and does not include 
> more elementary forms of matter. Here are a few relevant excerpts from Lipton:
>   
>  I believe that cells teach us not only about the mechanisms of life, but 
> also teach us how to live rich, full lives.
>   
>  human beings are simply the consequence of "collective amoebic 
> consciousness."
>   
>  I don't really know all of the members of the plant and animal kingdom 
> either, though I believe they also comprise God.
>   
>  It is not gene-directed hormones and neurotransmitters that control our 
> bodies and our minds; our beliefs control our bodies, our minds and thus our 
> lives.
>   
>  The above is a far cry from Blavatsky or the ABC. Lipton claims that cells 
> are infleunced by EM signals but makes no claims for EM waves not already 
> well known to science. His primary teaching is that what you believe and more 
> important what you know about how your body functions, it functions as a 
> cooperative community of organisms, will make you and your body happy. I believe 
> that is true and believe that I experience it myself via the religious practice 
> I have evolved.
> 
Well, if that's your fixed religious belief -- there's no point in discussing 
any of this from a scientific point of view, is there?   Besides, that's 
nothing more than the "spiritual materialism" Chogyam Trungpa spoke about.   As 
far as I'm concerned Lipton and his beliefs, based solely on biology alone have 
little or no relationship to the ABC model.   In any event, beliefs are in the 
mind, and the mind is connected to both consciousness and matter through 
awareness and will.   The ABC model fully covers the reasonable explanation of 
both the mechanisms and processes showing how all that works -- which neither 
you, Lipton or all of science has yet to understand, let alone explain.   

Blavatsky, on the other hand, certainly did know all of that and expressed it 
innumerable times in her writings (which she claimed was the words of her 
Tibetan masters or teachers) that synthesized science, religion and philosophy, 
as well as spoke much about human psychology and the "psychic powers latent in 
man (mind)," that modern psychologists are just beginning to find out about 
and consider as real.   She also knew all about relativity, the unity of mass 
and energy, light as a wave and a force, gravity as an overall dual force that 
is the "mother" of all subsequent forces, as well as quanta -- which she called 
"fundamental atoms" on all planes of consciousness.   

Whatever mathematics that was necessary to scientifically explain all that, 
was yet to be worked out later by Einstein and others that followed him.   
Unfortunately, they still can't come up with a GUT -- since they don't realize 
that zero-point consciousness and its latent G-force or "spinergy" is the 
linchpin that joins all those fields and forces together at the primal zero-point -- 
which is everywhere.   Maybe it's time for them (and you) to wake up, smell 
the roses, and realize that the all empowering "God particle" is in everyone and 
everything.    Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) there are 
only very few of us who know how to get in touch with it.   BTW, Blavatsky's 
instructions on the "correlation of forces"-- if one could find them scattered 
loosely in all her writings (which took me over 15 years to search out without 
attempting to reference anything) -- could be a good place to start (if one has 
the time and the motivation). ;-)
>   
>  If you are really interested in the possibility that particles of matter 
> like electrons and protons are conscious, you should look into Bohm Quantum 
> Mechanics, for it requires such consciousness. I could even be persuaded that 
> Bohm Mechanics is true. But BM is completely consistent with the recognized 
> forces of nature. No higher order fields, esp EM fields are needed for BM.
> 
I've looked into it, and while Bohm's vision is close to the ABC model, as 
was Einstein's, although on different levels, I can't find any way that any of 
their scientific explanations, dynamics or mathematics connects consciousness 
with matter or answers the hard problems.   Bringing this into our discussion 
is simply another straw man to attempt to denigrate Blavatsky and deny or 
refute the ABC model based on her teachings -- which covers all those grounds in 
detail -- with full credit to both Bohm and Einstein as well as Pauli and other 
imaginative and intuitive physicists who have come close, but not close 
enough. 
>   
>  My main complaint about your ABC is that it requires fields that are not 
> known to exist, even to Blavatsky as far as I can tell.
> 
As far as you can tell is not very far at all.   That's because, you haven't 
studied Blavatsky in depth and correlated ABCs fractally involve coenergetic 
fields with her "coadunate but not consubstantial fields or planes of 
consciousness."  Incidentally "not known to exist" has to be qualified by "whom" and 
"what" science or mathematics, etc., that can logically prove such things can't 
exist?   Not knowing is not a counter argument for knowing.   And what I know 
about those fields, I have found out by serious study coupled with 
imagination, intuition, and ultimately, reasoned geometric and topological logic.   If 
you are able to use all those faculties based on the ABC model alone, along with 
sufficient study -- you will also know. And, then, maybe, you can be the one 
who correlates all its scientific and mathematical proofs.   (Although I'm not 
at all convinced by your arguments that you have the necessary imagination, 
intuition or pertinent knowledge.:-)
>   
>  BTW- information is a hat you call intelligent information. You cannot 
> define your way out of the dead end of thinking that information cannot change, 
> such as in making ice from water. Such symmetry breaking is the bedrock of 
> physics. To deny it is to deny all of high energy physics.
> 
Who's denying it?   The ice-water analogy has no relationship whatsoever to 
the holographic wave interference information contained in conscious processes 
that can be changed or modified at will.   Or, even the information encoded in 
the DNA molecule.   Such information that serves as the "contents of 
consciousness" has never been well defined by science (if at all) -- since they cannot 
explain how such information is holographically transformed and transmitted 
to our consciousness to be re constructed into the images we see as a hologram 
outside of our bodies, etc., etc.   In fact, all material or reductive 
scientists don't know anything about the real nature of consciousness and how its 
information is transformed into perceptions. If they did, they could easily 
answer the hard problem. (But, this doesn't mean that I am knocking anything that 
physics CAN explain.:-) 

