Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00836)

Richard,

"Imposter" (sic) is a pretty strong and possibly libelous word.   No wonder 
you don't want your answers to my public posts exposed in the Mind and Brain 
forum where this subject thread belongs.   So, why don't you just let it go and 
admit that you haven't the faintest understanding of what I am talking about?  
 This is not the first time you have misinterpreted what I said with respect 
to what I meant.   

I'm sorry that my view of actual reality doesn't conform with your 
conclusions.   Does the thought of non material and/or abstract aspects of reality 
disturb your equilibrium?   Or, is it that you just can't tolerate any ideas that 
contradict or conflict with your complete acceptance of everything physics 
tells you through its symbolic mathematics that only partially explains the 
physical/material aspects of reality, and that doesn't have any inking about how 
consciousness enters their equations as a separate aspect of universal reality 
beyond all metric space and time, or how it links with their concept of matter?  
 

In any event, it's about time to end your attempts to debunk my theory using 
assertive denials, ad hominem remarks, false accusations, and spurious 
references and out of context quotes that don't prove anything except your lack of 
understanding, courtesy, as well as imagination and logical reasoning without 
your mathematical crutches. 

BTW, since I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician, how could I ever get 
published in a peer reviewed Journal, let alone win a Nobel prize?   I'm content 
to leave that to the professional scientists who will eventually base their 
proven theories of cosmogenesis and consciousness on my ABC model.   Forgive me 
for my arrogance in being so certain of that.   For all you know, I may have 
based it on my powers of clairvoyance which has nothing to do with material 
science, and which my theory proves is entirely possible.   Or, maybe I really 
do think like Einstein. We did study the same metaphysical books, didn't we? <
/:-)>
see: Einstein and the Secret Doctrine 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html

As for my off the top of the head remark about M-branes, which was Written 
allegorically for theosophist, not for scientists or string physicists -- even 
though I knew that their M-branes were contrived aspects of pre cosmic space 
that had no explanation of their origin or link with consciousness.  However I 
did relate them to my spherical coenergetic fields, since I know that their 
continuous surfaces are the true M-branes that the string theorist's mathematics 
say exists.   

At least my bubbles within bubbles-like "Membranes" do connect with 
consciousness as a universal given, and also links it dynamically with matter in all 
its coenergetic stages of existence (if only theoretically without mathematical 
proof).   If you can't understand or tolerate that emotionally, and it 
disturbs your scientific mentality please forgive me for triggering your angst.

