Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00325)

Thought you might get a kick out of this recent conversation I had with a 
skeptical physicist I've been sparring with on and off during the past 15 years.

*****************************

Hi John,

Yes, we can still be friends.  I don't think a little difference in 
perspective about the nature of reality or the difference between imaginative fantasy 
and observable fact (whether seen from within or from without) has much to do 
with friendship between serious humorists of one faith or another. ;-)

I actually like the imaginative way you see my theoretical work -- since it 
reminds me of all the skeptics who don't understand or can't follow anything I 
say, or just reject it offhand out of stubborn prejudice.  I still can feel 
that you see the possible reasonableness of it, or at least its consistency with 
what is known to be true.  Although, I understand, too, why you can also see 
it as science fiction or fantasy.

So, let it be known (at least to me that is:-) that none of it is 
"hearsay"... But is based actually on what has been seen by me directly from my 
zero-point center of inner visual image awareness (or imagination) in deep meditation, 
while contemplating the reverse engineering of the universe -- by peeling it 
from the outside in, like an onion... And, following it back, layer after layer 
of its physical and metaphysical evolution and involution, down to its primal 
beginning -- without violating any of the modern scientific theories or laws 
of physics along the way... And finding -- when I reached the last inner layer 
on the subtlest vibratory (near infinite frequency) plane of primeval energy 
spinning around the zero-point of absolutely nothing (from our physical point 
of view) -- that the inner trip down (or inward as the case may be) also was 
perfectly consistent with the reported mystical concepts of the ancient 
philosophers such as Hermes, Pythagorus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Plato, etc.   Who saw, 
as I did, deep into the metaphysical aspects of fundamental reality, and spoke 
of the zero or "laya" points that were the "father" (spirit or consciousness) 
and "mother" (substance emanating out of "abstract motion") among other things 
-- from which sprung everything in the universe.  Much like the Hermetic 
formula on the Smaragdine tablet -- which, BTW, was wrongly interpreted by the 
alchemists as a way to transmute lead into gold...  But actually, it referred to 
the inner nature of man and his transmutation of consciousness, as reflected 
in the process of universal involution and evolution.  Such concepts also were 
stated in the even more ancient formula in the many thousand years earlier 
Book of Dzyan or Kiu-Te, "the 3, the 1, the 4, the 1, the 5, the twice 7, the sum 
total."  Count the number of inner fractal spheres in my universal field 
involution diagram at: How It All Began
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

Note, that geometrically, no spherical field of energy, woven out of a single 
ray of zero-point force, can exist whose origin and harmonics don't follow 
that triune fractal progression and pass through the central zero point of 
origin twice on each fractal iteration.  Note also, the analogous nature of all 
harmonic electrical and sound fields before they are disturbed (compare to cosmic 
symmetry breaking after inflation in physics) by reflections, refraction's, 
interference's, phase changes, etc. 

It was this beginning or noumenal state, knowing it was supplying all the 
energy of the phenomenal universe, that I could only interpret as infinite 
spinergy or pure angular momentum around a zero-point center of absolutely static 
and empty fundamental space representing the source of pure spirit or 
consciousness -- that could NOT be defined using the same logic, reason or mathematics 
that could describe tangible matter.  It is this emptiness that enables us to 
fill our mind with the infinite structures and images of the entire universe -- 
from its subtlest and simplest, to its grossest and most complex 
manifestations, and compare any degree of motion with non motion and any dimension of 
extension with zero dimension, or degree of sound with silence, etc.

