Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00054)

Post to MindBrain forum that may be of interest to students of  
theosophy.

On Mar 26, 2009, at 3/26/098:43 AM, tom9401 wrote:

 > Leon's entire framework is meant to give us a standardized, mass- 
produced
 > version of reality. None of its concepts can rationally be applied  
to creative
 > endeavors. The orientation that gives us creative achievement lies  
in the
 > opposite direction.

Actually, Tom, I agree with you fully -- philosophically, that is --  
although not scientifically or technically.  The universe does work  
by definite rules and laws, you know.  Also, creative consciousness  
is the fundamental aspect of absolute space that not only initiates  
the manifestation of the cosmos and guides its evolution, but is the  
initiator of all creative endeavors by human beings.  However, all  
such creative endeavors must depend on a thorough knowledge of the  
technical limitations of the media used to express them.  Obviously,  
the beauty of a butterfly's wing or the sound of a musical symphony  
depends on the physical nature of the pigments and the technical  
structure of the instruments as well as the physics of the matter- 
energy and space that they are made up of, and which we experience  
them through.  And even our experience -- which is only of the  
information processed through our senses and neurology -- must  
operate, and be governed by certain fixed rules and laws of  
electrodynamics inherent in fundamental nature.

Without knowing about all that (either intuitively or by study and  
practice) -- and being able to technically utilize the media to their  
maximum possibilities -- any creation is only a fantasy in the mind  
of the creator.  So, there is only one correct version of phenomenal  
objective reality, and its only consciousness and its imagination  
that can be infinitely creative.  To express it, however, requires a  
well studied technical knowledge of the media.  A creation, by  
itself, has only value to the creator.  That's okay -- but I'm  
interested in how that creation can be experienced by others.  And,  
as McCluan said, "The medium IS the message".  But that's not like  
saying the  energy is the consciousness.

Just to set the record straight... Although I have an extensive  
background in science and technology (and have been considered an  
expert in certain aspects of it( -- I also know, first hand, about  
creativity...  Since I was an artist before I became an engineer...  
Having been painting and drawing (with consummate skill and  
imaginative creativity, I've been told) since I was a toddler... And  
then, having studied fine art starting from age six (starting at the  
Brooklyn Museum of Art and later, at the high School of music and  
Art) until I was enlisted into military service during WW2 and served  
in combat zones overseas as a electronic network communication expert  
(as well as an artist-photographer) ... It was then that I became   
fascinated by the technology behind electronic communication, that  
seemed to replicate the way I experienced visual images and music in  
my mind, and how it related to creative applications in the realm of  
both art and music -- which enables us to create animated and live  
action movies and sound recordings that gives worldwide mass  
audiences the opportunity to experience and appreciate the work of  
creative artists in all media.  Imagine, how Da Vinci or any great  
renaissance artist/musician would have loved that possibility for  
their own creations. ;-)  (And, wasn't Da Vinci also a highly  
creative scientist/engineer, as well?)

This interest in the technology behind creative works was also  
triggered by the fact that I was also a musician, self taught on the  
harmonica (and much later on my personally invented, handmade  
electrical Versitar, that "plays like a sitar and sounds like a  
guitar")... And, had performed in concert as a soloist (using only my  
harmonica) with classical orchestras when I attended the High School  
of Music and Art in New York City (as a fine art student)... And also  
performed on stage during the 90's (using my Versitar) with some of  
the greatest jazz musicians in the world, like Les Paul, Chet Atkins,  
Tony Mottola, among others.  When I graduated high school, I won  
awards in several art exhibitions, and also was a semi finalist in  
the Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Survey -- with an essay on the  
projected progress of science and technology and its application to  
the creative arts 20 years in the future.

So, while you may think that I am trying to put the technology ahead  
of the creative art -- the opposite is the case.

