Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00792)

You can call me anything you like... But don't call me stupid, or  
after 2:00 AM USEST.

Don't rush back to that other state of consciousness.  You are much  
more fun when you are warm and cuddly. ;-)

Anyway, when you do get there, I hope you'll find something  
interesting in St Peter's voluminous writings.  For a very concise  
encapsulation of his entire agreement with the SD and my ABC G-force  
"Geometry of Divinity (G-D)" read his first comment on "The Upshot of  
(his) Vision So Far"

After that there won't be much need to wade through all the technical  
arguments with physicists... But some of his observations on Bohm,  
Whitehead, Bohr, Stapp, etc. are quite interesting.  Especially his  
direct correspondence with other contemporary physicists -- (some who  
think he is quite mad, BTW. ;-)  Unfortunately, he hasn't posted any  
of our recent personal correspondence (to his private list)... which  
started out with his total disagreement, since I had no physics  
equations... And eventually ended up with his entire agreement with  
the ABC spherical field fractal geometric model of cosmogenesis.   
See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
Unfortunately, some of the physicists on his list are still too  
wrapped up in Academia and grants, to risk endorsing either his or my  
theories, which smacks of mysticism (in their eyes) and also  
contradicts much of conventional modern physics (including string  
theories) inherent materialism. (Including string theories, even  
though they confirm my fractal hyoerspace fields, yet still can't get  
a handle on consciousness).

I guess HPB was right when she said there's really no point in   
trying to convince scientists about the metaphysical truths -- since  
they'll inevitably arrive at it when the time is ripe.  As Max Planck  
said, " A 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.."

In the meantime, keep studying, keep polishing the mental field, and  
have fun,

Lenny

On May 25, 2008, at 5/25/083:12 AM, Cass Silva wrote:

> It is so nice having you there, can I call you Lenny?  I have had a  
> couple of scotches and feeling warm and cuddly.  I will check out  
> what he has to say when I am back to that other state of  
> consciousness.
>   Cass
>
> Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
>           Thanks Cass,
>
> I have been in correspondence with ('saint') Peter Mutnick -- since
> we first met on the online scientific forums studying consciousness
> as far back as the mid 90's. He has a very brilliant mind, a
> gigantic ego, is a well educated physicist (gone a bit bonkers since
> his hippy days;-). But, seems to have no disagreement with the
> fundamental tenets of theosophy. We've always been more or less in
> agreement from a spiritual point of view, although we've argued
> also... Since he is too wrapped up in the quantum physics world, and
> sometimes he gets blinded by their incomprehensible (to me, at least)
> mathematical logic -- that really doesn't explain anything related to
> consciousness and mind. He also goes too far in his Christian God
> and returning Christ-Messiah correlations (he's a converted kabbala
> educated Jew) to suit my taste. Recently, he finally gave up
> fighting my ABC theory (since it argued against some of the basic
> assumptions of conventional quantum theory that Einstein also
> disagreed with) and admitted that my fractal field model of
> cosmogenesis might be correct. To confirm this, he made up a drawing
> of a chakra meditator using my field diagrams. See:
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg
> Although I changed his MHCHAEL-GABRIEL to THOTH-HERMES ;-) And also
> switched around some of his chakra-field designations in the right
> column to fit closer with the SD teachings. (The center and left
> columns were left unchanged)
>
> Much of his web site is involved in discussions with physicists, and
> could be a bit deep for most theosophists. Much of it is worth
> reading, however, if you're interested in the implicate-explicate
> order physics and philosophy of David Bohm (who taught the Dalai
> Lama) and Alfred North Whitehead. The problem though, is that
> Mutnick fails to correlate these ideas with the "holographic
> paradigm" that Bohm cooked up with Karl H. Pribram -- which the ABC
> fractal field model fully underlies and confirms -- without any
> obscure mathematics, of course.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Lenny
>
> On May 24, 2008, at 5/24/089:55 AM, Cass Silva wrote:
>
>> Hi Leon,
>> Found this while browsing the Net. He mentions your name.
>> http://www.geocities.com/saint7peter/index.html
>>
>>
>> Cass
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



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