Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00868)

For those of you interested in the current scientific study of consciousness 
and it's theosophical implications, and willing to carefully follow this 
online posted response to a series of attacks on proponents of alternate theories 
by a materialist "psychophysicist" with a supposedly "Scientific" theory of his 
own -- you might find it quite enlightening.   

So far, no Ph.D. carrying physicist or neuroscientist has been able to find a 
flaw in the ABC theory's impeccable logic -- other than hand waving and 
saying the original premise is wrong ... In stating that "the universe, starting 
from the Zero-Point of absolute space prior to the big bang, and spread out now 
everywhere in the physical "vacuum" between the quantum particles, is "an 
eternally inseparable unity of pure spirit or consciousness and the root source 
[fundamental spin] of all matter" ... With both aspects in our space-time 
continuum linked together by fractally involved hyperspace (metaphysical) fields of 
an electrodynamic nature...   All, perfectly in accord with relativity, 
quantum field and string theories that deal with physical space-time and matter 
alone -- but have no ability to explain consciousness (awareness-will), its 
origin, or its mechanisms linking it to mind and brain -- other than labeling it 
"the observer" without telling us exactly what that observer is, where it comes 
from, why it's nonlocal, and how it's information image tranfer, detection, 
intention, attention and perception actually works.

Indicating, of course, how shallow all current theories of physics are 
(except for their technological applications that make technocrats rich) and what 
little science actually knows about the prime moving force (conscious, will) 
behind all the activities (creative or otherwise) of man and nature.  

Is it any wonder, then, why the world has become so out of control that it is 
inevitably going to destroy itself while currently making life so miserable 
for the great majority of people, who haven't got their hands on the powers of 
rule and its concurrent monetary wealth attraction only for the few -- making 
much of mankind no better off than they were in the middle ages? 

Well, if you don't think that this knowledge of the eternality of 
consciousness along with the root of matter, and its implicit proof of both karma and 
reincarnation, when confirmed and given out by their science gurus to everyone, 
can change all that -- or you have no interest in theories of consciousness, 
then you might as well forego reading this letter, throw it in the trash, stick 
your head in the sand, and hope the inevitable crash might not come before the 
end of your lifetime. :-)   

Best wishes,
Lenny

***********************************
 In a message dated, 12/20/06 5:34:22 PM, barron.burrow@ntlworld.com writes:


> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dirk Laureyssens <dirk@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's important to put everything in it's [BEB: he means "its"] 
> right context.
> > Does the measurement and the researcher of an experiment can 
> > influence the result?
> 
> BEB replies: We are biosystems. All such systems exist at the quantum energy 
> level. The 'hard problem' lies in understanding how consciousness (the 
> "observer"), starting at the Planck scale, emanates from quantum energy, right? 
> 
LM responds: (keeping in mind other recent letters by BEB of a similar 
supercilious ilk)

Wrong.  The real problem is to determine the physical and metaphysical 
coenergetic linkages between (A) the subjective consciousness, that must be the 
witness, determiner and willer of all constructive action, i.e., the creator, 
which is the fundamental aspect of pure pre-cosmic absolute space at the 
zero-point of the primal singularity or cosmic spinergy -- and (B) the objective matter 
emanating out of that spinergy from which all our biosystems, that must be of 
a purely physical nature, are composed.  The assumption that consciousness 
(awareness or the "observer") "emanates from quantum energy" is exactly opposite 
the true reality.  Consciousness cannot be an epiphenomena of matter-energy 
(even as it appears in the quantum vacuum) since there has to be an observer 
prior to the production or construction of any forms of matter.  Show me a human 
construct that had no observer before the image that preceded such 
construction was in the mind of its creator.  If you can do that, and prove that the 
universe acts in any different manner, then I'll admit, "you're a better man than 
I am Charley Brown." :-)

It's perfectly obvious that the psychic nature of man -- while a complex and 
interesting subject in itself, having come into existence countless millions 
of years after the birth of the universe and its evolution into planets that, 
in turn, evolved mankind -- has nothing whatever to do with cosmogenesis on the 
metaphysical coenergetic field level, and the geometric-topological processes 
that lawfully and mathematically, through fractal involution, starting at the 
one dimensional "string" (or ray of cosmic zero-point energy) level, creates 
the multiple fractally involved coenergetic fields or multiple dimensions of 
space-time -- which offers a ground for the psychoanalysts (who think they are 
physicists:-) to play their phallic games, using their non sequitur 
psychobabblings, that have no scientific roots whatsoever with respect to solving the 
hard problem posed by Chalmers of explaining the experience of consciousness -- 
along with the parallel hard problem of explaining the electrodynamic linkages 
between brain and mind. 