The fact that I had these complementary interests, triggered by my  
own inherent talents and skills, was what led me to study the ancient  
philosophies and delve into the deepest occult mysteries of their  
metaphysics... Until I realized that it would be useful for everyone  
to understand the scientific reality behind the synthesis of science,  
religion and philosophy -- when I found the book compiling it all...  
Which, apparently, was also the inspiration for Albert Einstein's  
intuitions**... Who, incidentally, was also a talented artist- 
musician -- as was the author of the book that presaged his theories,  
and which I initially based my entire ABC theory on... Which model  
was derived by means of the same "thought experimental" method  
Einstein used -- which we, apparently, both learned through that  
author's recommended yoga practice --- from books such as the Voice  
of the Silence (which she translated) and the Yoga aphorisms of  
Patanjali (translated by her colleague)
** http://leonmaurer.info/einstein.html

Incidentally, that's probably why Einstein could explain relativity  
so simply in plain word-images, that even a child of 12 years old  
could understand it.  In fact, since my father was one of the  
sponsors of Einstein's immigration to the U.S. I had the good fortune  
to sit in a casual family and friends gathering with him when I was  
about ten years old, and heard him explaining the theory just that  
way -- which I could fully understand... And later, used that  
knowledge in the science Survey test based on a cold reading of  
Einstein's initial paper on special relativity and answering specific  
questions related to it (which, incidentally, earned me a perfect  
score ;-).

Apropos, that's why I feel it is so important to ask questions in  
order to understand (and be able to teach) anything not related to  
direct experience.  I've found that very few can believe any truism  
told them based on someone else's experience.  Who would have  
believed Jesus, if he had not proven his expertise by performing  
apparent miracles?  (Which, in my view, as he was surely a learned  
scholar and magi, were really based on his practical knowledge of  
man's dynamic psychic nature)  How else could his teachings be so  
close to that of the Buddha?  Is it any wonder why the Dalai Lama was  
(and still is, according to his most recent book) so interested in  
the holographic paradigm theories of Bohm -- that are based on his  
scientific spatial mechanics of the "implicate" and "explicate" orders?

So, there really isn't any difference, other than the technical  
realities, between our understanding of consciousness.  It's just  
that we are looking at it from different points of view.  Yours,  
subjectively and experientially idealistic, from within outward, and  
mine, the synthesis of that inside-outward view with the  
complementary view from the outside-inward -- i.e., consisting of  
both a deductive and inductive viewpoint, merged simultaneously and  
inter-connectedly...  Thus, satisfying the creative artists as well  
as the engineers and scientists... Who must eventually understand why  
the most intelligent robot android with an electronic neural network  
simulated or quantum computer brain, no matter how complex and  
perfectly designed, can never become creatively aware or self  
conscious, and experience the feelings of love, truth, beauty, etc.  
-- as does a human being... Even though the EM energy fields in the  
system might be potentially or latently conscious at their zero- 
points of origin (in accord with my ABC model) -- such consciousness  
could never be  experienced (by such IA) intrasubjectively, or  
expressed phenomenally or creatively.  All it can do to *simulate*  
human consciousness, is follow the rules of its pre-programmed  
learning algorithms.

So, It all boils down to coenergetic (resonant) electromagnetic  
"fields of consciousness" (within each organic-sentient being) that  
are holographically and harmonically linked to their contiguously  
ubiquitous (entangled) zero-point centers of origin -- which are,  
also (besides the spin-momental source of the higher order energy  
fields themselves) the *absolute* spatial source of pure  
consciousness (awareness, will)... That is *separate*, yet  
interconnected (informationally) to the harmonic electrodynamic  
energy fields surrounding it.

Within and surrounding the human body, each such fractal involved  
(harmonic) inner field is linked directly to the body's overall  
neural network (nervous) system at the nerve plexus associated with  
each adjacent inner field on the vertical body axis.  See:
http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
Note that the human *soul* is represented by the highest order outer  
triune field of spiritual consciousness (containing the higher  
intuitive and rational mind) -- whose center is located in the naval  
chakra.  This is the source of the unchanging "I AM I" or individual  
self consciousness (that is confused with the lower animal  
consciousness identified with the ever changing total body (cellular  
consciousness) and their *feelings*.  (Emotions are aspects of this  
body consciousness that is limited to specific organs which are  
affected by our thoughts (based on our experiences) and whose  
subsequent hormone secretions directly affect our moods or feelings.)

