Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00459)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
>
> Friends,
> 
> After long disagreements and attempts to denigrate me and my 
theoretical 
> model and scientific correlation of Cosmogenesis, as it relates to 
holographic 
> consciousness, mind and brain, a physicist finally relents and 
You will know when you have made contact with a black hole, it won't 
let you go. At least that is what Sant Mat teaches that there are 
places in the inner universe that are so dark and dense that only a 
perfect living master can take one through.

Space travel is different from dream travel and I discuss both at 
great lengths in the book. Probalby only the people here will 
understand it.

Netemara



apparently accepts 
> the ABC theory -- or, at least, some of its more important 
conclusions.
> 
> As a relatively clear explanation of the ABC theory in my letters 
below that 
> is entirely in accord with metaphysical fundamental principles as 
well as the 
> leading edges of modern Maurer, Donphysics, I thought this might 
be of 
> interest to some of my friends and associates. 
> 
> (I'll understand your disregarding this if there are more complex 
ideas here 
> than you are willing to wade through. :-) 
> 
> Lenny
> 
> In a message dated 5/24/06 10:59:01 PM, yanniru@... writes:
> 
> Leon, You should look into Killing vector fields. From the 
following they 
> sound like your spinergy fields:
>    
>   Hollands, Ishibashi, and Wald offer their proof that rotating 
black holes, 
> even the higher-dimensional ones, must be axisymmetric. In other 
words, they 
> always admit a "rotational" Killing vector field. You should 
realize that the 
> horizon is not necessarily spherical anymore if the number of 
spacetime 
> dimensions exceeds four.
>    
>  A Higher Dimensional Stationary Rotating Black Hole Must be 
Axisymmetric
> Authors: Stefan Hollands, Akihiro Ishibashi, Robert M. Wald
> Comments: 25 pages, no figures
> 
> A key result in the proof of black hole uniqueness in 4-dimensions 
is that a 
> stationary black hole that is ``rotating''--i.e., is such that the 
stationary 
> Killing field is not everywhere normal to the horizon--must be 
axisymmetric. 
> The proof of this result in 4-dimensions relies on the fact that 
the orbits of 
> the stationary Killing field on the horizon have the property that 
they must 
> return to the same null geodesic generator of the horizon after a 
certain 
> period, $P$. This latter property follows, in turn, from the fact 
that the 
> cross-sections of the horizon are two-dimensional spheres. 
However, in spacetimes of 
> dimension greater than 4, it is no longer true that the orbits of 
the 
> stationary Killing field on the horizon must return to the same 
null geodesic 
> generator. In this paper, we prove that, nevertheless, a higher 
dimensional stationary 
> black hole that is rotating must be axisymmetric. No assumptions 
are made 
> concerning the topology of the horizon cross-sections other than 
that they are 
> compact and connected. However, as in the 4-dimensional proof, we 
assume that the 
> horizon is non-degenerate and that the spacetime is analytic.
>  Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@...
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:21:27 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to 
Dreams, 
> Thinking, Mind, Brain
> 
> List members and moderators,
> 
> If this is the kind of unscientific presumptive arguments (as if 
Richard 
> reads my mind and knows exactly where my insights come from) used 
by him to 
> disqualify my ABC theory -- especially without quoting my previous 
statements he is 
> attempting to refute.   I think his emotions are getting the 
better of his 
> judgment. 
> 
> Apparently, he seems to take a personal affront to anything I say 
that in any 
> way contradicts his almost religious belief in the infallibility 
of current 
> physics and its contrived mathematics -- that still cannot explain 
the nature 
> or the mechanisms of consciousness or answer the hard problems of 
qualia or 
> brain mind binding, as well as non locality of consciousness and 
other anomalies, 
> such as dream images that allow us to review visual images 
holographically in 
> an inner "light" whose origin also cannot be explained -- that my 
ABC theory 
> makes a serious effort to explain in simple logical terms that can 
be 
> understood by any open minded, imaginative, and rational thinker --
 using both left 
> and right brain simultaneously. 
> 
> My ABC field theory -- while correlating and integrating both 
subjective 
> consciousness and objective matter as two fundamental yet opposing 
aspects of the 
> entire cosmic reality, and correlating relativity with quantum 
physics as 
> proposed by string theories -- attempts to explain all this 
without violating any 
> of the proven laws of conventional physics, (that in my view, 
apply solely to 
> the physical world we experience in our waking state) ... 