Nor, do these, so called "psychophysical" theories, based on the questionable 
phallicized psychoanalysis of thinking man alone, apply to the conscious 
universe itself -- that stands so far above the dual (animal-spiritual) 
sentient-insentient consciousness nature of man, as to make any such claim entirely 
ludicrous. 

So, c'mon down off your high horse, BEB, and start facing the reality of the 
hard problems you are trying to solve with such flawed reasoning.  I can 
forgive you, since I guess you're just as caught up in and trapped by the LH myths 
of inductive reductionism, as are some of the other nay sayers on this forum, 
that you cannot look inward, start from your own center of consciousness, and 
using the imagination of the RH, deduce how all creation could emanate from 
that point.  But, I'm afraid that might let you see into the mind of God -- 
which of course, you cannot accept as being there, unconcerned, yet far superior 
to yourself and your personal image of omniscience.  Too bad... Since your 
brilliant mind could have been useful to Mankind's true knowledge of themselves.  
What value has psychoanalysis if it can't teach Man how to correct the flaws 
(selfishness, attachment, lack of empathy and compassion, and the like) in his 
own nature -- that generally stems from ignorance of the true nature of 
overall reality and its and his own conscious immortality (both before and after 
this temporary bodily habitation)?  But, then, I assume you are too fixated in 
your current scientific materialist beliefs to see the possibility, if not the 
probability, of such a condition of timeless existence.  

> 
> Begin with strings as representing 100% quantum energy in the 
> first-dimension 'IN HERE'. Subject this to ongoing dichotomisation (i.e. 50% in the 
> second-dimension, 25% in the third-dimension, 12.5% in the fourth-dimension, etc., 
> etc.), and by the time we reach the "observer" mode in the seventh-dimension 
> 'OUT THERE' we have 1/64th of what we began with.
> 
> 
LM: To claim any scientific validity for all this pointless babble that rests 
on no actual systemic or operative energetic mechanisms -- how about giving 
us a reasonable and logical explanation of just what those "strings" are and 
where and from what they came from?  You might also tell us what is the nature, 
structure and origin of the space fields (or different "dimensions" as you 
call them) that can be fractally divided in accord with the numerical progression 
above, and how, starting from the cosmic zero point, the "primal string" 
forms such fields?  

Maybe  it would help if you "looked into" the "string" (zero-point G-force 
ray) based geometric and electrodynamic rationale behind the genesis of the 
fractally involved fields on the cosmic level that initially emanate from the 
primal singularity, as described in my ABC model.  

Note that the harmonic resonance's in and between these fields predetermines 
that all subsequent fields underlying the quantum particles on the lowest 
order physical plane of matter, are analogous to the cosmic fields.  These 
progressively denser metaphysical fields are what links pure consciousness 
(awareness, will) with all states, forms, and organisms composed of physical matter.  
Note, also, that such (dual string woven) fields, whether in octaval, decimal or 
duodecimal progressions, take the form of a spiral vortical Mobius like 
toroid that has no beginning and no end -- since the originating zero-points are 
entangled with all other zero-points spread everywhere throughout all the 
interconnected coenergetic fields.

