Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00545)

In a message dated 01/17/05 3:52:55 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>>> And how many monads are there?
>>>
>>> Bart
>> 
>> 
>> Just as many, absolutely -- as we can imagine... Since the Universe (and
>> whatever came out of its origin in the zero-point of absolutely infinite
>> potential) is infinitely divisible. Isn't it?

(For the full context of this message, see below.) 

> Are you therefore saying that the 1st Proposition of the Secret 
>Doctrine is incorrect?
>
> Bart

Ha, ha. More fun and games. Good try. When you haven't anything to say to 
make your oppositional point, or answer the questions asked -- take a sentence 
out of context, and come up with a blanket, non sequitur question that 
implies you know a truth (which is actually resting on authority) that your opponent 
doesn't have a clue to. 

So, my answer to your question is... Nope. But, I am saying you can't prove 
that it isn't. 

I'm also not saying that anything theosophy says is either true or false. 
All I'm doing is stating my interpretation of theosophy along with presenting a 
model of its metaphysics of emanation, involution and evolution -- which I 
accept as being a more likely explanation of fundamental reality than any other 
theory of physics or metaphysics currently accepted by science or philosophy. 
The only rules are that, whatever "Absolute" origin the interpretation or model 
is based on, it has to be entirely consistent throughout, and not violate the 
fundamental principles, break any absolute or fundamental laws of nature, or 
contradict any validly proven scientific theory -- while satisfactorily 
explaining all paradoxes and anomalies of both consciousness and matter, biology, 
physiology, psychic phenomena, etc., that cannot be explained using the 
scientific method. 

Besides, where does theosophy say that the Absolute or the zero-point of 
infinite potential isn't infinitely divisible? Do you know exactly what the 1st 
proposition really is talking about? If so, tell us. Of course, I'm sure you k
now that a "proposition" is not a statement of fact but merely a supposition. 
But, I'm absolutely certain that, whatever it is, it surely can't violate 
its own fundamental laws. Can it?

Since you haven't answered any of the other questions I asked, and you 
misinterpreted the intent and meaning of the above sentence taken out of context, 
without coming up with a valid counter argument to the original statements about 
Absolutes and Relatives that kicked it all off -- what's the point in 
continuing this thread that has deteriorated into nothing more than a play on words 
game? 

But maybe these series of questions might give others some further food for 
thought. (So it may not all be a waste of my time... or yours, if you've taken 
any. :-)

LM

-----Original Messages---------


In a message dated 01/14/05 4:00:27 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> What's the point of such inane assertions? 
>> Are you absolutely sure you know what you are talking about? 
>> There are many absolutes... According to the American Heritage dictionary;
===========================
(Balance of previous message left out) 
In a message dated 01/11/05 8:17:34 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>Cass Silva wrote:
>> Guess what, there are other absolutes, Truth is Absolute.
>
> The next sentence is a lie.
> The previous sentence is true.
>
> Bart
=============================
> And how many monads are there?
>
> Bart

[LM] Just as many, absolutely -- as we can imagine... Since the Universe 
(and whatever came out of its origin in the zero-point of absolutely infinite 
potential) is infinitely divisible. Isn't it?

Wanna continue playing these games? :-) Chew on this...

How many absolute infinities or infinite sets are there if we infinitely 
divide infinity or an infinite set of infinities? (Ref: Cantor)

How many absolute cardinal or ordinal numbers are there between absolute zero 
and absolute infinity?

If Pi is an absolutely constant fractional number representing the ratio of 
the diameter to the radius of a circle (which I'm sure it is:-) -- how many 
absolute cardinal and ordinal numbers are there in the arithmetical expression of 
that ratio?

How many absolute radial angles of spin can there be around an absolute 
zero-point? 

If each such spin angle has an independent zero-point center, how many 
absolute zero-points can there be in an absolute zero-point? 

How many absolute zero-points can there be on a single circle of spin force 
(motion=angular momentum) of zero-diameter? 

How many on all spin angles of such circular momentum?

Doesn't theosophy teach that Parabrahm represents the "Absolute" out of which 
Brahma sprang -- and that there is a Paraparabrahm (another Absolute?) out of 
which Parabrahm sprang -- and so on in an endless series of Absolutes? 
Aren't each of them "The Absolute" with relation to its particular Cosmic 
creations? 

Is not each such universe and everything in it a reflection of the same monad 
that rested in its Absolute zero-point of origin? 

Wouldn't that make the Absolute itself (out of which this Universe sprang, 
among infinite others) a Monad that can replicate itself infinitely into or be 
descended from other series of Absolute Monads? 

Is not that primal Monad and each of its reflected Monads an absolute reality 
-- as the necessary root of everything?

(To get back to the original statement that kicked off this whole 
discussion.) Doesn't all that make it absolutely obvious that "the Absolute is relative, 
and the Relative is absolute"?

Want more questions? 

Of course, if you have valid reason to doubt or disbelieve either Theosophy, 
metaphysical reality and its logical requisites and prerequisites, or Cantor's 
infinite set mathematics, or even Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics -- what 
more is there to say -- or ask? :-)

Leonardo

P.S. I love to argue with people who think only in linear or absolute terms, 
and can't grasp that imaginary numbers are just as real as rational or 
irrational numbers... That is, if theosophy is true. (However, I don't think you 
fall entirely in that category.) <\;-)>