Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00338)

In a message dated 03/15/02 3:16:46 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Bri.: Theosophy as I have shown in my previous post uses catch 
>phrases (including "leonmaurer" pseudo-scientific words now 
>like "superstrings," to get around this), and Dallas has
>still not been able to proof or verify anything he posted the last
>five days and more.For example also Quantum mechanics today has 
>reached a lay audience through a filter of interpretations that can
>be called quantum metaphysics, composed partly of the above 
>interpretations and partly of other, to speculate on the affinities
>between physics and mysticism or a variety of Platonic, Pythagorean or
>Oriental philosophies in a neo-theosophical vision at times reminiscent
>of the Romantic sciences of the early nineteenth century.

Perhaps you ought to read (and quote) as well as understand what I say about 
the relationship between theosophical metaphysics (in parallel with my ABC 
theory) concerning different states of matter-fields that extend from zero (
at near infinite frequency) to the infinite metric (at near zero frequency) 
universe that we experience physically and that science can theorize about 
reductively -- and compare them with the current state of Supertring/M-brane 
physics and the new paradigm that it has already incorporated relativity and 
quantum physics and, in a very important sense, consolidated them both into 
one synthetic theory of everything -- before goimg off half cocked with your 
ridiculous presumptions based on nothing more than hearsay, fallacious logic, 
questionable "authorities" and falsely associative arguments.

Your scientific knowledge, in spite of the long, non sequitur quotes about 
quantum theory and its history in your previous posts, seems to be as 
primitive as the romantic sciences of the early nineteenth century you so 
cavalierly associate with my supposed "pseudo science." FYI, go to: 
http://superstringtheory.com/ -- and learn something about how M-brane theory 
has revolutionized modern physics and verifies the "infinite divisibility of 
matter" and its multidimensional (3+7) "coadunate but not consubstantial" 
field divisions -- (as also postulated by HPB and myself) -- that is the 
fundamental root of all theosophical metaphysical theories, as well as my ABC 
field theory... None of which deny or are inconsistent with the "proven" 
conclusions of modern and post modern physics. 

All the rest, below, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors (like your usual 
negative associations) -- to back up your unfounded denials about 
theosophical principles and the (theoretical) metaphysical concepts derived 
from them -- which are as "scientifically" and "philosophically" sound as any 
of the currently conflicting theories of relativity and quantum physics (as 
well as their metaphysics, including that of Bohm and Wheeler, among others) 
... Even though all these so called "modern scientific theories (not facts) 
are still more or less locked into their limited reductive and materialistic 
paradigms. 

But, if objective and reductive science (which you apparently know little 
about technically or mathematically) is your "God" or "religious" belief-- 
what's the purpose of all this spurious argumentation -- other than your 
insatiable desire to convince us that theosophy (along with its metaphysics) 
is nothing but primitive and misleading "pseudo science" (your label) and 
false "religious" fantasies?

As for myself, I don't buy that -- since I don't rely on such falsely 
associative, innuendo loaded arguments, or "authoritative" assertions, to 
influence my scientific and/or theosophical thinking. 

As far as I'm concerned "history is one thing and science (along with its 
linkage with theosophical metaphysics) is another -- and both of them can 
either be agreed with or disagreed with in their own contexts and in their 
own terms (both philosophically and scientifically). In this case, my only 
interest is with the leading edge metaphysical and physical scientific 
theories of "unified fields" and their zero-point energies' origin, 
evolution, and interrelationships -- regardless of whether or not such 
theories either directly (in their own terms) debunk or verify theosophical 
metaphysics. As I see it, however, the scientific verification of 
theosophical metaphysics is getting closer and closer -- and your denials of 
theosophy's and ABC's metaphysical conclusions as "real science" are getting 
weaker and weaker.

