[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Characteristics of Pure Energy-Einstein/matter

Jul 08, 2008 09:45 PM
by Leon Maurer

On Jul 6, 2008, at 7/6/0810:15 PM, tom9401 wrote:

> --- In, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
>> The energy is latent in the "spinergy" (abstract motion, ZPE, or non
>> linear spin momentum) surrounding every zero-point of consciousness
>> (awareness, will)
> I have a few other concerns Leon.
> 1) ZPE is also called 'space energy', 'quantum energy', and 'free  
> energy'. They are all
> described as very minute amounts of usable energy. That sounds like  
> potential energy/
> kinetic energy to me.

ZPE is simply the near infinite spin-momentum of the ubiquitous zero- 
point ether space.  It's the energy fields that emanate and radiate  
from it that are the generators of the quantum particles.  Since such  
particles are, individually, very highly energetic relative to their  
apparently small size -- the zero-point spinergy, relative to its  
infinitely smaller size, must be even more potentially energetic.   
Incidentally, I don't see kinetic energy which depends on *linear*  
motion, as being equated with "potential energy" as *non linear* motion.
> 2) I found a statement made by you at a 'theosophy' web site where  
> you say you were a
> committed pantheist, but that, 'I enjoy arguing with scientific  
> materialists.'. I am not sure
> how to interpret that comment.

Easy.  Scientific materialists are so committed to the proposition  
that matter is fundamental and causative and that consciousness is an  
epiphenomena, that it's fun to see them wiggle, obfuscate, or avoid  
responding when they are asked to explain cosmogenesis or the hard  
problems of consciousness, brain-mind binding, non locality,  
information transference, entanglement, etc, in purely physical- 
material terms, or as simply and directly as the ABC fractal field  
model. ;-)
> 3) You made the further comment that insisted that if you heard an  
> explanation that was
> logical and consistent you would modify your own 'carefully reverse  
> engineered view of
> fundamental macrocosmic and microcosmic reality.' So you ARE making  
> this stuff up as
> you go along! I presented what I took to be a logical and  
> consistent explanation but your
> comments are oriented to your own view and not so much to the  
> logical validity and
> consistency of my explanation. I can understand wanting to promote  
> your own
> perspective, but that contradicts the perspective you suggest in  
> the quote by you.
> So, in the end, I am a little confused about your modus operandi.

I said, "modify" (not change) my logical and consistent explanation  
of fundamental reality.  Those modifications would be in the actual  
electrodynamics of the individual fractal involves fields. -- the  
mathematics for which I have not yet worked out fully... But NOT in  
the overall holographic model itself or its logical cause and effects  
chain of coenergetic fractal involution and evolution, or in the  
explanation of how phenomenal consciousness actually works with  
respect to mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc.  So, I am still  
considering each problem as I proceed, causatively, through the model  
-- with respect to the developments of modern quantum cosmology...  
And try to solve them, accordingly, as they make new observations...  
Without changing the basic model and its premises and propositions,  
or making things up as I go along.  Remember, the ABC theory is only  
given in outline, and does not pretend to know all the technical  
details of the intermediate electrodynamic or neurological processes  
between consciousness and matter-energy, or mind, memory, brain,  
body, senses, etc.

As for the logic of your explanation, I have no argument -- providing  
we are clear that we are consistent in our definitions of energy and  
its cause.  Since energy can have different aspects and attributes, I  
can only consider potential or latent energy and phenomenal energy as  
two different, yet interdependent integral aspects of the ABC fractal  
field hypothesis.  One, at the primal beginning resting in the ether  
spinergy BEFORE the big bang, and the other as becoming manifest  
AFTER the linear G-force emanates from the primal singularity and  
fractally involves into total spherical space and its vibrating forms  
of physical matter-energy.  Therefore, while I don't question your  
logic, I do question its fundamental premises.
> Spin energy, metric space, conscious intent, and potential  
> potential, arguing just for the
> sake of arguing, theosophy,... Are we interacting under the general  
> philosophic guideline
> of granting the interlocutor the benefit of the doubt?, or are you  
> just having a good laugh
> at my expense?

