Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00844)

The below response to a letter from a scientist attacking both me and my ABC 
theory as well as HPB, might be of interest... 

Is there anyone out there who can furnish the reference and quote where HPB 
used the phrase "coadunate but not consubstantial" to describe the seven fold 
fields of human and/or cosmic consciousness?   Unfortunately, all my reference 
books are in storage and Dallas is not currently at his computer to help.

Leon

 ==========================================================

Richard,

I guess your equilibrium is so disturbed that you can't handle it any more.   
Seems like you will do anything to stretch a statement or word out of 
context, and use any ad hominem technique, or debunker's specious methods to attack 
my ABC theory -- and me to boot. :-) 

I understand it, though, since I realize your whole identity depends upon 
your belief in the infallibility of the scientific method and its materialistic 
beliefs.   

Consequently, I'm sorry my ABC theory pushes your buttons and gives you so 
much angst... But nothing you say, using these ad hominem methods, will be able 
to cut through the truths that it is based on, nor the logic of its deductive 
and inductive reasoning.   

BTW, to show you how far you are willing to go in distorting what I say, in 
order to denigrate me and attack my ideas -- I never did "admit" that I was 
clairvoyant -- since I joking said you couldn't know whether or not I got my 
knowledge that way.   So, lighten up pal.   No one intends to take you to court to 
prove the falsity of your assertions about my veracity or claims that I posed 
as a scientist under your definition of one.   My science is pure 
metaphysical science -- that may include your science when it correctly solves all the 
paradoxes and anomalies induced by its materialism -- but ABC supersedes and 
doesn't depend on it.   If that's my arrogance, as a metaphysical scientist, then 
so be it.   And nothing you can say to denigrate that position will make any 
difference one way or the other -- since, while you depend on authority -- you 
are no authority to me or to anyone else who understands what I am talking 
about, and sees the sheer simplicity of it as a valid explanation of the true 
reality that includes both consciousness and matter and their interconnections.

Judging by all that you have said, maybe you should look into your own heart 
and ethics before you criticize anyone who presents a theory in all sincerity 
in open forum, ready to be shot down by anyone with a logical alternative, a 
reasonable counter argument, or an indication of a flaw in my logic or reason.  
 And, so far I've taken the shots when they came, and answered them to my own 
satisfaction, if not theirs. :-) At least none of them has stooped to the 
methods you have used lately, and we still talk to each other.   

So, in my eyes, it's you who has been posing as a scientist, judging by the 
methods you used so far -- which are flimsy at best -- to present any such 
counter argument.   All you have to hang your hat on is flat out denials or, 
specious attempts to prove me a liar, if not a flat out fantasist who has something 
to gain by this.   When you can come up with a reasonable comment related to 
the theory itself -- which stands on its own merits -- then I'll listen to 
you, and we can have a reasonable discussion without letting our emotions or 
unfounded beliefs get in the way.

Therefore, whatever you say below, based on your complete ignorance of the 
ABC theory or the Secret Doctrine's metaphysics it is based on (that I never 
denied) -- which I don't believe you have ever studied in any depth, if at all -- 
coupled with your total lack of imagination and inability to follow a logical 
progression starting from fundamental principles (which I also doubt you know 
anything about) is nothing but sheer ravings ... Not worth my time or energy 
any more to argue with or even consider.   

So stop this endless hounding, and fulfill your recent promise, and stop 
sending me personal e-mail's that are nothing more than furious attempts to prove 
my theory wrong using ad hominem and other spurious methods of attacking my 
veracity and credibility.   

In any event, I hope you feel better now that you've vented your spleen.   If 
I hear from you one more time with this kind of letter, everything you've 
written so far under the Mind and Brain subject line will be sent to the forum -- 
including this letter.

However, if you wish to discuss this theory honorably and reasonably in open 
forum, I will continue to answer your public posts, and deal with any counter 
arguments you put forth like a gentleman and/or a scientist -- even if you 
have a grudge against a theory that disturbs your psyche by shattering all your 
pet beliefs.   Science, as it stands today, is no religion to me and never has 
been.   

And, in spite of what you say using negative evidence of no account, 
Blavatsky did use the phrase "coadunate but not consubstantial" to describe the seven 
fold nature of the fields of consciousness that cloth the individual human as 
well as the universal consciousness.   And, I can prove it (although I haven't 
got the exact reference yet for the reason's described in a previous letter). 
  When I do however, I will forward it to you.   

In any event, I stand on anything I said below to answer your spurious 
denials of the ABC theory, Blavatsky's metaphysics, and my veracity and ethics.

Best wishes,

Leon


In a message dated 4/30/06 7:34:21 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>   
>  So you admit that you are not a physicist or a mathematician. You also 
> admit that your ideas, they are not a theory, are based on your powers of 
> clairvoyance. That's the whole point. You have been posing as a scientist with 
> claims to have advanced beyond the present state of science. What would be more 
> honest would be for you to simply state what data you get from clairvoyance, 
> rather than making up things that are not true, like the M theory claim or your 
> quote from Blavatsky about coadunate fields. Plain lying of that sort will 
> only get you into trouble if anyone else bothers to check what you say. Your 
> published articles are  riddled with such untruths. For example, you claimed 
> that almost all of modern physics came from the secret doctrine and gave 
> quotes as sources. When I pointed out to you that the quotes hardly supported your 
> claims. You then said that the words around the quotes made it all clear, 
> Well I checked those words and even copied them over for you to see and again 
> you were just plain lying. I do not suffer liars and that is what you have 
> been doing. You may think you have bamboozled your public. But from what I see 
> any decent scientist like Stuart Hameroff finds that 'the sheer level of 
> detail cannot be true'. Imposter is a strong word, but one that is deserving. I 
> must mention that such a statement is only libelous if untrue. I will be happy 
> to prove that it a court of law.
>   
>  Richard
>   
>   
>   
>   
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> To: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:11:10 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
> 
> 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]