> 
> If seven is opposite one in a symmetrically-divided torus, the maximum 
> number of dimensions allowed is twelve. Divide the quantum energy in each lower 
> dimension by its complementary opposite "observer" (or temporal) higher 
> dimension, and we see that there are 6 x 1/64s.
> 
> 
LM: The Taoist philosophy and metaphysical numerical symbolism outlined in 
the I-Ching -- with its 64 hexagrams and their triune duality's, has explained 
all that in elegant beauty and simplicity, some thousands of years ago.  The 
applied psychology behind it is far more explanatory than the modern western 
phallic psychoanalytical babble -- that proves nothing about the fundamental 
causation's and coenergetic processes that describe the physics and metaphysics of 
matter and mind -- both of which, along with consciousness are separate 
entities in and of themselves. 

> 
> Well, does it impress anyone that not only are there 64 DNA-triplets but 
> there are also six DNA triplets (coding to a given amino acid)? In short, DNA 
> relates directly to 64 bit binary trees!
> 
> 
LM: Not really, if that's supposed to be an explanation of how the 12 
dimensions of psycho(meta)physical space came about.  I'm sure Chris could give a 
much clearer explanation of those numerical relationships.  But, how does it 
explain the causes, experiences and mechanisms of consciousness, and how its 
perceptive imagery is transformed through the brain and mind, detected by our 
awareness, and changed by our will?

However, it's far more evident that DNA structure (as in all formative devel
opments in nature) are governed by the fractal geometry that could only be 
determined by the triune field involution process and its octaval progression 
described in the ABC universal field model.  It's the electro-(not 
psycho)-dynamics of those fields and the fundamental law of cycles underlying them that 
govern all subsequent constructive evolutionary processes, including the structure 
of the DNA molecule... But not its encoding -- which is based on ideal forms 
stored as holographic imagery in the first higher order coenergetic field's 
eternal memory. 

This is obvious, because the DNA spiral ladder structure is analogous to the 
twin positive and negative G-force rays or "strings" that weave the 
coenergetic hyperspace field surfaces, whose wave interference patterns are encoded 
between these spiralling strings in the essential 64 hexagrammatic and their 
triune duality's -- having an essentially interrelated nature that is inherent in 
the fractal involution of the firdt octave of the highest order fields 
themselves. This entire field invovution in three fractal iterations, at the first 
logos stage of universal genesis, follows the formula, the three the one, the 
four the one, the five, the twice seven, the sum total; i.e., 31415 = 14 (note 
the similarity to the first five digits of ∏ or Pi).


> That DNA must comprise binary bits (one at the quantum, the other at the 
> classical "observer" level)
> 
> 
LM: This statement has no basis in metaphysical or physical reality.  What 
leads you to presume that a quantum level bit is related to a classical 
"observer" bit?  Where is the dynamic connection between such imaginary bits that 
supposedly exist as a fundamental duality?  And, if there is such a thing as a 
"classical 'observer' bit." Where and of what is it composed of?  Without knowing 
that, all claim that psychophysical processes based on human nature governs 
fundamental reality underlying everything, is barking up a tree -- since it 
goes in the wrong direction.  Buddha (no "scientific" genius, I assume) said it 
all when he remarked, "Nothing comes from nothing" -- in response to the 
question, "Where does everything come from?" 

Too bad that some of the exoteric followers of Buddhism have misinterpreted 
that as saying, "everything is nothing" (Sunyata) -- without understanding that 
"Sunyata" refers to having no form.  Another view says, "Form comes from no 
form" ... How can that which has no form NOT be still something REAL (that can 
transform into something else)?  Thus, the first "dual bit" is actually the 
zero-point awareness and its spinergy -- as the root of both matter and 
consciousness that existed in absolute space before the highest order coenergetic 
fields appeared at the big bang as  the noumenal state of phenomenal existence.


