Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00721)

Nice to know that you have no ax to grind. 

The quote from me that you used as the basis of your opinionated response, 
even though partially correct was still taken out of context -- which, if not 
so taken, would have made your response, if not entirely wrong, the answer to 
the wrong question. 

That's all that was pointed out. -- and further clarified by me to show that, 
if you studied the SD and found in it the various references to particles, 
multidimensional fields of consciousness, zero (laya) points, energy, 
electricity, light, and their interrelationships on all multidimensional (3+7 
fold) coenergetic (chakra) field levels, from spirit to matter-- reading 
"between the lines and in the words" while looking from the inside out and 
the outside in, linearly and non linearly, using both your left and right 
brain simultaneously -- you would agree that HPB gave us a clear picture of 
the fundamental framework of cosmogenesis "zero to infinity" along with a 
method thinking from microcosmic "quantum" (atomic) to macrocosmic structure 
that underlies many of today's scientific theories... 

Most of which, admittedly, are partially wrong outside of their limited field 
of application, and none of which, individually, contain the entire picture 
of physical and metaphysical reality... But which, taken together, tell the 
whole story -- about a universe that is both relative and absolute, spiritual 
and material, metaphysical and physical, and extends as multidimensional, 
interpenetrating and descending coenergetic fields or phases of electrical 
energy from the zero-point to infinity (and all that's in between on each 
"coadunate but non consubstantial" field of consciousness) -- as HPB stated 
clearly throughout the Secret Doctrine and in all her collateral writings... 
All of it being in close parallel agreement with the underlying basis of 
thinking that motivates Superstring/M-brane theorists -- who recognize that 
the universe is "one thing" in all its varied aspects from consciousness to 
matter, and are searching for a consistent mathematical equation to explain 
it. Some even say that such an equation might be as simple as 0 = 0, or 
(gravity equation) + (antigravity equation) = 0, or (action) + (reaction) = 
0. Doesn't this, possibly, trigger in serious students a better 
understanding and conviction of the validity and workings of karma?

Although, little of this modern synthetic (zero-point energy and infinite 
field oriented) scientific approach can be "proven" using the material 
instruments and the reductive thinking of experimental physics available to 
scientists today. -- even though, the new mathematics of chaos, complexity, 
superstring/M-brane, quantum gravity and simplicity theories, etc., including 
fractal geometry, tensor analysis, infinite sets, etc., is moving the present 
"cutting edge of science" closer and closer to a Universal Field Theory that 
will soon close the gap between deductive theosophical thinking and inductive 
scientific thinking -- neither of which are solely spiritual nor solely 
material, but encompass both these aspects of universal reality... Thus, 
bringing consciousness and matter, brain and mind, body and soul, into closer 
and closer mutually dependent and fully comprehensible relationship. 

See my ABC [chakra-] field theory -- that is in consistent agreement with 
both theosophical metaphysics, as presented and discussed by HPB, and current 
"leading edge" scientific theories which are attempting to "marry" all 
classical and modern physics theories (some of which have been "proven" only 
in their limited field of application) -- into a single "Grand Unified Theory 
of Everything" that, ultimately, will be identical to and consistent with the 
fundamental principles and the conclusions of theosophical metaphysics.

The words, "Laplacian thinking" tells me nothing at all. Your opinions 
regarding theosophical metaphysical concepts based on the opinions of others, 
without any logical basis or thoughtful analysis, are just that -- 
opinions... Which doesn't in any way diminish your right to answer direct 
questions or ask them. 

But, the problem I see is that you skirt around the issues illogically, with 
nothing more than vague historical references, referral to questionable 
"authorities," and ad homonym arguments, that have nothing to do with the 
ideas and questions you profess to be answering or commenting on -- while 
using a blanket put-off by offhandedly categorizing them as "Laplacian 
thinking." (Whatever that means?) In any case, my arguments and conclusions, 
based on thoughtful study and synthesis of theosophical metaphysics with 
leading edge scientific thinking, stands on their own. It's a shame that you 
profess to make opinions about them based on little or no understanding of 
either of these "scientific" (whether from an objective or a subjective 
viewpoint) approaches to universal reality.

Also, it's too bad that you don't quote the entire letter thread you are 
supposed to be responding to -- since, if you did so, others in this forum 
might be better able to understand what I am talking about -- and, perhaps, 
see for themselves how you distort your responses by quoting my arguments and 
conclusions (if not those of other "theosophists") incompletely, and out of 
context. So, perhaps your historical research and conclusions, which appear 
to be based on that same sort of biased thinking, is why you feel so 
oppressed by those thoughtful theosophists who question your veracity and 
your motives. 

Sorry about calling a spade a spade, but that's how I see your correspondence 
when it comes to matters of theosophical metaphysics, its fundamental 
principles, and their relationship to current scientific thought -- that have 
nothing to do with historical research designed, ostensibly, to show that 
theosophy as presented by HPB is bag of second hand, derivative nonsense.... 
As you seem to believe, depending on the opinions of other historical 
commentators without intellectual analysis or synthesis. I don't mind (nor 
do I think Blavatsky would) your arguing against our parallel theories and 
conclusions, but I'm sure both of us would appreciate your doing so logically 
and directly.

The "ax you appear (in my view) to be grinding, perhaps, is that, for some 
unknown reasons (and certainly not logical ones it appears, judging from your 
writings) -- you seem to be in disagreement with all the ancient and modern 
"Masters of Wisdom" and their "occultist" student-teachers (and, 
consequently, deny the validity of their metaphysical, ethical, moral, and 
spiritual conclusions) whose common teachings underlie and support all of 
Blavatsky's "bouquet" of commentaries on them. 

With no intent to vilify you personally... In contrast to so called 
"Laplacian thinking"(?) -- I see biased "reactionary thinking" in that... 
Which I hope is not the case -- since, if so, all your selective historical 
research, and your conclusions based on them, also comes into question. 

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPB-ONHOWSTUD.SD.html

In a message dated 02/22/02 10:54:17 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon, I have no ax to grand this is a villification of yours, and 
>reminds of the arguments people of the Flat Earth Society will use 
>against anybody that doesn't agree with their claim that the earth 
>is flat.
>
>Why do I and others not have the right to have answers, and ask 
>questions ?
>
>I did not "mis" quote you at all, my quote was correct. Although I 
>appologise I did not re-quote your whole long mail, I admit I don't 
>like that either, although it is done with my mails all the time on 
>this list.
>
>However to answer the rest of your previous longer mail, everything 
>you brought is exactly Laplacian thinking, including all your charts. 
>As the SD is Laplacian thinking, notting else. You did not provide 
>anything that holds scientificly above water that shows otherwise. 
>Including the chakras, they are imaginary.
>
>I know you and Dallas won't accept anything I say, but why don't you 
>ask Mic Foster if the SD is Laplacian thinking or not, maybe you and 
>Dallas will be willing to read him on it.