How's that for a strange, if not prophetic coincidence -- when the way up the 
chain of evolution meets and meshes perfectly with the way down -- without a 
gap or missing link in either direction? :-)  it;s too bad that physics based 
on the false presumption that matter is primary to consciousness gets itself 
sidetracked in so many cul de sacs on the way down that it gets itself caught 
up with so many paradoxes and anomalies. Tsk, tsk... that science and its 
followers are so foolish as to ignore the wise guidance give so many times by the 
ancient sages, "Man, know thyself -- before thou cans't know the secrets of 
nature." So, I say and believe implicitly that meditation and introspection must 
come before experimentation and observation, just as subjective consciousness 
came before objective matter.  I think Einstein agreed with that when he said, 
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

So my so called "fairy tale" (in your view, but confirmed time and time again 
by every ancient master of wisdom) is just a simple, logical and reasonable 
explanation of how the universe was born and actually evolved... Based, solely, 
on that first hand inner observational imagination (repeated endless times 
ever since I began meditating on this problem almost thirty years ago)...  
Which, of course, since no one can come into my point of consciousness, all this 
must be taken by others of ordinary or objectively oriented intellectual (and 
little meditative) skills, as nothing more than pure fantasy...  That is, unless 
they can learn, practice, and follow the same techniques of Rajah yoga style 
meditation (laid down by Patanjali some 2200 years ago) that I did...  And, 
I'm sure, was practiced, in a similar manner, by all the ancient sages who 
ventured within themselves and introspectively saw the reflection of the entire 
universe in the mirror of their own stilled mind -- that reflected the zero-point 
of their own observing consciousness. 

This observation, by a spark of the consciousness of the entire cosmos, 
looking back at its primal beginning, is like seeing a blazing white light filling 
one's entire inner space that eventually resolves the image interference 
patterns of its surrounding yet integral spinergy, into a moving hologram of the 
entire cosmos from its birth to its death.  The implications of this, when so 
directly experienced, leads to the most profound, ah ha epiphany -- or instant 
intuitive comprehension of all that is, was and ever will be, and how it all 
comes about -- that one could ever imagine.  The only other time I had such an 
experience was when I saw my own life in painful detail from my birth to death 
(and even after) in an instant flash of insightful self analysis during an NDE 
some forty years ago (which I described in an earlier post).  It wasn't until 
I read the myriad's of similar experiences reported by Charlie Tart, and 
later by all the ancient sages, that I realized the true reality of such 
subjective experience, and how it is even more valid wiith respect to fundamental 
reality than objective observation can ever be.

It is this understanding of that "voice of God", so to speak (as both Moses 
and Einstein, and probably Newton heard it) -- that I have been trying to 
explain in common language and symbolic pictures for the past thirty years.   
Apparently, some have gotten it, and some haven't.  It all depends on how deep or 
shallow are the fixed conditioning of their minds by the shibboleths of the 
world and its scientific teachings based on the unfounded assumption that all is 
matter.  And, so, I'll keep on trying to clarify it, more or less 
scientifically, in further explanatory detail, as best I can. 

In light of all that, could Moses have gotten any other answer in such a deep 
state of meditative concentration -- when he asked the voice that spoke to 
him, who he was, and the voice replied, "I, AM THAT I, AM"?  Couldn't he, then, 
easily imagine the finger of that vaguely self identified, human-like entity 
(much like the Egyptian solar God, Aton he remembered from his boyhood) 
pointing to his own zero-point of consciousness?  Mightn't that God he envisioned, be 
seen by him, in his meditative trance state, as a blazing light that he could 
only transmogrify later (due, most likely to his great Egyptian/Jewish sense 
of humor, I suppose:-) into the "burning bush"?  Or, was that smoking bush 
actually a Cannabis Sativa that psychedelically opened up his inner vision? (like 
it sometimes assisted me in the early days of my own meditative practice. :-)

I suppose, we can all see it the way we please, in accord with our own 
particular mind sets.  However, I still see it, when not distracted by the tumult of 
the noisy world around me, just the way I saw it the first time I reached the 
epiphany of Samadhi induced during that long ago meditation when I 
experienced the last enlightenment aspect of Patanjali's yoga aphorisms.  And saw with 
my own inner eye, the light, so to speak, while simultaneously comprehending 
the ultimate division of time... Or (as I can only interpret it) -- the first 
cycle of the radiation of the universal light out of the eternal zero-point 
spinergy that could only represent this phenomenal cosmos extending from that 
first zero-point cycle. to its infinite expansion and involution, down to the 
world we experience now, after its innumerable ages of evolutionary development.