When you can put all those word images together (describing the ALL  
Present ONE reality) into a unified multidimensional transparent  
picture in your imagination, while watching the ever changing waves  
of visual image information transmitted resonantly, from one field  
surface (or flexible membrane) to the other, and down to (by  
reflection of a projected coherent energy field reconstructing the  
holographic image) their common zero-point center of consciousness  
(while doing the same for will in the reverse direction through the  
brain fields, to the muscle cell fields and ultimately to the cells  
themselves) -- you will have seen and comprehend it all... And, then  
can teach others to see and learn it for themselves.

This visualization, however, would have to be meditated on  
continuously... Until one realizes that there can be no other  
rationally scientific way for consciousness to connect with and  
experience the information furnished by the senses to the brain, and  
thence, through its EM field, to the higher frequency order mind and  
memory fields accessible to our zero-point consciousness -- which is  
separate and outside of all metric spacetime. (It is suggested that  
one study and practice the Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali, so as to  
accomplish this most felicitously)

In addition, such knowledge would be useful to all of us who are  
neither artists or engineers -- in realizing (A) that everything is  
interconnected, (B) that consciousness survives after bodily death,  
(C) that reincarnation is a law of nature, and that (D) the  
fundamental cyclic laws of action-reaction (karma) underlying  
everything must govern our self-generated justice -- that is paid off  
in future lifetimes (as circumstances permit) in reward or punishment  
for the good and evil thoughts and deeds in our present and past lives.

Obviously, nothing can escape the inevitable equal and opposite  
rebound or reaction of every action that disturbs the harmony of  
universal life and nature -- since total space is like a rubber  
blanket that can stretch infinitely and contract infinitesimally --  
without tearing apart or losing any of its information, once gained  
and transformed to its highest order spiritual fields.  Thus, as said  
by the ancient Philosophers and their disciples, "As you sow, so  
shall you reap", "Corn from thistles don't grow" and, "Everything we  
are is the result of what we have thought.'

So there really is no essential difference between a truly  
philosophical science or a scientific philosophy that can explain the  
true nature of fundamental reality, and how everything -- composed of  
(a) inherently conscious space, (b) unconscious matter/energy, and  
(c) information -- must link to everything else through the  
ubiquitous zero-point source of potential perceptive/responsive  
creative consciousness -- that is located everywhere (and every when)  
in metric space and time.

 From a creative point of view, nothing can prevent that primal  
source of consciousness in every human being, from eventually (after  
learning how to quiet all the sensory "noise" of physical life)  
seeing into the imagination or "mind of God," so to speak -- with all  
its images of harmonic beauty carried on the highest order fields of  
its spiritual awakening.  That process is the source of all  
creativity in those born with inherent talent, possibly learned in  
previous lives, and which can also be learned through training and  
practice in this life under experienced master teachers.  The only  
requirement is a burning desire to express the ideas in one's higher  
mind.

That's why we can say that all energy, as metric (spherical)  
spacetime in *motion*, is potentially conscious... But that doesn't  
mean energy is the source of or equivalent to consciousness itself...  
Which must be entirely *motionless*  -- as the inherent nature of the  
timeless and dimensionless absolute space that gives birth to all  
metric spacetime and its matter/energy forms... And is always located  
(unchanged and unchangeable) at the exact zero-point center of the  
initial harmonic energy fields surrounding every constantly changing  
material body (including the initial monadic fields that represent  
our individual souls, and the corresponding individuality of all  
sentient beings).

