Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00847)

The proposition put forward:  What if all matter consists of ultimate molecules.  How may we conceive the different states of matter?

A: As the molecules go on rarifying, so in proportion they become attenuated and the greater the distance between our globe and them - I do not mean here the region within the reach of your science - the greater the change in their polarity, the negative pole acquiring a stronger property of repulsion, and the positive losing gradually its power of attraction.  

Everything invisible, imponderable (the spirit of a thing) is positive, for it belongs to the world of reality; as everything solid, visible, is negative.  Primate and ultimate, positive and negative.  So much in our manifested world.  As the forces move on and the distance between oranized and unorganized matter becomes greater, a tendency towards the reverse begins to take place.  The powers of attraction and repulsion become gradually weaker.  Then a complete exchange of properties takes place, and for a time equilibrium is restored in an opposite order.  At every grade further onward, or away toward their primary chaotic state, shifts no more mutually its property, but weakens gradually until it reaches the world of non-being, where exists the eternal mechanical motion, the uncreated cause from whence proceeds in a kind of incessant downward and upward rotation, the founts of being from non-being, the latter, the reality, the former maya, the temporary from the
 everlasting, the effect from its cause, the effect becoming in its turn cause ad infinitum.  During the pralaya, that upward and downward motion ceases,inherent unconscious life alone remaining - all creative  forces paralysed, and everything resting in the night of mind. ML, P511

Cass

As the molecules go on rarifying, so in proportion they become attenuated

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: Interesting follow-up dialogue and commentary?   Anything useful?   Let's 
see.

In a message dated 4/23/06 11:01:43 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> BELOW�
> �
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> Cc: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:39:16 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Dreams, Consciousness, Mind and Other Passing 
> Clouds
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/18/06 8:27:55 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Leon,
> �
> I found your responses below more convincing than usual form you related 
> some of your thinking to existing science. Bt I am still annoyed by your 
> invention of terms that are otherwise unknown to science.
> 
> 
> Sorry my invention of new terms to describe new concepts annoys you. But, 
> I'm sure the classical physicists of the early 20th century would have said the 
> same thing about Einstein's jargon of "relativity," "singularity," quanta, 
> etc.
> 
>  �
>  NO WAY> YOUGIVE YOURSELF FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT
> 
Are you saying that Einstein didn't invent a Jargon that classical physicists 
at the time didn't think was nonsense?   Also, such ad hominem arguments 
don't hold any water as far as I can see.   
> 
> 
> �
> But you did specify one property of your zero-point that I find interesting, 
> that it is the soucre of a spherical field. Now in known physics, the only 
> source of a spherical field is a particle. So your zero point must be a 
> particle like a proton or an electron. Indeed you do claim that it has spin. So 
> please identify which particle is located at your zero point.
> 
> 
> The zero point I speak of is not like a particle. �It is simply the 
> immeasurable, infinitesimal and static center of spinergy or infinite angular 
> momentum that is the origination of all particle fields.� In other words, it is the 
> "primal" or pre cosmic zero-point, and all its infinite reflections in 
> hyperspace and configuration space that each particle field's spin is circling 
> around... An empty (of energy or form, i.e., "zero") point of absolute space, 
> beyond all comprehension or description in objective terms, that is, in its 
> (their) fundamental nature, conscious (i.e., aware and willful in one expressive 
> degree or another).�
>  �
>  YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF IN THAT PARAGRAPH ABOVE'
> 
Where's the contradiction?   Just saying it makes no sense. I was speaking of 
the zero-point prior to the big bang at the singularity which replicates 
itself in the center of every coenergetic field down to the center of the fields 
composing each physical particle.   That center (without its encircling 
spinergy or angular momentum) cannot be considered a "particle" -- since it is 
totally empty of all attributes.   

If you don't understand that, say so, and point out what I'm being 
contradictory of (whether something I said or a rule of science which is not applicable 
to my theory) and why you think so, instead of making a flat out denial.   

The ABC Theory is proposing a new model of reality, a new paradigm, so to 
speak -- in order to explain the connection between consciousness and matter 
that, admittedly, is in direct contradiction of material science and its 
"particle" theories -- which may explain the dynamics of the metric or physical world 
-- but which has no value in explaining subjective consciousness and how it 
links to objective matter.   Nor will they ever have.   ABC's fractally involved 
coenergetic fields that are coadunate but not consubstantial and exist in the 
Planck space are beyond the mathematics and dynamics of conventional particle 
physics. The only physics that might come close to explaining all this is the 
metaphysics of string and QFT in conjunction with the holographic paradigm and 
implicate-explicate order theories of Bohm and Pribram.

