Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
Apr 30, 2006 10:35 PM
by Mark S. Hamilton Jr.
All the great thinkers of their time are scoffed at by the public. Keep up
the good work, Leon.
-Mark H.
On Mon, 01 May 2006 01:40:57 -0300, <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
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]
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Mark S. Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