> reminds us of Jonas Salk's remark ". that all units of reality are 
> comprised of two basic elements in an asymmetrical binary relationship in dynamic 
> interaction..." (The Anatomy of Reality, 1983, p.38). Salk continues, ". one of 
> the basic ideas that underlies my thinking... when I contemplate the 
> universe, is that it is constructed upon a simple pattern of order that may be seen 
> in any and all phenomena, no matter how complex. The simple pattern is that of 
> a binary relationship, recognized in a binary system. The implication here 
> is that *everything in nature, everything in the universe* [italics added], is 
> composed of networks of two elements, or two parts in functional 
> relationship to each other...".
> 
> 
LM: Yes, and that dichotomy (observed in all levels of physical nature) must 
be because the initial field on the first fractal field level could only form 
itself by the three cycle process of the ejection and radiation of a linear 
one dimensional string of primal force out of the fundamental spin-energy or 
G-force -- that, due to its opposite polarity, i.e., an equal and opposite force 
radiated from parallel spin of opposite angular (counterclockwise) direction, 
is the primal cause of all subsequent duality's.  All one has to do to see 
that "truth" and avoid all these descriptive words, is to use one's imagination 
-- which Einstein (also not a scientific genius) said "is more important than 
knowledge."  (I assume that applies to rigid materialistic presumptive thinking 
based on accepted scientific "facts" that have no reality except in LH 
mathematical symbolical reasoning.)

> 
> All this of course correlates with John Archibald Wheeler's notion of a 
> universe derived from information, or "it from bit", as he calls it. (Note: both 
> Salk and Wheeler are Nobel prizewinners.)
> 
> 
LM: And, of course, that makes them "experts" and "authorities" on every 
scientific or philosophical question.  Right?


> In mine of 18 and 19 Oct I explained how life/DNA most probably arose in 
> chemical clocks. To quote:
> 
> life would seem to have originated in chemical clocks, because the thermal 
> convection that enables the system to divide into two distinct halves means 
> that whilst one half can begin to specialise in the higher six "gravitationa
> l"(or observer"/temporal) dimensions, each of these can then collapse the wave 
> function on their complementary opposite lower six (quantum energy) 
> dimensions. Or alternatively one could say that the system commences when the one 
> hundred per cent quantum of action (in the first-dimension) induces wavefunction 
> collapse by the neutron/proton "observer" half of the system (in the opposite 
> seventh-dimension).
> 
> 
LM: If there is an explanation here of what constitutes a "wavefunction 
collapse" in actual reality, including what is the actual electrodynamic nature of 
the so called, "first dimension" and how it dynamically relates to the seventh 
dimension... And if you can tell us what/where is the one pointed nature of 
the "observer"? ... Then, perhaps, we might be able to take such a totally 
unfounded speculation seriously.  So far, this is nothing more than speculative 
gobbledygook that tells us nothing about the cause and mechanisms of 
consciousness

The difference between your theory and mine is that you consider only the 
separate functions or contents of those proposed 12 fields of consciousness 
(which you wrongly call "dimensions") with relation to human psychology... Thus, it 
is not a complete theory of consciousness.  While the ABC unified field 
theory considers the fundamental origin and causation of the fractally descending 
"coadunate but not consubstantial" coenergetic fields' and their function as 
the electrodynamic bridge carrying the holographic image contents of 
consciousness between the zero-point source of awareness and will -- and the mind-brain 
interface with the sensory, emotional and kinesthetic systems.  So, yours is 
simply an unscientific psychological-psychoanalytical theory of consciousness -- 
since it cannot be falsified or make physical predictions.  And, contrarily 
ABC is a scientific metaphysical theory of fundamental causation of both 
consciousness and matter that can predict physical and biological processes and 
forms, which can be tested and falsified or proven. So, let's not try to compare 
apples to oranges (especially with ad hominem psychoanalytical jibes) as you've 
been doing since you came on board here. 