LHM 

>During the heiday of Theosophy Quantum mecharuics was in its 
>infancy; metaphysical exegetics of its findings were nonexistent.
>This may, perhaps, account for the particular form of pseudo-science 
>found in Leadbeater's and Leon Maurer's theories of matter. 
>The history of the mes.merist use of the vocabulary and theories of 
>physics is reasonable well documented. Readers of Leon's postings
> will invariably have come across references to quantum mechanics and 
>relativity theory. The history of the intermediate period, including
>a concept that one might call atomic metaphysics, is an
>under-explored theme in the history of alternative religiosity. Blavatsky
>
>paved the way for the post-theosophical positions and, as seen above, 
>used the contemporary disagreement on the nature of atoms to support 
>her own claims. She ascribes knowledge of atoms to her ancient source 
>the "Stanzas of Dzyan"purportedly use a word with that
>meaning.
>
>Leadbeater developed an occult chemistry of his own, a view of matter 
>that might support older esoteric claims."' In particular. a highly 
>personal view of atomic structure could vindicate the old belief in a 
>prima matria (alias "zero energy"), the attempts of the
>alchemists to transform base matter into gold and the belief of many 
>esotericists that there are "subtle planes", i.e. a variety of
>invisible worlds. Matter exists not only in its well-known solid, liquid
>and gaseous forms, but also in an "etheric" state. This refined matter is
>normally invisible and would account for the posited existence of an 
>astral and an ethenic world.
>
>Furthermore, Leadbeater claims that the atoms as known by 
>contemporary science consist of a still more fine-grained structure, 
>which he calls ultimate atoms.( Being infinite in number and
>identical, they resemble Mercurius van helmont and Leibniz' monads.)
> These ultimate atoms are all identical except for the fact that some
>are positive/male and others negative/female. By combining these 
>ultimate atoms in new ways, matter can be transmuted.
>
>An idiosyncratic understanding of atomic theory is an even more
>central part of Alice Bailey's teachings. The belief in a prima
>materia remains: "there is but one substance, present in nature in 
>varying degrees of density and of vibratory activity,- this substance is
>unpelled by urgent purpose and expressive of divine intent. (Bailey 
>Esoteric Psychology, vol 1, p. xxiii.)
>
> However, Bailey goes beyond this and devotes an entire
>volume,"The Consciousness of the Atom", published in 1922, to 
>constructing a syncretism between atomic theory and esotericism. Or 
>rather, in Bailey's .own words, "to present the testimony of science
>as to the relanon of matter and of consciousness". ( Bailey 
>Consciousness ofthe Atom, p. 5.).
>
>However, the ideas she presents are not so much scientific as
>religious. Firstly, matter should ')e understood from within the 
>pantheistic framework of theosophy and several post-theosophical 
>schools as in Blavatskyan Theosophy itself, in which the vital or 
>creative "force" resides in the cosmos itself 
>
>The atom has qualities that (at ,east metaphorically) tend to be
>applied to humans as well: to attract and repel, to have energy, 
>movement, even sensation. In a manner Ieminiscent of later 
>theosophical writers, Bailey conflates the metaphorical with the factual
>by claiming that this suggests that atoms, albeit a limited extent, are
>conscious. (Bailey Consciousness qj'the Atom, pp. 38 )
>
>After the discovery of the inner structure of the atom,
>contemporary conceptions of matter had changed. Rather than being
>,.visualized as hard, indivisible balls, atoms were now seen as shells
>of electrons spinning round a nucleus. Bailey somehow connects this
>model of the atom with two ideas, one of which is older and will go
>out of fashion, and one that is more recent and will be repeated
>throughout neo-Theosophical and esoteric literature. The first is the
>
>concept of the aether as the primeval substance of the cosmos. The 
>second is the belief that the concept of matter itself is being superseded
>
>by the concept of force or energy. It is as if a linguistic revision of
>the term .."matter" could exorcise materialism.
>
>Such insights, many neo-Theosophists contend, show that
>the language of the physical sciences and the language of religion
>simply use different terms to denote the same idealistic worldview.