But, of course, I understand why the "philistines" must continue to see all 
that as the fantasies of a mad hatter. :-)  And, "I understand, and forgive you 
all for your blindness," as the ancient sage Buddha said to his curiously 
entertained, yet skeptical followers. ;-)

Best wishes for our ever lasting friendship -- until we both shall know which 
of us is right or wrong (or both:-).

Leon Maurer (translation: Mason ;-)
(actually, born; Chiam Eleazer ben Mosher Kohane)
Prophetic?  I dunno... Not that much of a mystic, since I don't believe in 
the supernatural, although I do believe in conscious mind as being superior in 
causative power over matter.



In a message dated 12/4/06 8:05:23 AM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:


> Dear Leon Andersen,
> (never mind
> 'Maurer', I could have said Grimm, but there were 2 of them) - you are a 
> gifted storyteller.
> I suspect you did not invent all those fairitales you wrote about.
> I feel more honest, saying: Plenitude, Multiverse (mine) is MY "narrative" 
> (as contrasted to the 'narrative' of the Physical Cosmology 'Science'- and 
> yours, etc.).
> I suspect you 'heard' (read)  about most of those marvels you keep telling 
> about, so I can use 'hearsay' as well. Example:
>  
> (("Due to its circular motion or angular momentum (G-force) being the result 
> of only its nonlinear spin that is eternally the same... ")) and the rest of 
> your fable
>  
> with one exception: there was some original idea and most of the others are 
> calculated by mathematically impaired minds from the figments of age-old 
> explanations about the 'world'  - then totally ununderstandable at 'their' (then) 
> epistemic level - I mean the 'classic physical scientific' views (heritage) 
> of  old times.
> (We are not far advanced from that in 2006 either).
> "Looks like a math expression of 'angular  momentum' (as taken from another 
> chapted of mechanics), so (eo ipso?)
> -- ANGULAR MOMENTUM -- (spin, ZeroPoint etc.) it is."
> And so on.
> You need only some hooks and the rest comes from a vast published literature 
> AND your own imagination in your favorite topical lingo. I find one puzzle 
> (among many mores of course): how come 'zero point IN TIME', when time to 
> develop requires more parameters than zero? (Then, of course, you assume lots of 
> non-zero attributes INTO the zweo).
> But it is after "the last thing I want" to start a detailed argument with 
> the zeropointers and other physicalist narrativers - or with yourself on your 
> narrative.
> I appreciate your fairitale and have my own one. I like mine.
>  
> Wth old friendship (I hope)
> John Mikes
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots 
> confusion.
> 
> John,
> Thanks for the applause. (At least for the frst part of my discourse on 
> time.)
> 
> Too bad you can't maintain your enthusiasm by following my reasoning through 
> the mext part -- which considers that the "whole schmier (=multiverse)" you 
> speak of is "timeless" only because the change of its infinite potential 
> energy is zero ... Due to its circular motion or angular momentum (G-force) being 
> the result of only its nonlinear spin that is eternally the same... Since, 
> (whatever such fundamental space at the absolute zero-point singularity is) -- 
> it just goes round and round forever. 
> 
> However, at the first moment of that nonlinear spin being impelled to expand 
> (on one of its infinite axes that represents our particular universe) and 
> become encircling linear motion -- its initial, infinitesimally short time 
> cycle or ultimate instant of change first begins.  It's obvious that the initial 
> three cycle formation of the first cosmic field must be so rapid as to have 
> near infinite frequency of change and, thus, an infinitesimally short instant 
> of time for each triune cycle of its radiant zero-point energy flow.
> 
> Then, as these initial triune fields further involve fractally, the inner 
> fields must sequentially step down in frequency (with correspondingly longer 
> time instants) until after four such iterations, the EM frequency range of our 
> configuration space-time is reached.  See diagrams at:
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> 
> Thus, the cyclic time instant changes (and, accordingly, the speed of light) 
> through successively different orders of frequency-energy, as the subtlest 
> initial universal fields (let's call them "spiritual") fractally steps down 
> (let's say through the "mental" and "astral" fields) to the gross levels of 
