Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00161)

In a message dated 5/1/06 2:27:42 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

> 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
> 
Leon
Yes, you've got it, Cass.

This is simply an allegorical explanation of "entropy" ... The tendency of 
everything in the universe to run down and lose energy as the universe expands 
through time.  Or, according to the TheFreeDictionary.com; "the tendency for 
all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert 
uniformity."   This is one of the fundamental laws that science rests on, but hasn't 
the faintest idea of how it actually works.

On the other hand, as occult science see it, the physical universe doesn't 
actually reverse its expansion and crunch back down into its black hole 
singularity (as some avocates of the "Big Bang" or "standard model" propose) -- but 
simply accelerates its expansion indefinitely, gradually getting more and more 
tenuous (as it travels back up the three steps of the global chain) until all 
the fundamental particles of physical matter are fully attenuated and 
transformed back to their zero-point centers of origin -- which is pure spirit or 
consciousness ... With all their decayed physical energy or mass reverting to their 
individual or singular spinergy's or abstract motion around each ubiquitous 
zero-point.

However, since these zero-points are all in the same unified or "absolute 
space" (which appears to us as being "nothing") they are joined "coadunately" as 
if they were one Spirit or consciousness at the center of the primal Cosmic 
"Singularity" composed of the total added spinergy of each "particle," "atom" or 
"molecule" -- which is, then, effectively concentrated around that one 
universal zero- or laya-point as the abstract motion (i.e., "spinergy" or infinite 
angular momentum) of absolute space... That, in its absolute zero-point center, 
lies sleeping and unconscious until it is awakened after its "pralaya" to 
become the source of the next manifestation (i.e., "manvantara") of the Cosmos 
(Solar System Chain, Earth Chain, etc.) -- analogously and correspondingly 
following the steps outlined in the Book of Dzyan and the formula therein, "The 
three, the one, the four, the one, the five, the twice seven, the sum total."   
See: 
How It All Began
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

Thus, as the Ancient Masters said, "Matter spiritualizes and Spirit 
Materializes." See:
Universal Evolution
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html

And then, let's use our imagination and compare this graphic allegory with 
what the Mahatma says about, ". . . 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 . . ." 
BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif (JG Image, 738x251 pixels)
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif
(Incidentally, the above sketch was drawn on the back of a paper napkin about 
20 year ago between two sips of a delicious [but very hot] bouillabaisse 
while meditating on the origin of it all...)   </;-)=
Leon
> 
> 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#anchor
> 1
> 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? ...ï 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.
> >
> >
> > LM: 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.ï¿
> > 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. :-)ï¿Å¨
> > 
> >  THE ANCIENT MASTERS NEVED 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.
> >
> > LM: 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
> re 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 ===
> 
> 



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