Best wishes,

Leon
 


In a message dated 4/27/06 9:38:41 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>   
>  You are am imposter. If you have done all you claim, you would have 
> received the Nobel Prize by now. I quote some of your more preposterous claims 
> below. The most preposterous is that you think you know the structure of the M 
> superstring theory.
>   
>   
>   http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0001&L=quantum-mind&P=4970
>  The theory of ABC, is in the same stage of early development as Einstein's
>  theory was before his mathematical and observational proof -- (which didn't
>  come in until almost 30 years after he delivered his first paper)... 
> However,
>  ABC takes Einstein's relativity theories, as well as all later quantum
>  electrodynamics and multidimensional radiative electricity theories one 
> step
>  beyond, and links them directly to the First Cause of the universe's
>  dynamic expansion from abstract noumenal space to multidimensional 
> phenomenal
>  space-in which consciousness and matter are its dual phenomenological
>  aspects.
>   
>   
>  http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-4-3-supplement.pdf
>   
>   
>  In fact, the theories of relativity, photoelectricity, quanta, and even 
> Superstring - with its multidimensional [3+7] hyperspaces and M-branes 
> [coadunate. but not consubstantial spherical fields] which almost identically emulates 
> the "wheels within wheels" teachings in the Secret Doctrine--
>   
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Sent: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:46 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/21/06 8:33:13 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> Leon,
>  
> I have nothing personal in my criticsim of your theory. It's just that as 
> far as I can see it is an empty theory that is inconsistent with known physics.
>  
> For example, below you say that "no one has found a logical flaw in my 
> theory which seems to connect, in a perfect chain of cause and effect, the empty 
> zero-point of absolute space with consciousness and all the infinite aspects 
> of matter " . Well I fail to see any logic at all. Just giving something a 
> name does not say anything at all about it.
> 
> 
> [LM] 
> If you don't accept the original propositions, how could you follow the 
> logic?  Besides, what does that statement have to do with logic?  (Which is 
> actually in the explanation of how those "coenergetic" fields radiate, involve and 
> ultimately evolve into our space time continuum, one logical step after the 
> other, out of the primal singularity.)  I can't help it if you cant imagine 
> an "empty point of absolute space" or "the infinite aspects of matter" let 
> alone "consciousness" (awareness, perception, will) as the a priori function of 
> such an unknowable point of primal space that has no attributes nor ontology 
> or epistemology to speak of.  
> 
> So, if you want to understand the logic of ABC you'll just have to take that 
> as starting point, surround the zero-point "singularity" with its spinergy 
> or infinite angular momentum, and follow the logical causative chain of its 
> radiation and inflation, subsequent fractal involution, and contraction, after 
> breaking symmetry, into our material space time continuum (with all its 
> particles. atoms and myriad's of molecular forms) -- along with the evolution of 
> mankind on Earth (with its fully developed perceptual mind, memory and self 
> consciousness)... While, throughout it all, never violating any natural laws or 
> proven theories of physics such as conservation, QED, relativity, 
> electrodynamics, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, etc., etc., and fully explaining the 
> basis of psi phenomena, karma, reincarnation, time dilation in ASC, OBE, NDE, 
> dreams, and all other paradoxes and anomalies of modern science, including 
> explaining the root cause of the DNA code, etc. ... All of which science hasn't 
> got even the faintest idea of a handle on.
> 
> If you have any questions about any of this from here on out, please ask a 
> specific question and I'll attempt to answer it as best I can.  Or, if you 
> have any suggestions as to how I might better describe these physically linked 
> metaphysical processes, please state them.  Other than that, outright denials, 
> or vague assertions based on irrelevant materialistic physics -- without 
> logical counter arguments explaining the same hard problems as ABC -- will get 
> us nowhere.
> 
>  
> Then when you do describe some aspect of your so named fields, usually it 
> conflicts with physics. For example down below you go on to say " a unified 
> positive and negative force that is nothing but pure gravity itself (the 
> fundamental root of all the other strong and electroweak forces, including different 
> levels of electromagnetism [with a common electrodynamics] on each level or 
> frequency". Well, in physics gravity split off from the GUT force and then 
> the GUT force split into the Strong force and the Electroweak force which in 
> turn split into the EM force and the Weak force. So gravity is separate from 
> all other forces, not the fundamental root.
> 
> [LM]
>  Sorry, but in my view, in spite of what may be assumed (which according to 
> Jud doesn't exist) by "physics" ( which also doesn't exist :-) -- Gravity can 
> only be the initial G-force that radiates from the zero-point spinergy in 
> opposite angular directions ( acounting for its attraction and repulsion) and 
> by fractally involving through all the coenergetic fields' frequency-energy 
> phase orders (i.e., different degrees of substantiality) down to the 
> quantum-metric space time continuum, where the electroweak and strong forces take over 
> -- is the force that not only holds them all together, but also accounts for 
> their attraction to each other and to their central zero-points due to its 
> opposite polarity. 
> 
>  
> So you have your physics all mixed up. Actually it's just your semantics. To 
> make things worse you introduce unknown semantics like "energy phase order 
> of the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic fields. "
> 
> [LM]
> Admittedly.  But, how else would you describe a dynamic  property of a 
> phenomenal field that physics doesn't even recognize as existing, and which has a 
> frequency-energy spectrum at least one order higher or lower than its 
> adjacent polar fields?  Wouldn't you call each such field a different phase of 
> fundamental space?  Wouldn't those fractally involved fields, being inside each 
> other in the same overall space be considered "coadunate"?  And, wouldn't their 
> differences in frequency energy phase order make them "not consubstantial"?  
> Besides those quotes (n context) being attributed to Blavatsky, how specific 
> do I have to get.
>  
> 
> So I do not argue with your inspiration. I argue with what you do with it. 
> You make unjustified claims and incorrect identifications with known physics. 
> For example, a spherical field cannot be empty. So work on that particular 
> inspiration to determine if its truly spherical or empty.
> 
> [LM]
> I never said the field was empty (especially, since all such fields have 
> fields within fields within fields, etc. -- within them).  What I did say was 
> that the zero-point centers of those fields are empty (of energy or form)...  
> Since, such energy is entirely separate from it in its surrounding spinergy or 
> G-force -- which is pure nonlinear abstract motion that doesn't become 
> actualized into the linear motion of coenergetic fields until it initially 
> radiates into analogous, fractally involved coenergetic fields.  I hope that clears 
> up my weird semantics a bit. :-)
> 
>  
> You can no longer say that no one has ever found a flaw in your logic. I 
> think your logic is quite flawed. And it is certainly not based on Blavatsky.
> 
> [LM]
> That's just hand waving. 
> 
> Well, I challenge you to find a missing link of cause and effect or a false 
> syllogism, and point it or them out.  Maybe you will be the first one to find 
> such a flaw, which might help me revise the theory if I have to. 
> 
> As for Blavatsky... She outlined the entire metaphysics underlying 
> Einstein's theories that inspired me to find a scientific correlation that would be 
> consistent with all proven aspects of modern relativity, QED, QFT, string, 
> holographic paradigm, multiverse, and other currently isolated theories of modern 
> and post modern science -- and that would link them all with the zero-point 
> of pure consciousness.   So far, none of them, separately, have come even 
> close. 
> 
> So, unless you have read  the Secret Doctrine from cover to cover and 
> studied it for as many years as I have, and compared it with the Book of Dzyan, the 
> Vedas, the I-Ching, and the world of Hermes, and many other ancient occult 
> philosophers, not to mention the modern scientists such as Einstein, Millikan, 
> Bohm, Pauli, Iskakov, and others who appear to have used such metaphysics as 
> the basis of their visionary ideas, you could never know whether or not the 
> ABC theory is based on Blavatsky -- whose writings accurately reflect those 
> ancient masters who were close enough to the beginning to know how the triple 
> headed Universe of consciousness, mind and matter really works. 
> 
> But until an experiment can be derive that will scientifically prove the ABC 
> model is the overall basis of a final GUTOE, I suppose we'll just have to 
> consider it another philosophical speculation, and I'll have to contend with 
> continued disbelief and arbitrary denials based on irrelevant scientific 
> theories that, themselves, in any combination, can't answer the questions with 
> respect to the synthesis of consciousness, mind and matter that ABC seems to 
> answer simply, logically and consistently.  </;-)>
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
>  
> Yours truly,
>  
> Richard
> 
> 
> 



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