> time and space we currently experience on the physical field level. 
> 
> Of course, the higher order fields at the astral, mental and spiritual 
> levels -- although with differing time constants and frequencies progressively 
> closer to the timeless origin -- still remain coenergetically connected with all 
> the metric fields on our lowest order plane of physical matter.  Further, 
> all such analogous fields surrounding any zero-point center of any particle 
> field, or higher composite form of matter, are also, always similarly coadunate 
> but not consubstantial.
> 
> Since our physical senses are designed to respond solely to this plane of 
> experience, all those higher order fields of consciousness remain invisible to 
> us... (Except when we can become capable of using our inner psychic senses to 
> meditate on them.)   Additionally, the closer their frequencies are to the 
> shortest instant of time after the zero-time of the initial spinergy, the 
> longer these fractal fields can maintain their phenomenal existence.
> 
> Thus, the cosmic spiritual field level could last as long as the entire 
> physical universe up until its final dissipation at the end of its life cycle.   
> By analogy and correspondence, this would account for our continued 
> consciousness at its spiritual (and higher intuitive mental) level remaining intact 
> after our death and prior to our next incarnation on Earth (at least as long as 
> the solar system remains intact).  After that, it's anyone's guess of where 
> our zero-point of individual (not personal) consciousness might end up. 
> 
> Incidentally, the information that the initial cosmic fields contain as 
> holographic wave interference patterns on their surfaces are the roots of all 
> forms that eventually evolve on the physical plane.  This is due to the memory 
> captured in its spinergy of all previous cosmic experience in its earlier 
> cycles of phenomenal manifestation. (Although to speak of earlier or later on the 
> level of timelessness is meaningless.)  Accordingly, since this spinergy is 
> what gives birth to the universe, we might consider it the cosmic egg.  It 
> seems logical that the apparently conscous zero-point center of the spinergy 
> that represents unborn Absolute or primal space, is what fructifies it. 
> 
> I hope the above, should you follow and accept its reasonable and logical 
> conclusions, might support your continued enthusiasm -- or, if not, at least 
> satisfy your enjoyment of fairy tales. :-)
> 
> As for the chicken-egg question you are right that the egg which has the 
> potential to "evolve" (I'd rather say "birth") the chicken, must come first in 
> logical order of biological development.  But, the question still remains... 
> Where did the chicken ("hen" like I said before) come from who laid that first 
> egg?  And, where did the rooster come from that fertilized it?  I'm sure 
> (with tongue in cheek:-') that the evolutionary biologists can give us a clear 
> explanation of the process that led to the first chicken and first egg.  It 
> may be as simple as explaining which came first, the conscious zero point of 
> absolute space, or the spinergy that surrounds and accompanies it?  (Although I 
> doubt one can exist without the other.) 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 12/1/06 6:55:15 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
> 
> 
> Leon,
> you started out with 'time' in a way I can only applaud. I formulated it as 
> organizing parameter for the 'change', whether we consider it a physical 
> movement or a mental one.  (Then you keep talking and my enthusiasm dwindles with 
> every 100 word you write).
> In my narrative the whole schmier (=Multiverse) starts from a timeless 
> origin.
> Just a word to the obsolete chicken-egg antiquity: the egg is a cell with 
> potential to evolve a chicken and a chicken (as a machine) produces an egg: the 
> evolving from a potetial is definitely primatry to the organized production 
> by the evolved machinery.
> 
> In your 'roosterish' male chauvinism you forget that a rooster does not lay 
> eggs.
> 
> John
> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: leonmaurer@aol.com
>   To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:56 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots 
> confusion.
> 
> 
> 
>   In a message dated 11/30/06 7:50:27 PM, peter@dollyknot.com writes:
> 
> 
>     The chicken and the egg must be one of the oldest red herrings there is.
> 
> 
> 

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