Theos-Talk Archives (October 2007 Message tt00058)

On Oct 21, 2007, at 10/21/071:06 PM, Ronald C. Blue wrote:

> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting"  
> <chrislofting@...> wrote:
> >
> > I mentioned this in my last post to MC but I think it needs a little
> > fleshing out in the context of current day perspectives.
>
> >>>Michael Cecil : The problem with all of your writings, as I  
> understand it, is that they raise the question of whether truth is  
> really as complicated as you suggest it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> It turns out that Chris Lofting is correct  Truth is complicated.   
> In the enclosed picture what do you see  A B C or 12 13 14  what is  
> the truth.
>
> Ron Blue
>
>

Yes -- which simply goes to prove that the whole Truth can be seen as  
either one, the other, or both ways simultaneously... Like looking at  
the universe both from the inside out and the outside in.  Thus, when  
we try to look outward from the center of the Cosmos, we have to  
realize that that viewpoint can be everywhere and its circumference,  
nowhere.  But, if we look at the same cosmos from the outside in,  
that zero-point can only be located at the center of its outermost  
circumference.  Which goes to show that CL and MC may each be more or  
less right from their own points of view... And, at the same time be  
totally blind to each other's viewpoint -- which seem to be mutually  
exclusive.

As I see it however, the holographic, fractal involved field Cosmos  
can be viewed simultaneously from both the center and the  
circumference -- which accounts for each of us looking outward from  
the zero-point center of our own spherical universe -- that is simple  
and complex at the same time, each viewpoint having a different  
perspective than all the others.

Take a look! Use your imagination, extrapolate continued fractal  
involution's of each inner spherical field, ad infinitum -- then  
imagine all image information being carried as wave interference  
patterns on the spherical surfaces of the fields -- and see for  
yourselves...
http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
BTW, is it a coincidence that the ABC cosmogenesis model has 12, 13,  
and 14 unified field combinations? :-)

Note that all the fractal geometry of the I-Ching that CL bases his  
IDM theory of meaning on, is rooted in the fractal involution of  
spherical fields within fields, etc. at the moment of the Big Bang.   
And, all the ideas about consciousness and creation that MC has, are  
rooted in the "Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable  
Principle" that must underlie the primal Space or "singularity," out  
of which arises the fractally involved spherical Cosmos, all its  
structures, along with the infinitely ubiquitous zero-points of  
potential individual animal sentient or human self consciousness...  
That, while limited in number, remains always subjectively  
*identical* to the initial global Cosmic consciousness... While, each  
such individual "I" remains experientially and self-reflectively  
*different* (but NOT separate) from all the others.

Thus, simplicity/complexity, unity/diversity, absolute/relative,  
subject/object, yin-yang, creative/receptive, etc., must exist  
together, simultaneously, in everything -- and phenomenally appear to  
us as paradoxical... But which, fundamentally, are the natural order  
of all things.  Carl Jung saw all this as "synchronicity."

Unfortunately, those who don't bother to think about the essential  
unity of all dualities and their roots in pre-cosmic fundamental  
reality, take the easy way out, and attribute such paradoxes to a  
miraculous "creator" that is personally separate from "his" creations  
-- or they assume that matter is primal and all there is.  This  
ignorance of the essential unity of all sentient beings, is the real  
cause of human suffering, as the Buddha pointed out -- who well knew,  
as did the ancient Chinese master who devised the I-Ching -- the  
fundamental duality between consciousness and matter, as well as the  
holographic fractal nature of the primal beginning AND everything  
that stems from it.

Let's see how long it will take before "science" finally catches on  
and changes its present assumptions and paradigm accordingly? ;-)

Leon Maurer


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