> With ascent to the second-dimension, then, there will come to exist a 
> living surface. It is a 'surface differentiation' that is 'alive' firstly because 
> the system is psychophysical by definition, but also because it has its 
> wavefunction collapsed instanteously by the 'Now' of the opposite 
> eighth-dimension, whilst still differentiating 'in here' (in the physical second-dimension) 
> from 'out there' (in the temporal eighth-dimension) at all scales. Thermal 
> convection will then facilitate yet further ascent, to the third-dimension, and 
> so on - with the system at each step consciously choosing the correct 
> [left-handed] bifurcation (i.e. differentiating the intrinsic quantum level from the 
> extrinsic 'classical' level). Put otherwise, we could say that it is the 
> memes (i.e. psychophysical units of information) that employ chemical clocks to 
> become living systems -- in order to restore that left/right symmetry that 
> was originally lost with creation of matter in the big bang!
> 
> 
LM: The same questions hold for this equally unfounded speculation.  How 
could the left/right symmetry (or any fundamental symmetry) be lost in the big 
bang, when both matter and consciousness, whose noumena existed simultaneously 
(Absolute zero-point space and its spinergy), are inseparable?  Doesn't the 
zero-point and its spinergy empowering the Planck vacuum and supporting all the 
quanta still exist spread out in and around every particle of matter throughout 
the configuration space time continuum?  And, what of the ± symmetry of the 
initial strings that form the spherical surface of all coenergetic fields, and 
that are analogous with the opposing spiral legs of the DNA molecule? The 
breaking of symmetry refers only to the last stages of the big bang after initial 
fractal field involution is completed... When the initial evolution begins on 
the lowest order physical level... And, the memory patterns of the previous 
cosmos precipitate out as the initial diverse matter-energy forms -- that 
continue to evolve through the early stages of the sidereal cosmos.


> Thus it would be the ubiquitous presence of the twelve-dimensional matrix, 
> which, given a supply of free energy in a chemical clock to allow it to show 
> intent, actually achieves ascent to each next higher dimension through the 
> system making a 'conscious' choice of the correct bifurcations. The implication 
> is that organic/inorganic matter employs surplus energy to be more "in 
> touch" with our psychophysical universe -- that is to say, through achieving 
> restoration of lost left/right symmetry with each step of the ascent. Thus, upon 
> reaching the twelfth-/sixth dimension complementarity, instinctual tension 
> could potentially be "released" as self-replicating DNA -- specifically in the 
> form of one-dimensional 'strings' (created in the seventh-/first dimension 
> complementarity) that are imbued with memory and so the potential to create new 
> 1/64 binary trees. It follows that it is the teleological component that 
> informs the twelve-dimensional matrix (plus a psychophysical system's ability to 
> compute the future at the quantum level beyond the 50/50 probabilites given 
> by chance) that would be responsible for facilitaing further adaptive 
> evolution by progeny.
> 
> 
LM: All well and good when attempting to analyze the psychological nature of 
man.  But quite a stretch when you conflate that with the nature of the 
Cosmos, and concurrently with all the material forms in it that are all composed of 
the same fractally involved coenergetic fields -- whose psychic nature may be 
entirely latent -- yet subject to activity in varying degrees as such forms 
evolve through organic stages of development from plant to animal, and thence to 
thinking man and some higher anthropoids (where you can start psychologizing 
and psychoanalysing with impunity :-). However, psychoanalysis, as the basis 
of a theory of consciousness, is not a scietific tool.

> 
> According to the present theory, a chemical clock or far-from-equilibrium 
> system cannot become autonomously alive until it acquires time-irreversible 
> memory in the sixth-dimension. Life, I am arguing, is electromagnetism (in the 
> fifth-dimension) instantiated with a temporal component (past, present, 
> future) in the sixth-dimension, as in the case of DNA.
> However, the only species to have evolved to the "observer" mode of the 
> seventh-dimension is Man.
> 
> 
LM: And if all that mixing of apples with oranges, and conflating Man with 
the Universe proves anything about the actual nature of reality, I'd sure like 
to examine such a proof in detail -- since I'm still in the dark as to what 
constitutes the nature of the field of action or memory in your multiple 
dimensions (which, incidentally, from purely a descriptive or symbolic POV, is pretty 
"much in alignment with the fractally involved coenergetic fields of my ABC 
model).  I agree, also, that "life" is electromagnetism. But only partially 
since, without consciousness, it could not function in organic beings.  I have to 
add that such electromagnetism also has to function on all levels of 
hyperspace and physical space between the zero-point of both Cosmic and Man's 
consciousness and the substance (in varying degrees of density and informational 
content) or material forms that surround them.   Also, the fifth hyperspace 
dimension of my universal coenergetic fractal field model on the highest order cosmic 
level is actually the field of Cosmic Mind... Of which man's "'observer' mode" 
has access to a limited reflection of it (as part of the body's analogous 
higher order aura fields) on the lower order cosmic physical plane.  
Nevertheless, Man's awareness, which can be focussed at the ubiquitous zero-point center 
of every individual field on both the spiritual and physical levels, can access 
all fields of consciousness, up to and below the cosmic spiritual level.