> What such an "empty" point has, since it is not restricted from rotating on 
> infinite axes, is "fundamental spin" (or what I call "spinergy" -- since it 
> is the mother of all particle spin).� Therefore this infinitely energetic 
> momentum of the primal zero-point� is NOT a particle in the scientific sense, 
> but IS the noumena or potentiality of all particles (leptons, microleptons, 
> etc.) -- that are only apparent on all coenergetic phases or planes when the 
> coenergetic field are radiated and fractally involved into the inflated 14 
> initial fields of the Kosmos' first and second logos prior to the breaking of its 
> symmetry -- which occurs only on the analogous lowest order coenergetic 
> fields -- the most dense part of which is our 7 fold physical universe.� See my 
> chakrafield diagrams:
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
>  �
>  INFINITE AXES DO NOT EXIST. YOU JUST MADE THAT UP
> 
Really?   If I take a ball and rotate it in either direction, clockwise or 
counter clockwise on any of its spherical or great circle's axes -- how many 
such axes can YOU count?   Well, the spinergy surrounding a zero-point spinning 
in all angular directions simultaneously is equivalent to that ball -- if we 
could hang it by all its axes and manage to spin it around all of them 
simultaneously.   Have you forgotten your solid geometry?
> 
> Incidentally, the ABC model, apparently, can also explain the causes of the 
> breaking of symmetry� -- in terms of algorithmic geometry's and topologies 
> coupled with accumulated tensor forces -- due to the transition from higher to 
> lower frequency energy orders as the fields fractally involve.� Unfortunately 
> (giving up some of my supposed "arrogance" ;-) -- I'll have to leave it to 
> the physicists of tomorrow to figure out the metamathematics and dynamics of 
> this process.
> 
> THE ABC THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE FORMATION OF ICE, A KIND OS SYMMETRY 
> BREAKING. SHOW ME. I THINK YOU ARE JUST BLOWING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
> 
And, now, you are really stretching at straws, based on your total lack of 
imaginative understanding of metaphysical principles.   I never said the ABC 
theory could explain the formation of ice. 

I was referring solely to the symmetry breaking of the initial coenergetic 
fields of the Cosmos, after their radiation from the spinergy of the 
singularity, their involution down to the physical plane, and inflation during and after 
the big bang.   What has that got to do with the physical process of ice 
formation (which could only occur on the physical plane considered by quantum 
physics) when water didn't even exist when cosmic symmetry was broken? 

To bring in the ice analogy, which I already explained was not appropriate 
with respect to its change of information on a material level is mixing apples 
with oranges.
>  �
> Now a vortex has some of the properties of your field but a vortex is not a 
> spherical field. Too bad because the vortex is a fundamental characteristic 
> of condensates, both Bose and Fermion condensates and many believe it to be a 
> fundamental aspect of consciousness. So is it possible that your field is not 
> really spherical but actually that of a vortex??�
> 
> 
> That's right -- since the vortex ABC speaks of has to do with the initial 
> breaking of symmetry.� But that initial vortex is at the juncture of the fields 
> where the force lines making up the surfaces of the coenergetic fields 
> within fields, etc., spiral in at their poles and crossover each other like the 
> center of a Mobius triple loop Knot (analogous to how a black hole spirals into 
> its singularity)... Symbolized here: 
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif
> (which, incidentally, is another way of looking at the Chinese "primal 
> beginning" or Tai Chi, Yin, Yang symbol. Also, see: 
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/manfields.html#anchor1400318
> Could this be the shape of the photon particle field looking at it head on?� 
> Seems to account for its indeterminate polarity and the ability to freeze 
> its angle with a polarizing crystal face, doesn't it?�
>  �
>  THAT'S JUST A BUNCH OF WORDS WITHOUT MEANING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 
> PHOTON PARTICLE FIELD. LEARN SOME SCIENCE BEFORE YOU GO SPOUTING OFF.v
> 
Now, we're really getting down to brass tacks -- when you have shout and 
stoop to ad hominem arguments that are simply blowing in the wind.   If you know 
so much physics that can disprove the ABC theory, or can find a better 
explanation of consciousness and its linkages to matter, let's hear it.   However, why 
waste time -- since it's obvious you can't follow my logical explanation that 
draws a multidimensional metaphysical and geometric and topological picture 
of fields within fields within fields, that take some imagination to see and 
follow it's Mobius-like twists and turns and its coenergetic transitions.    