There is no arguing for the sake of argument... But simply, a  
presentation for the sake of clarification... Of what I feel is an  
accurate model of the primal beginning and the subsequent  
cosmogenesis of our inherently conscious and coenergetic,  
omnidimensional universe... That just happens to correspond with the  
metaphysics of theosophy -- which is a synthesis of science religion  
and philosophy based on the esoteric teachings of the ancient Eastern  
philosophers -- from Hermes Trismagistus through Pythagorus, Plato,  
Plotinus, Porphyry, Gautama (Buddha), Nagarjuna, Sankaracharya, etc.   
My counter argument to your idea of energy being equivalent to  
consciousness, is based purely on trying to arrive at a common  
semantic agreement, and in no way denigrates or trivializes your  
particular viewpoint... Which I think is simply misconceived based on  
a semantic difference of opinion.

> I believe I have shown that you do not seem to be able to  
> conceptualize consciousness
> without invoking energy. That problem suggests your 'reversed  
> engineered approach', the
> one that says consciousness precedes energy,  commits the logical  
> fallacy of circularity. I
> believe my explanation is not circular. Are there, in your opinion,  
> logical flaws or
> inconsistencies in my explanation, or are you ready to modify your  
> own views? (Are we
> having fun yet?)

As I see it consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc..) is a  
primitive *quality* of absolute space that cannot be "conceptualized"  
-- since it is purely subjective.  Only phenomenal matter-energy,  
which (as noumenal spinergy) is another primitive aspect of that  
space, can be objectively observed and examined by consciousness.   
Thus, energy -- which is the linear *motion* of that fundamentally  
spherical space after manifestation into all its metaphysical fractal  
involutions -- is entirely separate from *static* consciousness...  
therefore, energy can be experienced subjectively only after it  
manifests physically or objectively.  This occurs, according to the  
ABC cosmogenesis, AFTER the third fractal iteration or 3rd Logos --  
when spirit falls into physical matter on the fourth descending  
frequency-energy order of total space. See:

Information, which is a form of energy, is carried as modulated wave  
interference patterns on the surfaces of the coenergetic fields.  
Therefore, its only when we consider such phenomenal energy  
experienced directly by self reflected consciousness on the physical  
level (or any altered state), can we say that subjective  
consciousness and objective energy are simultaneously emerging.   
Also, it's only at the noumenal state of pre-cosmic existence in  
absolute space that we can say consciousness (as awareness, will,  
etc.) precedes energy -- which can only arise AFTER the non linear  
motion of the spinergy changes to the linear motion of the  
coenergetic fields.   Thus, as the Buddha said, (Phenomenal)  
consciousness and matter-energy are "dependently arising."  Meaning,  
scientifically and logically, that they become *manifest* together  
phenomenally, only AFTER the big bang.  So, in this sense, separating  
noumenal from phenomenal energy -- we are in partial agreement.

Although, as I consider it, potential cosmic consciousness, as an  
unchanging causative subjective *quality*, and noumenal matter-energy  
(G-force spin momentum), as a receptive and changeable objective  
*quantity* (when manifest) -- are entirely separate dual aspects of  
fundamental or absolute space... And, thus, cannot be conflated --  
whether noumenal or phenomenal, potential or actual.

This is not circular reasoning but straight causative/deductive logic  
that uses "reverse engineering" simply to "peel the onion," so to  
speak, and decompose the universe, as it is, back to its logical  
foundation in absolutely empty or unconditioned space.  I.e, "empty"  
of all form or phenomenal or metric "energy" (that is objectively  
measured and conceptualized by materialistic-reductive physics).

Unfortunately, such physics cannot apply to or even conceive of the  
(pre mass/energy) primal beginning -- without giving up its metric- 
material oriented or "renormalized" mathematics, and accepting a new  
psycho-physical paradigm that puts consciousness and matter-energy in  
their proper places... As, simply, the observer and the observed --  
with an entire series of coenergetic (phase conjugate adaptive  
resonant) hyperspace information carrying fields in between.  What  
can be simpler or more parsimonious than that -- without violating  
any of the fundamental laws of overall nature or total space?

I hope this further clarifies my view of energy and its  
interrelationship with consciousness on the physical/material plane  
of manifest cosmic existence.

Best Wishes,
Leon Maurer


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


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application