> 
> BUT IF YOUR (should be "you're" ) STUCK TO YOUR MUM in the first-dimension 
> 'in here', then your "observer" self in the seventh-dimension 'out there' MUST 
> collapse the wavefunction on YOU PLUS your mudder. You will still be a 
> chimp, but lack the talent that even a chimp has -- to be separate from his Mummy.
> 
> 
LM: Be nice if your ego would let you avoid such gratuitous anthropomorphic 
psychoanalysis and you could make your theory explicative of the real 
metaphysical and physical nature of reality without using such paranoid ad hominem 
techniques to belittle your suspected opponents.  I can still remember your 
ravings some years ago on all the consciousness study forums (when their monitor's 
let you through) about how I "plagiarized" your 12 dimension psychophysics 
theory. 

Some Chutzpah.  I could only laugh, when I know that My Scientific 
collaborator, physicist, DR. PSP and I started working on our theory around thirty years 
ago, when we found that Einstein had plucked his E=mc^2 directly out of 
Blavatsky's book written in 1888.  (If it weren't for his RH imagination, where 
would physical science be today?)  Since the outline of our ABC model was also 
presaged there, maybe you should start accusing her of plagiarism (since, 
laughingly) it is said that she plagiarized everyone else of like mind as far back 
as Hermes Trismagistus and Pythagorus. :-)  You might accuse the Russian 
scientists also of plagiarism in their current work on consciousness (vide, Iskakov, 
et al, etc.) -- which might very well be based on the notated copy of 
Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine my collaborator passed on to them through Zel'dovitch 
back in the 'early '80's. :-)


> And since all our objects are substitutes for the mother (i.e. all 
> 'contain' her smell-touch), then cluncking *materialistic* (from L. mater, "mother") 
> science of the kind Dirk L. is purveying is ALWAYS a comfort blanket -- a 
> substitute for the mother. Put otherwise, no top-down science can ever explain 
> consciousness, for the obvious reason that no "observer" can "observe" himself 
> -- though he can, as in Maurer and Dirk L's case, observe 
> himself-plus-Mummy.
> 
> 
LM: Maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror of your mind and see 
where all this vindictive, ad hominem paranoid psychobullshit comes from.  Or, 
don't you have any imagination beyond what you learned from Doktor Freud, and his 
phallicizing of everything human or godly?  What are you afraid of that you 
can't talk directly to the point of your counter argument if you disagree with 
another theory of consciousness, and have to use such stupid put downs?  The 
only satisfaction is in knowing that all you're doing is demeaning yourself 
with such tactics.

> 
> Since all symbol-systems can be reduced to binary bits, and all twelve 
> dimensions are required for communicating any given language (i.e. 
> bimodal-psychoanalytical "extra-corporeal 'DNA'"), then the probablistic 'Platonic' entities 
> 1,0 can be shown, by virtue of exploring all (material and harmonic) 
> properties given by the twelve-dimensional template, to come "full circle" -- in a 
> realisation of the Pythagorean epiphany that is 'the music of the spheres'.
> 
> 
LM:  Maybe you might be able to imagine that what Pythagorus (and all ancient 
occultists-mathematicians) were referring to was the 7, 10, 12 and 14 cyclic 
harmonics of the ideal fractally involved spherical universal fields, prior to 
the breaking of symmetry on the lower physical level -- as logically deduced 
in our ABC theory and pictured at these web pages: (Have fun using your RH 
imagination :-)
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
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
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif (this my Mum :-)
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Origin-Arabic-Numerals.gif