If the photon particle wasn't also a spinning wave that is the front of a 
radiating field, then what is it?   How do you account for the double slit 
anomaly that breaks down when it is observed without resorting to the quantum 
indeterminacy cop out?   Or, how do you explain the ability of a Polaroid material 
to polarize that light beam if the entire photon wasn't spinning and had the 
form of a triune field generated from a zero-point?
see symbolic diagram of spinning field (and imaginatively extrapolate it down 
to a single triune field front) at:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/manfields.html#anchor1
400318
> 
> 
> Could that be what Edwin Land saw in his imagination when he invented his 
> celluloid polarization sheets and later devised his Retinex model of dual 
> frequency full color vision? ...� That, apparently, fits in perfectly with the ABC 
> theory of binocular vision and its internal holography encoded as dual wave 
> interference patterns on the brain's em field, and transferred resonantly to 
> the higher order mind and memory fields, where the holographic images we 
> experience at our zero-point center of visual consciousness is reconstructed by 
> the coherent radiation of light energy it sends outward into these fields ... 
> But, that's another story when ABC explains the mechanisms of sensory 
> perception and describes how the inner light comes about and how the "third eye" 
> works -- that sees the visual hologram from single zero-point in the center of 
> our head.
>  �
>  ALL BS
> 
That's an argument?   Where's your reasoning?   Did you ever read my 
explanation of how the visual system works?   If not, how can you judge it?   Maybe 
you should ask me to explain it if you have any interest in shooting it down 
using reason and logic and any science you know that explains it better.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, by saying that particle at the center of your spherical 
> field is conscious, you are just parroting Blavatsky and Hinduism in saying 
> that all particles are conscious. People have been saying that for thousands of 
> years.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.� All I've done is arrive at the same conclusion, since that's 
> the only place it could be if my coenergetic field theory is correct.� I can't 
> help it that those ancients, already knew it, since the original teachers 
> were of such a high order of primal field consciousness that they could intuit 
> it directly.� And, later, have it verified by hundreds if not thousands of 
> meditating masters who could see the same things when in pure Samadhi.� 
> Besides, Blavatsky just said she was collating the theories of all those ancient 
> masters -- all of which were in the Hindu scriptures. All you are doing by 
> denying it is parroting all the scientific skeptics who can't see the metaphysics 
> behind their physics, that gives it some life, and brings it down to 
> fundamental reality and simple truth -- that needs no mathematics to comprehend.� 
> Besides, I didn't say the zero-point of consciousness at the center of the 
> spherical fields was a "particle" and neither did the ancient Masters. Unless you 
> consider the spinergy circling the zero-point is a particle, since that has 
> measurable energy (even if it is infinite. :-)�
>  �
>  THE ANCIENT MASTERS NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY. NOTHING ABOUT SPIN OR 
> FIELDS. YOU JUST MADE THAT ALL UP BECAUSE IT SOUNDS GOOD TO YOU. BUT IT'S 
> ALL JUST EMPTY WORDS,
> 
It's amazing how you continue to point out how you haven't really understood 
anything I have been talking about -- that no one else seems to have any 
trouble understanding -- even if they don't agree with it, and never fail to say 
why. 

As for the Ancient Masters, when, if ever, did I claim they knew anything 
about spin or fields, or that they had taught me anything about the zero-point 
spinergy?   But they did talk of "Laya points," "abstract motion," "primal 
origin" from such points, "fields of consciousness" (which they called "planes" or 
"realms"), etc.   I just used my intuition and reasoning to put those 
teachings together with the scientific fundamentals like spin, waves, fields, and 
particles, compared them with the ancient diagrams and glyphs symbolizing 
cosmogenesis, along with the numerical field formulas in the ancient Book of Dzyan, 
the sciences of holography and fractal geometry, the mathematics and conclusions 
of string and M-brane theories, as well as the "three fundamental 
principles," as taught by the ancient masters (all of it outlined, explained and 
referenced in Blavatsky's Secret doctrine, BTW) -- and constructed a theory that would 
link them all together in a metaphysical cosmogenesis that links with and is 
consistent with modern physics and its well proven laws, and that would 
explain all the missing links, anomalies and paradoxes of conventional material 
science -- while reasonably answering all the hard problems of consciousness and 
qualia, brain mind binding, etc.
> 
> Now here is a statement that needs to be revised "physicists (as well as 
> other eliminative materialists" Physicists are not eliminative materialists. 
> Physicists accept that materials have proiperties. Jud does not. He thinks that 
> material properties do not exist. But the whole point of physics is to 
> understand and predict the properties of materials.
> 
> But all the physical "properties" are conditions of the existence of 
> particulate matter -- which Jud sees, but just won't admit that the distinction 
> "property" exists in itself, even as a general description of something we can 
> pick up and hold in our hands or see, hear, etc.� So his insistence on 
> limiting what exists only to material objects is just a lot of nit picking nonsense, 
> as far as I'm concerned..�
> 
> On the other hand, what physicists have eliminated is the idea that there 
> can be an underlying metaphysics, and that consciousness is a function of 
> absolute empty space that, having no metrics or time, can never be explained by 
> them.� Jud, of course, is right when he says that such things don't exist, 
> since his idea of existence is only what can be physically sensed by whatever 
> physical sensing systems we have or are available to scientists.� But all that's 
> just bah and humbug from my point of view.� And, when it comes to 
> considering consciousness, its origin and its perceptive systems, I put most 
> conventional scientists who follow the party line, in the same boat.
> 
But, what has all this nit picking about existence of non existence have to 
do with discussion or comments about the nitty gritty of ABC theory and its 
metaphysics? 
>  �
>  QUANTUM GRAVITY AND STRING THEORY IS METAPHYSICS. CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT 
> EXIST IN EMPTY SPACE. YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN DEFINED CONSCIOUSNESS EXCEPT WITH 
> YOUR MADE UP FIELDS THAT ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC
> 
So is my ABC theory "metaphysics."   Does that make it wrong?   Do you know 
where consciousness exists?   When did I say consciousness is defined by the 
fields or their modifications it experiences?   And haven't you read a number of 
time in my writings that "consciousness" is defined as "awareness" and 
"will"?   When Hameroff read that in one of my letters to Psyche-D, he agreed with 
me, and then went about like a real scientist to try to logically point out the 
flaws he perceived in my theory -- without negating any of its metaphysics.   
He even admitted that he thought consciousness as so defined was beyond the 
explanation capability of quantum physics -- which is only concerned with the 
brain's physical mechanisms.   So, how many times do I have to repeat it before 
you understand what I am talking about.   

