Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00008)

In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

Leon
  I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory 
so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be 
dismembered by the scientific community.
  
  Cass

Cass,

Actually, when I try that simplification is when some scientists claim that I 
am not capable of speaking their language and they then begin to tear apart 
the theory with non valid arguments based on ad hominem comments -- since they 
have no logical scientific basis on which to refute my theory -- which, like 
the SD, they can't really understand, or have a built in materialistic 
prejudice against.   

Generally, however, I have many readers, a few who are trained scientists 
(especially those who thoroughly understand relativity as more fundamental than 
quantum physics) who immediately grasp the entire theory without finding any 
scientifically unexplained question it doesn't answer fully... Especially in 
explaining the non local nature of subjective consciousness (as perceptive 
awareness, will, etc.) and its informational mechanisms connecting it, 
holographically, with the image information carried by mind, memory, brain, body and 
sensory hyperspace fields -- that conventional objective-reductive science can never 
explain.   But, then, there are very few "little people" who could understand 
the hyperspace metaphysics of fields within fields within fields, no matter 
how simply I explain it... Especially, if they can't visualize it, or 
comprehend intuitively how an apparent nothing can be something, how an apparent 
emptiness can be fullness, how one can be many, etc.... Or not comprehend the 
sameness and difference between noumena and phenomena, zero and infinity, 
supersensuous and sensuous, hyperspace and physical space, etc., etc. -- let alone not 
comprehend an absolute ground SPACE underlying everything that is totally 
immeasurable and undetectable, yet never changes or diminishes, no matter how many 
potentially infinite universes it produces and energizes.

As it is, the commentary below (in conjunction with previous ones explaining 
the ABC theory in slightly different terms) was simply a confirmation to a 
leading edge physicist of how my theory is in agreement with some of the latest 
mathematical findings in string physics such as the "multiverse" -- that many 
other conventional scientists don't yet entirely accept -- since, like my ABC 
theory, it can't be falsified or proved experimentally.   Incidentally, HPB 
also mentioned the "coming and going of infinite universes" similar the current 
multiverse theory. :-)   But string physics still can't tell us where those 
parallel universes come from and what they are made up of -- as both ABC and 
HPB's teachings can.   

However, there are theorists today who use retrodiction to speculate that, 
since the universe is so perfectly balanced as to lead to the evolution of man, 
that it was specifically designed to do this.   They call such theories the 
"Anthropic Principle."   Although, without an ABC theory that predicts it all 
logically from fundamental principles and laws of apparently empty but 
infinitely energetic primal SPACE that existed before the Big Bang -- they can't 
comprehend how the materialistic assumptions of conventional physics could lead to 
such a condition, or cause consciousness (awareness, will) or mind to arise in 
sentient beings.   They can only guess that consciousness might be an 
epiphenomena of matter that emerges as brains become more complex -- without offering 
any scientifically logical rationale to explain it.   And, without considering 
that consciousness is causative, but matter is not.   So, they are left with 
the conundrum; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   

So, in order to understand my ABC theory you have to study it carefully (just 
like the Secret Doctrine) and using your intuition read in and around the 
words and between the lines -- while referring to the new color illustration 
(starred* below my signature in my original letter) that gives a 3-D visualization 
of how the initial spherical cosmic fields fractally involve from spiritual 
to physical substance-matter before the supersymmetry is broken and the first 
physical particles appear to ultimately evolve through galaxies, stars, 
planets, etc., into us little people. ;-)   Thus, spirit involves into matter as 
matter evolves back into spirit during the course of Brahma's (i.e., the Cosmos') 
lifetime.

However, it cannot be grasped in its entirety by referring to only one e-mail 
letter covering a narrow area of the theory, or to my response to a 
particular question.   In order to explain this theory in its fullest detail would take 
a tome at least as big as the first volume of the SD.   Even though, it is 
entirely explained in the seven stanzas of the original Book of Dzyan in a more 
descriptive language that English cannot even come close to.   Look at how 
many pages it took HPB to explain those seven short stanzas.   My ABC 
explanation, so as to be consistent with be and predictive of modern physics and 
cognitive psychology, while also understandable to ordinary people, could be even more 
difficult to describe in so many words.

But, here's a starter... If you can visualize the original G-force 
"singularity" at the primal beginning (zero-point center of all 14 initial fractally 
involved fields) as a *dimensionless* spherical point of "absolute SPACE in 
abstract motion" -- like a ball composed of infinite lines of force spinning in 
opposite directions at infinite vibrational frequencies on an infinite number of 
axes -- of which only three perpendicular axes refer to this universe... And 
see that when the spinergy around one of these three axes emanates outward in 
opposite polar directions and then weaves an expanding three cycle yarn-like 
ball (like twin bubbles within an outer bubble) -- with each inner bubble 
continuing to involve in two more fractal iterations to form the first 14 inner 
fields on the highest cosmic metaphysical planes, representing the first   7 
conscious Dhyan Chohan monads (which I can't mention when talking to scientists 
;-)... You might begin to understand how these fields by their continued fractal 
involvement, ad infinitum, that eventually evolves into the physical universe 
and all the particles and forms in it -- carried as holographic wave 
interference patterns on the surfaces of the lowest (frequency energy) order physical 
fields (ref: cosmogenesis diagram at:  
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg )... And reflected back coenergetically through all 
the fractally involved fields to the original G-force spinergy (akashic 
record) at the primal zero-point (which is everywhere).   Thus, no information, no 
matter how much further the forms evolve or the greater experience they gain, 
is ever lost. 