> 
> For employing nothing more than the probabilities between 1 and 0 given by 
> "fuzzy logic", there comes to exist three distinct modes of psychophysical 
> "irreducible complexity", viz.:
> 
> (i) creation ex nihilo of the (12-dimensionsal quantum gravitational) 
> universe -- it is the local "observer" at large in the cosmos that created matter 
> (some 14 billion years ago),
> 
> (ii) creation of life on earth (through ascent of chemical clocks or 
> far-from-equilibrium systems to the sixth-dimension 'IN HERE', approx. 3.8 billions 
> years ago) - and finally,
> 
> (iii) man's higher-order consciousness arising as a result of ascent to the 
> "observer" mode of the seventh-dimension 'OUT THERE' (approximately a hundred 
> thousand years ago),
> 
> Finally, Julian Jaynes' speculation that archais man once possessed a RH 
> bias (causing auditory hallucinations of 'gods' that dominated their lives) 
> should be seen in light of the fact that, since the epoch of the Sumero-Chaldeans 
> and the ancient Greeks, Western man has increasingly switched to LH rational 
> dominance -- though I wouldn't say that the usual suspects are rational. 
> Just *prejudiced* (for Oedipal reasons) in favour of their clunking 
> materialistic science.
> 
> Obviously, I am unable to quote here all the evidence I can adduce in 
> support of this model. But only those whose vice is hard science (i.e. the same 
> folk whose vice is also secret incest with their mother) could fail to grasp 
> that we are psychophysical beings, I suggest, who live in a psychophysical 
> universe.
> 
> 
LM: Well, if you consider all that "evidence" of anything, I can't wait to 
see what else you can bring up that can answer the real problems of consciousne
ss without all the surrounding phallic psychobabble and the gratuitous ad 
hominem and accusative, if not paranoid, psychoanalysis, that you think is a valid 
form of argument to prove you RIGHT and all your imagined opponents (or 
actually proponents with alternative theories) -- WRONG.  Be good for a laugh, at 
least, to see how far you are willing to stretch such nonsense to prove your 
case and scientifically (or even philosophically) validate your so called 
"psychophysical" theory of consciousness.  </:-)>

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
P.S. For the benefit of your and other deniers of the reasonableness of my 
ABC field model (and even Dirk's model) -- I've appended below pertinent 
excerpts from an article by:

Ervin Laszlo

Founder of the General Evolution Research Group and of The Club of Budapest

"In light of the current, revolutionary advances in the natural sciences  and
in the study of consciousness, the concepts of matter, life, and mind have 
undergone major changes. This paper outlines some basic aspects of these 
changes, taking in turn the emerging concept of matter, of life, and of 
human  mind
and consciousness.

!!! The concept of matter

The Western commonsense view has held that there are only two kinds of 
things that truly exist in the world: matter and space. Matter occupies 
space  and
moves about in it and it is the primary reality. Space is a backdrop or 
container. Without furnished by material bodies, it does not enjoy reality 
in 
itself. This commonsense concept goes back to the Greek materialists; it was 
the 
mainstay also of Newton's physics. It has been radically revised in 
Einstein's
relativistic universe (where spacetime became an integrated four-dimensional
manifold), and also in Bohr's and Heisenberg's quantum world. Now it may
have to  be rethought again.

Advances in the new sciences suggest a further modification of this 
assumption about the nature of reality. In light of what scientists are  
beginning to
glimpse regarding the nature of the quantum vacuum, the energy sea  that
underlies all of spacetime, it is no longer warranted to view matter as  
primary
and space as secondary. It is to space or rather, to the cosmically  extended
"Dirac-sea" of the vacuum that we should grant primary reality. The  things 
we
know as matter (and that scientists know as mass, with its associated 
properties of inertia and gravitation) appear as the consequence of 
interactions  in
the depth of this universal field. In the emerging concept there is no 
"absolute matter," only an absolute matter- generating energy field. "

LM: It makes much sense (for me, at least) to see this "matter-generating 
energy field" as the angular momentum, G-force or spinergy of infinite spin in o
pposite directions (on at least three axes in our universe) surrounding the 
zero-point of absolute or primal space "that is located everywhere, and whose 
circumference is nowhere."   Isn't that something that was said by Pythagorus 
more than 2,500 years ago, and Hermes Trismagistus., even earlier?  




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