Although, the entire 
> universe, even if both physical and metaphysical or 
paraphysical,   would 
> necessarily obey the fundamental laws of conservation and 
symmetry, as well as 
> the basic laws of thermodynamics, electrodynamics, fluid dynamics, 
quantum 
> dynamics, etc. -- on whatever hyperspace level of energy they 
might apply. (This, 
> incidentally, in accord with the string physics and its 
unification of 
> relativity and quantum physics, along with its minimal six 
dimensional hyperspace 
> fields and one 3-dimensional metric space coupled with time, now 
being taught in 
> many advanced physics departments at major universities.)   
Incidentally, this 
> almost exactly corresponds to the "seven fold coadunate but not 
> consubstantial" fields of human consciousness spoken of by 
occultists and Eastern 
> philosophers.
> 
> Naturally, I understand Richard's inability (due to his 
preconceived, 
> prejudicial, and supposedly infallible material science mindset) 
to follow the 
> geometric and topological logic of the Cosmogenesis ABC explains --
 that, in my 
> view, is entirely scientific -- since it follows the rational 
progressions of the 
> primal triune field radiation, their fractal involution's and 
expansion or 
> inflation prior to the breaking of the original supersymmetry... 
And, 
> subsequently, through their ultimate evolution after symmetry 
breaking, in perfect accord 
> with scientific processes governed by analogous fundamental 
physical laws 
> that would apply on each hyperspatial phase of their fractal 
descent... Each 
> level of which would necessarily be "in coadunation but not in 
consubstantiality" 
> with all other "coenergetic" dimensions in "hyperspace" (as string 
theorists 
> call this multidimensional and paraphysical realm)... Since these 
field's 
> fundamental laws of interaction would necessarily be based on 
electrodynamics 
> initially... As well as later, with respect to the transfer of 
holographic 
> information related to consciousness (awareness, qualia, willful 
intent, etc.) from 
> one level or state of consciousness to another...   And finally, 
to raw 
> consciousness itself at the "zero-point centers" of the 
coenergetic fields in the 
> afferent direction… And from there, to the brain's neural system 
and muscles in 
> the efferent direction.   These paths consisting of a series of 
> inductive-resonance processes between each coenergetic fractal 
field governed by the 
> fundamental laws of electricity acting analogously within each 
descending field's 
> mass-energy order, phase, or degree of substantiality or density. 
> 
> This scientific logic starts with the basic assumption that the 
entire 
> universe (as a holographic unity) originates from an infinitely 
massive 
> "singularity" (as postulated by the theory of relativity) that 
underlies the standard 
> model of the Big Bang.   It also presumes that pure consciousness 
(as above 
> defined) is a function of the zero-point of absolute space 
itself.   And 
> additionally assumes the possibility that all cosmic energies -- 
no matter in which 
> dimension of fundamental space, or of whatever form they may be 
in, from 
> particle-waves of their variable substantiality's, to their 
different aspects of radiant 
> energy (i.e., EM spectrums, and their magnetic fields) -- radiate 
initially 
> from the infinite angular momentum, primal force or "Spinergy" of 
that primal 
> absolute zero-point singularity. 
> 
> It follows that this pre cosmic force must be based solely on the 
spin motion 
> of the absolute zero-point of fundamental space at the center of 
the primal 
> singularity.   And that this nonlinear abstract motion must be 
fundamentally a 
> non linear spherical motion represented by infinite zero-diameter 
lines of 
> force spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise on infinite 
potential axes and 
> carried as wave interference patterns infinite information. It 
further 
> follows that this information or fundamental knowledge is was and 
will be gathered 
> through potentially infinite previous manifestations (or radiation 
of that 
> energy from one axis), field involution's, their subsequent 
evolutions, and 
> ultimate return back to the combined "black hole" singularities 
(now one super 
> singularity) that gave them birth. 
> 
> Recently, some confirmation of the possibility that this ABC model 
correctly 
> describes the initial birth of the universe and its radiation out 
of the 
> spinergy of the primal zero-point singularity (that is the result 
of the collapse 
> of a previous universe having the same physical characteristics as 
this one) -- 
> comes from the work of a group of scientist at Penn State 
University.   The 
> following is an excerpt from a press release from PSU: 
> http://live.psu.edu/story/17839
>      "Using quantum modifications of Einstein's cosmological 
equations, we 
> have shown that in place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact 
a quantum 
> Bounce," says Ashtekar. "We were so surprised by the finding that 
there is another 
> classical, pre-Big Bang universe that we repeated the simulations 
with 
> different parameter values over several months, but we found that 
the Big Bounce 
> scenario is robust."
>        While the general idea of another universe existing prior 
to the Big 
> Bang has been proposed before, this is the first mathematical 
description that 
> systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of 
space-time 
> geometry in that universe."