So, the only way to really understand this ABC theory, is to either grasp it 
intuitively right from the start, or after studying the many letters and 
online notes I've written about it (along with the Secret Doctrine, if necessary) 
-- or ask the right questions that might give you clues.   No matter how 
stated, however, the path to esoteric knowledge is always a difficult one that takes 
much self devised and self determined effort to comprehend fully -- with many 
stumbling blocks along the way.   Because ABC is a scientific interpretation 
of the metaphysics of the SD is what makes it so much more difficult to 
explain to laymen, or to scientists who are conditioned by the materialist 
assumptions of science in general.   One problem is that conscious beings on any level 
can only sense a limited range of the vibrational force of that level.   And, 
therefore, the only reality is what their senses deliver to their awareness.   
Thus, it's difficult for them to imagine the existence of anything real 
beyond the reach of their senses or their instruments (no matter how sensitive) 
composed of the same substance that they are trying to observe.

The main problem, however, is, as HPB also noted, that the English language 
is very ill suited to explaining metaphysical subjects and fractally involved 
vortically and spirally twisted coadunate but not consubstantial" spherical 
fields of consciousness woven of spirally interlaced lines of force that have no 
beginning or end, and whose evolved forms are holographically entangled with 
each other as both wave vibrations and particular forms of relative stability 
on the surfaces of those fields -- all of which are composed of energies that 
are absolute SPACE in motion. (Whew, that could be a bit too dense for most.;-) 
  In addition, like the DNA molecule is replicated in every cell in each 
organic body, the initial zero-point singularity that is spread everywhere in the 
Planck vacuum between the particles of physical matter, contains the analogous 
(holographic) code of every form in the universe -- which is essentially, an 
infinitely extended hologram < http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hologram.htm>
.   That's about as simply as either of us could explain it. ;-)   The only 
difference is that today's science, while closer and closer to the metaphysics 
outlined in the SD, as HPB predicted, is even more complex than was the science 
of her time.   So, much so, that even the scientists who write the 
mathematical formulas and theorize about them -- still don't really understand the 
metaphysical geometric nature of fundamental reality that underlies cosmogenesis, 
and haven't the faintest idea about the origin or nature of consciousness and 
how it links with mind, memory, brain or body. 

So, I guess, I'll just have to keep plugging along with whatever language I 
have at hand, until they finally get it.   My guess, however, is that it won't 
be too long -- since science is already almost there, and soon the old 
scientists who were steeped in the materialist views of quantum physics will die off 
and the young ones currently up to their ears in metaphysical 
superstring/M-brane theories will accept this new paradigm -- which will add the ABC facts of 
consciousness and mind to their mix... And, the first one to come up with a 
provable theory will win the Nobel Prize.   

 "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and 
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a 
new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck:

Leon
Here are a list of some sites and illustrations that may help in further 
study, meditations and visualizations:
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
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.jpg
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Origin-Arabic-Numerals.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/CyclesofLifetext.gif
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://www.zeropoint.ca/microcosm_4-7bleonmaurer.htm
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/UNIOMNIFORMexploded.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Fract-Expansion-Cosmos.gif
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg


In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:


> Leon
>   I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory 
> so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be 
> dismembered by the scientific community.
>   
>   Cass
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
>           In a message dated 5/20/07 11:33:56 AM, yanniru@netscape.net 
> writes:
> 
> > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string
> > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a 
> matter
> > of opinion but a consequence of physics.
> >
> 
> Yes, and while the rational and symbolic mathematics of string physics
> confirms it -- the actual basis of the multiverse could very well be as 
> follows:
> 
> As this universe might reasonably be the result of the radiation on only
> three perpendicularly crossed axes of the primal "G-force" or "spinergy"*
> (infinite angular momentum) circling the zero-point of absolute ground 
> SPACE... That
> triple axis "singularity" would necessarily be repeated infinite times as 
> parts
> of the potentially infinite axes of that essentially spherical zero-point.
> Thus, following the same radiative force field rooted laws as this universe,
> there could be infinite potential universes that can spring out of that 
> primal
> SPACE -- as similar fractally involved, electrodynamically coenergetic 
> fields
> within fields within fields, ad infinitum... Each at different triple axis
> spin angles.
> 
> The apparent reason they are invisible to us is that, as two axis of this
> universe could be the root of invisible dark matter, each parallel universe 
> of
> the multiverse spins on similarly different angles of primal SPACE than the
> single axis of spin of the "light" matter in this spacetime universe -- 
> which is
> the subject of quantum physics.
> 
> If this is the true nature of fundamental reality, that would explain why
> conventional reductive physics might never reach a physical explanation of 
> that
> reality -- nor could it ever explain subjective consciousness (awareness, 
> will,
> qualia, etc.) -- which, in this view, would be the inherent subjective 
> aspect
> of the immovable and empty zero-point of absolute space. Nor could it
> explain how the "information" that triggers qualia is transformed and 
> transmitted
> between the points of conscious perception and mind, memory, brain and 
> sensory
> inputs. In this new paradigm, it is explained as holographic wave
> interference patterns frequency modulated on the surfaces of the fractally 
> involved
> electrodynamic fields in metaphysical Planck vacuum or hyperspace and on the
> radiant physical matter fields of brain and body. This information is 
> transformed
> from one field to the next by electridynamic inductive resonance processes.
> 
> If that is the basic paradigm of a true universal science, then the
> superstring physics that predicts the multiverse, may be mistaken in 
> presuming that the fundamental "membranes" it also predicts, may not be simply the 
> surfaces of
> the triune fractally involved fields of light matter that initially radiated
> out of the primal spinergy at the first moment of the big bang. Such 
> spherical
> surfaces could also be the source of the curvature of space that is also
> "flat" (since its total radii would approach infinity) as predicted by 
> General
> relativity. Also, this multiplicity nature of infinitely divisible primal 
> SPACE
> and its fractally involved fields, would also explain entanglement at the 
> sub
> quantum level, as well as the holographic nature of all matter and
> information of consciousness carried as wave interference patterns by all 
> metaphysical
> and physical fields of matter.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> * http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg
> http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> 
> ------- Original Message-------
> 
> From: yanniru@netscape.net
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of
> other bubble universes
> 
> The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string
> physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a 
> matter of
> opinion but a consequence of physics.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jamikes@prodigy.net
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of
> other bubble universes
> 
> PtP:
> and if the Pope of Rome (personally) subscribes to it?
> A 'notion' is assumed. The "if" is either yes, or no, that is the reason why
> it is an 'if'. Scientific decisions are not subject to democratic majority
> votes, not even to the opinion of select 'big names' - I may disagree with
> Newton (ha ha) or E. Kant, and be right or wrong.
> I wrote the occurrence of a Multiverse in my narrative myself, on different
> basis/logic and understanding from the physico-cosmological fables and their
> mistakes they include, partly for mathematical matches to equations 
> containing
> numbers of other poorly substantiated assumptions and consequences of such.
> If you start to get out from the college brainwash of the contemporary
> classical natural science reductionism, , there is no way to stop - doubt 
> rolls all
> over.
> People live with paradoxes and misnomers abound.
> Think about it for YOURSELF once. .
> John
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pay_the_Piper
> >
> 
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Moon Balloon
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of
> other bubble universes
> 
> I forget where I read it ... maybe New Scientist. Most cosmologists,
> including Hawking subscribe to the notion of a multiverse.
> 
> PtP
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John M
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; astro@postbiota.org ; Eugen Leitl
> Cc: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; Moon Balloon
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of
> other bubble universes
> 
> PtP:
> 
> you ask a 'scientific' question upon an "if"? And if "if not"? I made up my 
> na
> rrative for my common sense, so I left the Tooth Fairy for the other
> "theories". According to my view there are 'infinite' universes and it is 
> hard to
> select ONE that is 'cleverer' than "all infinite others".
> E. Leitl wrote smart 'scientific' things, mostly based on sciemntists'
> assumptions that could be continued (just as your above question accepting a
> hypothetical "yes" to your "if"). The phenomenon assumed to be the remnant
> (background) radiation of the allegedly "real" Big Bang is such an "if". And 
> so on, the
> rest of Cosmology etc.
> And so is the "inflation" no matter how 'necessary' for keeping the face of
> the equations-related theorists. In valuation of today's physical 
> calculations
> as applied to an incredibly different (physical??? And so is the "inflatio
> 
> You feel free to make science upon the unknowable. All 'universes' (alleged
> by MY narrative, never mind that I am not the first one thinking about
> Multiverse - I just asccept the idea because I could not 'justify' a 
> negation) (may
> be) different, which is not a Hi-Lo distinction. DIFFERENT.
> We have no way to "understand" anything outside our circle of knowledge base
> even if we fantasize about such. Do other universes have space-time 
> concepts?
> (They - including ours - are timeless fulgurations and only WE (maybe not
> exclusively) coordinate our image FROM THE INSIDE VIEW as a space-time 
> system).
> Do other universes abide by a logic of the HUMAN mind? Do other universes
> have comparable conditions to our 'physical observations' Do other un
> One may build science upon 'if's to all questions.
> 
> Best to you and Eugen
> 
> John Mikes
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pay_the_Piper
> To: astro@postbiota.ast ; Eugen Leitl
> Cc: MindBrain@yahoogrouMindBr ; Moon Balloon
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:42 AM
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other
> bubble universes
> 
> truncated
> 




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


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