So, if they are not scientific, it's only because they can't be falsified by 
scientifically objective means.   But, that doesn't automatically make them 
wrong.   Why can't they be confirmed by direct subjective experience?   Or, have 
scientists forgotten how to observe their own inner experience with an 
objective mind?   Besides, consciousness is not in the fields but in the zero-point 
of absolute space at their centers of origination -- whose SPINERGY is the 
mother of those "FIELDS OF CONSCIOUSNESS" -- which are "coadunate but not 
consubstantial" (that I hope you look up in the dictionary and find out what it 
means) and the basis of all forms of matter or substance -- from the first 
coenergetic and metaphysical field in hyperspace down to the physical fields of metric 
space.   

So, when did I state that my field theory wasn't pure metaphysics (and only 
coupled with physics at their lowest energetic level or phase or order)?   The 
whole idea of the ABC theory is to link that metaphysics with physics -- which 
I see you haven't the faintest idea how to do it, although string theory and 
QFT is getting close -- but still not close enough... Since, they've left out 
consciousness (1) as an a-priori, independent yet phenomenally integrated with 
matter, entity in itself, and (2) as a "function" of the absolute zero-point 
(which can't be measured since it is NOT a "property" nor an epiphenomena of 
anything).   Mysterious?   Yes, but so is relativity and QM to those who don't 
understand their inherent logic (that you ascribe to their mathematics, but 
which still doesn't tell us anything about the true nature of reality). 
> �
> In my view, the "whole point of physics" and science in general is to find 
> out how the universe works, how and why we are here in this form and conscious 
> mind, where it and we came from, and where we're both going.� All the rest 
> is just endless examination of the physical parts, thinking that such pecking 
> and poking will eventually lead to an understanding of the whole -- which is 
> right under their noses -- if they would get off their arrogant high horses 
> and look intelligently inward instead of outward for awhile.� Unfortunately, 
> the "whole" of conventional physics is the material universe alone and all its 
> particles and forces they can measure -- from which the've eliminated 
> everything else... And, that "everything else", in my view, is a much more 
> essential, influential and important aspect of the real "wholeness" of the Universe.�
>  �
>  YOU ARE THE ARROGANT ONE THINKING THAT YOU CAN JUST SAY SOMETHING AND IT IS 
> TRUE
> 
I said it was a theory.   In my mind, I have a perfect justification to think 
it is true -- since I can't find a better scientific theory to deny it.   

All I know is that the ABC model satisfactorily solves all the problems of 
consciousness and mind that science can't get a handle on.   And, shouldn't the 
wholeness of the Universe include BOTH consciousness and matter?   Eliminating 
consciousness from their equations they (scientists) have only half a theory 
to explain the nature of ALL reality -- which must include the objective as 
well as the subjective aspects of its existence.   

How could there be consciousness without matter or matter without 
consciousness -- starting right at the singularity prior to the big bang?   

The whole essence of the ABC theory is that fundamental reality. Therefore, 

=== message truncated ===

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

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