> 
> Of course, to fully comprehend this model and all its geometrical 
and 
> topological twists and turns, requires a deeply thoughtful and 
intuitive 
> concentration coupled with an open minded and unlimited 
imagination -- which Einstein said 
> was "more important than knowledge."   Doing so, will make it 
evident, that 
> none of it could be explained by or grasped intuitively (by 
scientists or other 
> thinkers who are not brilliant physicists with Einstein-like 
imaginations) 
> through mathematical symbolic equations, such as those used in 
conventional 
> quantum physics.   I suspect that this statement alone is enough 
to drive Richard 
> off the deep end, and trigger his personal attacks on both my 
theory and me... 
> Although the above new findings related to loop quantum gravity 
may serve to 
> temper his response a bit. ;-)
> 
> Without going deeper into the finer points of this cosmogenesis 
process and 
> the subtle connections between consciousness, mind, memory and 
brain, or the 
> mechanisms of perceptive consciousness, all of which has been 
adequately 
> explained many times in this and other consciousness study forums, 
I do not believe 
> Richard has made any cogent case for considering banning this 
theory from 
> intelligent discussions here related to consciousness, mind and 
brain. 
> 
> Apparently, these personal ad hominem attacks on my theoretical 
ideas and me 
> related to consciousness studies are generated by Richard's 
personal inability 
> to get his pet theories presented in this forum.   Probably, 
because, while 
> they are based solely on quantum physics and its mathematics (that 
doesn't 
> belong in this forum), they cannot answer any of the outstanding 
problems of 
> consciousness, cognition, perception, etc., nor explain the 
relationships between 
> consciousness, mind and brain, that are the subjects of this 
forum -- which 
> none the materialistic physical sciences can answer or explain 
using their 
> essentially limited, incomplete and obscure mathematics. 
> 
> For example, how can any purely objective physical theory 
empirically codify 
> subjective aspects of qualia or experiences of consciousness?   
How could it 
> also determine the method of assembly and transfer of sensory 
images processed 
> in scattered areas of the brain, as coherent holographic images 
perceived in 
> the field of mind by a singular point of awareness in the exact 
center of our 
> brain directly behind the eyes and between the ears? 
> 
> My ABC concepts, however, meet all those requirements and can be 
discussed -- 
> from the points of view of cognitive or transcendental, psychology 
as well as 
> neurology, biology, physiology, biochemistry, psychophysics, or 
other 
> scientific disciplines related to the studies of consciousness, 
mind and brain, etc. 
> -- without necessity for any knowledge of mathematics or quantum 
physics.
> 
> Additionally, to meet the objection by conventional physicists 
with 
> materialistic biases, that it is not scientific -- the ABC model 
is fundamentally 
> identical with the holographic Paradigm of Bohm-Pribram, in that 
it offers a 
> logical dynamic geometric and topological basis of cosmology and 
its cosmogenesis -- 
> that not only stays consistent with relativity and quantum physics 
when 
> synthesized by string theory, but fully justifies all the concepts 
of the 
> Holographic Universe put forth by Bohm and Pribram and other 
similarly perceptive 
> physicists such as Sheldrake and his "Morphogenetic Fields," 
Hawkings with his 
> "Flexiverse," and Ashtekar with his "Big Bounce."
> See: http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#Stanislav
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> (Additional comments in text below)
> 
> In a message dated 5/15/06 10:20:41 AM, yanniru@... writes:
> 
> [Richard]
> Leon is a victim of 19th century thinking found in Madam 
Blavatsky's Secret 
> Doctrine. Here is a relevant quote from SD that has apparently 
influenced Leon:
> 
> "[[Vol. 1, Page]] 512 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> Whether "force" or "motion," (Occultism, seeing no difference 
between the 
> two, never attempts to separate them) it cannot act for the 
adherents of the 
> atomo-mechanical theory one way, and for those of the rival school 
in another way.
> [514] Light and heat are the ghost or shadow of matter in motion."
> 
> This is the kind of thinking that leads Leon to claim as 
below "All energy 
> derives from motion." and to reject any notion of a mass as having 
rest energy. 
> That kind of fallacious 19th century thinking pervades his ABC 
Theory. That 
> theory is totally unscientific and should not be allowed 
presentation on the 
> MindBrain Forum.
