Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00685)

Friends,

Here's some interesting background material for those interested in seeing 
how theosophy can be ultimately vindicated by science (when it accepts the 
interrelationship between the absolute and the relative and recognizes the 
causative connection between consciousness, mind and matter).  

Unfortunately, there are still dyed in the wool materialists and 
reductionists out there who can't see the forest for the trees, and still think that 
consciousness has no relationship with the nature of physical reality. 

Perhaps they'll see it when superstring/M-brane theory coupled with Astro 
Biological Coenergetics links their hyperspace fields with the seven fold states 
of consciousness expressed or unexpressed within all sentient beings... And, 
ultimately, connects the DNA-RNA genetic code with the fundamental formulas 
behind Cosmogenesis, along with with the coenergetic processes of morphogenetic 
evolution and conscious perception -- codified mathematically and implied 
symbolically in the Secret Doctrine and other writings of HPB.  

This will fulfill HPB's prophetic statement that the final proof and ultimate 
vindication of the fundamental principles of theosophy will come through a 
combination of chemistry and physiology. See: 
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif

Read about the new ideas in process chemistry below.

Regards,

Lenny

In a message dated 04/20/04 3:26:02 AM, justindg@dodo.com.au writes:

<<(snip)

As Thomas Huxley pungently expressed the issue in relation to consciousness:


"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes

about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as

the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."


In my opinion, accepting that atoms may be perceptive involves less

absurdity than that which Huxley alludes to, and less again that that

entailed in any attempt to explain away consciousness altogether (a la

Dennett and Churchland).


No-one can deny that science is critically relevant to the understanding of

consciousness or nature. However, this is provided that science is built

upon appropriate metaphysical foundations. For a recent paper on a

panexperientialist philosophy of chemistry, go to 

http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-1/stein.htm

For a dated, though still relevant and interesting, discussion amongst

scientists and philosophers about the implications of one form of

panexperientialism for scientific theory and practice, go to 

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=2066

 
Mind in Nature: the Interface of Science and Philosophy by John B. and David 
R. Griffin Cobb, Jr.

John B. Cobb, Jr. is Professor of Theology at the School of Theology at 
Claremont, Avery professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School, and Director 
of the Center for Process Studies. David Ray Griffin teaches Philosophy of 
religion at the School of theology at Claremont and Claremont Graduate School and 
is Executive Director of the Center for Process Studies. Published by 
University Press of America, 1977. This book was prepared for Religion Online by Ted 
and Winnie Brock.

(ENTIRE BOOK) A collection of essays by prominent physicists, biologists, 
geneticists, zoologists, philosophers and other thinkers about the relationship 
between science and philosophy, particularly the teleological versus the 
mechanistic explanation of the universe. Special emphasis is given to the writings 
of Alfred North Whitehead and Process Theology. Contributors include John Cobb, 
Jr., Theodosius Dobzhansky, Charles Hartshorne, and Arthur Koestler. 

Preface
These papers come from a conference held in Bellagio, Italy in June, 1974. 
The hope underlying the conference was that, if aspects of Whitehead’s form of 
process philosophy were effectively communicated to scientists who in turn 
could help philosophers understand the nature of their current problems, both 
philosophers and scientists would benefit. Although communication between the two 
communities is far from easy, this volume suggests that it is possible and 
that, when it occurs, it is mutually fructifying.>>

(continued on web site)