As for the breaking of symmetry, ABC is only concerned with the symmetry 
breaking of the coenergetic fields after they have radiated from the spinergy of 
the primal singularity, fractally involved and inflated into the full extent of 
Cosmos at the immeasurable moment after the Big Bang.   So, lets not mix up 
apples with oranges.
>   
>  But you arrogance is so complete, that you will never accept what a 
> scientist says if it conflicts with your preconceived notions. Essentially your mind 
> is closed. Too bad because a closed mind is a sick mind in the eyes of 
> Lipton. Your beliefs make you sick.
> 
I have no preconceived notions, since ABC is a reasoned presentation of a 
"theory" of consciousness and its linkage to matter as well as their ontology and 
epistemology, that has nothing to do with "arrogance."   In fact it is your 
arrogance to assume that you know it's wrong without either trying to 
understand its reasoning or finding flaws in its logic.   Show me the science that you 
say refutes this theory, and maybe your arguments will hold some water.

Further, your use of such ad hominem methods of argument is also no sign of 
your scientific integrity or knowledge. 

Since you also refuse to accept any new paradigm (or even suggestion of one) 
that answers the questions that your frozen belief in current material science 
(which can't solve these problems) prevents you from understanding -- and 
with your reliance on "authority" and "opinions" rather than reason -- I wonder 
who really has the sick, closed mind?   
>   
>  Sorry to have to say that.
> 
Bullshit!   You have no right to say that -- based solely on the opinion of 
Lipton who knows nothing about me or the way I think.   Such ad hominem insults 
are just another evidence of your lack of scientific integrity in your 
arguments. 

Best wishes, for your eventual comprehension of the true reality that your 
blind religious beliefs coupled with your equally narrow minded belief in 
physical science that can't go beyond the assumption that matter is everything, and 
spirit or consciousness is nothing or simply an epiphenomena -- will 
eventually be overcome -- and you might see the light of pure reason that doesn't 
separate itself from the universal consciousness.

Leon

P.S. The reason I am not sending this response to the mind-brain group as 
usual, is that -- since you didn't respond through the forum (as I would expect 
from here on out) and also changed the subject line -- I don't wish to 
embarrass you in front of your peers.   (But I can't guarantee that it won't be seen 
by my peers -- since all these letters referring to ABC are posted to various 
private lists and archives prior to publication on a website and in a book 
being prepared)   LM
>   
>  Regards,
>   
>  Richard
> 
> 
> 



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