Thus, we can understand the difference between our unchanging  
individuality (or true, eternal) higher self, and our constantly  
changing "personality" (or false, temporary) animal self.   All it  
takes is for science to prove and accept this distinction, as well  
as, what consciousness really is and how it works creatively... And,  
when everyone recognizes the truth of who and what they each really  
are, and what they can creatively accomplish as a group with a common  
aim and purpose -- the whole world will quickly change for the  
better... As governments will be forced to start working with and for  
the masses of people that elect them... And not for the greedy few  
that finance their elections and bribe them.

So, only this common knowledge of fundamental reality can become the  
savior of mankind, and prevent them from repeating all the errors of  
the past that has led to the current sorry state of the world and its  
imminent social, economic and ecological collapse.  All the religious  
proselytizing and preaching of spiritual ideas -- without such  
scientific proof and/or acceptance of the true nature and creative  
powers of universal consciousness inherent in each of us -- will end  
up as a whistling in the wind that gets us nowhere.

Best wishes,
Leon Maurer
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81/19

            
======= Original message ========

Natural rationality:

There is certainly a kind of natural physical time in our experience,  
and in the experience of any creature. It involves the rhythm of the  
seasons- the days and nights and tides and so forth. In the light of  
that kind of physical time, which is involved within earthly biology,  
there is no basic cultural time. That is, to this natural rhythm we  
have culturally added the idea of clocks, moments and hours, which we  
have transposed over nature's rhythms.

Such a cultural time works well overall for the civilization that  
concentrates on partialities, bits and pieces, assembly lines, and so  
forth. It fits an industrialized society as we understand it.

The time that any artistic creator is involved with follows earth's  
own time. I remember hiking out of the woods in the dark late one  
night, in the Adirondak's, using my Petzl headlamp to see. Another  
light approached me, coming quickly from the other direction. He was  
carrying painting supplies and a large canvas. He was not rushing off  
to punch a time clock, he told me ha was trying to get to a certain  
overlook so that he could paint the sunrise.

It certainly seems to Leon that the best way to get specific answers  
is to ask specific questions (he does ask alot of questions), and the  
rational mind thinks first of a all of something like a list of  
questions. I am a natural person. My co-workers once referred to me  
as Mr. Natural. I am anything but irrational. I have gathered all my  
experience together, and have transformed it. I have found that the  
classical education I received at, for example, St. John's, and the  
Classical books such as Plato's writings, has applied the wrong kind  
of orientation to the problems of our lives and activities.

I say wrong, meaning no moral judgement. There has simply been, in my  
judgement, one method, traditional scientific and philosophical  
rationality,  applied to a pursuit that cannot be adequately  
expressed in such a fashion. Assembly-line time and the beliefs that  
go along with it have given many benefits to us as a society, but it  
should not be forgotten that the entire framework was initially set  
up to cut down on impulses, creative thought, or any other activities  
that would lead to anything but the mindless repetition of one act  
after another. Thomas Edison was a creative genius, but a bad  
business man. I am not saying there aren't people who could do both,  
but he exemplifies my claim.

Leon's entire framework is meant to give us a standardized, mass- 
produced version of reality. None of its concepts can rationally be  
applied to creative endeavors. The orientation that gives us creative  
achievement lies in the opposite direction.

On Mar 22, 2009, at 3/22/0910:59 PM, tom9401 wrote:

How do I decide if someone the truth. As I have said in another
post, it is a matter of discernment. The task is easy. Do your
words bring me joy? Do your words bring me  love? Are your words
true? No, no and no! I don't think you are even close on this one.

Leon Maurer wrote: Perhaps you should really study Plato's ideas and  
find out what he
meant by those words, and what his philosophy was all about.   So
far, I don't think your opinions hold much weight -- since you appear
to judge things only by the way you feel.  Maybe some digging into
the Neoplatonists like Porphyry and Plotinus  might straighten you
out -- so you might be able to understand the true cause and nature
of both consciousness and matter, and see them as to what they really
are and how they interrelate.



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