> 
> [Leon]
> This argument is particularly insidious and self serving, since 
there is no 
> reference below to my previous statement -- which did NOT reject 
the 
> "scientific" concept of mass having a purely 
theoretical, "absolute rest energy" ... But 
> only commented that, as I see it, there is no such thing as mass 
at so called 
> "rest" without "motion"-- which I do say, going back to the 
origination of 
> all "energy" from the motion of the zero-point spinergy, or of 
fundamental 
> "space" itself, as Einstein pointed out, and therefore -- IS the 
fundamental root 
> of all energy)... And also, since all mass is equivalent to energy 
as proven by 
> E=mc^2, and that even a mass at rest relative to the Earth, is 
still in 
> motion relative to the Sun and the Galaxy, and therefore, is 
constantly in motion 
> and expending potential energy.   I further commented that any 
mass would also 
> have spin, and even if that mass-energy were at linear rest 
relative to an 
> absolute fixed point in space, it would still have inherent spin 
motion or 
> potential energy relating to its mass in accord with E=MC^2.
> 
> Let Richard, if he wishes to contest this, use a scientifically 
sound as well 
> as logical argument instead of such blatant ad hominem methods -- 
based, 
> apparently, on his resentment that my definitive theory of 
consciousness related 
> to a paraphysical cosmogenesis leading to brain mind binding might 
be 
> considered as worthwhile to discuss in this forum, and his purely 
quantum theories, 
> not.
> 
> But, what has any of that to do with an obscure statement made by 
Blavatsky 
> (and incidentally taken entirely out of context) -- that may very 
well be true 
> if understood properly?   Arbitrarily calling it and my theory 
that comes to 
> similar conclusions "fallacious 19th century thinking" is like 
saying that 
> Einstein's theory of relativity -- which he wrote an essay on when 
he was 16 years 
> old, and therefore, might have had it in his mind some years 
before the end 
> of the 19th century (since it is known that he corresponded with 
Robert 
> Millikan about his ideas of light during that time, and also read 
Blavatsky's works, 
> as Millikan was also noted to be a mystic who probably gave the 
young Einstein 
> that book) -- is therefore, fallacious.   Such arguments, implying 
that all 
> 19th century thinking is fallacious, are laughable and not worth 
paying any 
> attention to, if not sad -- especially when coming from the mouth 
of a supposedly 
> open minded and knowledgeable scientist.   
> 
> Apparently, Richard likes to take statements out of context, 
misinterpret 
> them, and then attribute it to something someone else with little 
scientific 
> credibility said, that he claims, with no logical foundation 
whatsoever, and with 
> the intent to discredit me by association -- that that is where my 
logical 
> theory of ABC came from. 
> 
> I hope those reading my letters in this forum can see that such ad 
hominem 
> methods of argument and attempts at discrediting by association 
don't belong in 
> this open forum devoted to serious consciousness, and mind-Brain 
studies.
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@...
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:42:29 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to 
Dreams, 
> Thinking, Mind, Brain
> 
> 
> I suppose I'm entitled to answer in the first person this 
generally negative 
> third person commentary about my ideas and me. :-)   My responses 
are below. 
> LM
> 
> In a message dated 5/4/06 2:31:46 AM, yanniru@... writes:
>  
> One of the problems in trying to understand Leon's ABC theory is 
that its 
> "propositions, conclusions, and other elements" have seemingly 
never been fully 
> written out. The best source I have found is an article that 
describes his 
> fundamental assumptions plus brief remarks on the theory that 
comes from these 
> assumptions.   Here is the link:
> http://www.theos-world.com/archives/show.php?
NAME=tw200203&PATH=txt&
> DESC=XXXtwtw200203%20Issue or: http://tinyurl.com/7rub5 
> And here are the paragraphs outlining his assumptions:
> 
> THE PRIMAL ZERO POINT by Leon Maurer
> 
> 
> This was not written for scientists, but specifically for serious 
> theosophists who already were steeped in occult philosophy that, 
for some strange reason, 
> seem to be in perfect agreement with our basic assumptions -- 
which from my 
> point of view, as well as the physicist and Nyingmapa Lama, Dr. 
Sebastian 
> Perchion, who collaborated with me in the beginning -- was derived 
completely 
> logically, based on fundamental principles which were in complete 
accord with both 
> relativity and quantum physics (according to Dr. Perchion who was 
instrumental 
> in the design of the trigger for the Fat Boy and Trinity Atomic 
Bombs).   
> Naturally, we also did a serious study of occultism prior to our 
development of 
> the ABC model since it had metaphysical aspects that had to be 
corroborated... 
> And, incidentally, while doing so, we found evidence that Einstein 
may have 
> also done so.   This was pointed out to several Russian 
physicists, one of who, 
> Zel'dovitch, took a copy of our notated Secret Doctrine back to 
Russia.   We 
> later find several Russian scientists, namely Zel'dovitch, 
Iskakoff and 
> Sakharov who have presented theories and conclusions that seem to 
have been inspired 
> by that book.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>