From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:02:31 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: general stuff... Hi - a couple of quick notes... (regarding Don's Windows Help file) I talked to some people at Wheaton today, and found out John Algeo is in Denver. That means he will probably get comments out to Don when he returns (regarding the Windows Help file). The field office hopes to get out some feedback by the weekend. Mike - I sent you a uuencoded file of the preliminary Help routine just before we had the computer problems. Did you get it? the system here might have eaten it? Take Care - John Mead p.s. By the time you get this message, I think the Theos-L server will be fully debugged. They apparantly installed a new version of the server while they were down (too). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:39:18 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: adressing theos-l mail... Hi -- I have gotten a couple of messages asking for clarification about addressing theos-l mail the internet address is Theos-L@char.vnet.net However, for Compuserve users you must add ">internet:" before the actual addresss. This tells the Compuserve to route it to the Internet Mail handler/daemon. Hence you need to enter the address as >internet:Theos-L@char.vnet.net I hope this helps. Let me know if you need further assistance. also : Please reply (send e-mail) if you *want* to be included in the Electronic Study Group as an official member. You must 1) be a TS member, and 2) NOT belong to a current (local) Study Group. The mess over the last few weeks caused me to misplace my list of people. Take Care -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 16:56:30 -0400 From: MGRENIER.EAGAN@mhs.sp.paramax.com (Grenier, Michael W.) Subject: Re: adressing theos-l mail... Would any have any information on the World Parliment of Religions being held in the Chicago area at the end of this month? I'd like to go but would be interested in the following: - Where in the Chicago area is it? - What is the schedule for speakers? - Cost, if any? -Mike Grenier mgrenier@mhs.sp.paramax.com P.S. - John, I did receive the help file and it is fine. Should there be an email address or other means whereby people who read the help file can get more information? P.S.S Don, I getting a list of the UUCP sites in your area. I'll send the Email program at that time - probably today. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 00:53:53 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:Mike Mike: < Should there be an email address or other means whereby people who read the help file can get more information?> I suspect that when i compile the final, "official" version of the Help file that I would at least liek to put the Wheaton adress in their, and also maybe a plug for our group here, i.e. our internet address. Anyone else have any opinions about this? Thanks, Mike, I'll be looking forward to getting it! Best to all! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:20:33 -0400 From: MGRENIER.EAGAN@mhs.sp.paramax.com (Grenier, Michael W.) Subject: Re: adressing theos-l mail... John, You wrote: > Please reply (send e-mail) if you *want* to be included in the Electronic > Study Group as an official member --- I *want* to be a member. -Mike Grenier P.S. You also wrote: > The mess over the last few weeks caused me to misplace my list of > people. ---- Here was the list of people in the group as of 7/17/93 per your email: ================================================================ The Following is a current of Members. (I'll update as needed) ================================================================ John Mead 76220,131 (compuserve) (internet: 76220.131@Compuserve.com) johnem@well.sf.ca.us (WELL/Internet) Mike Grenier mgrenier@mhs.sp.paramax.com (internet) Bob Murdic 72360,3305 (Compuserve) (internet: 72360.3305@compuserve.com) BOB11 (America Online) George Snoody 72440,2544 (Compuserve) (internet: 72440.2544@compuserve.com) Jay Amundson 91484615@uwwvax.uww.edu (internet) Louise Mead 74740,440 (Compuserve) (internet: 74740.440@compuserve.com) Don DeGracia 71331,3517 (compuserve) Leonard Cole 71664,3642 (Compuserve) Ron Banister 71664,2301 (Compuserve) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 13:10:15 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Don's Help file (Windows) Don - I was glad to get your message on the list. I hope that our computer problems here are behind us. Some people in Charlotte are calling it "The Great Charlotte Crash of '93". I think that adding the Wheaton address, 800 number, and the Theos-l Internet address would be appropriate (also be sure to give yourself authorship credit!). I was thinking that a series of these computer introduction "Help" files would be good. Somewhat like a Study guide series on major aspects of Theosophy. I mentioned this to Nathan (FieldWork) at Wheaton, and he seemed to think it might a good idea to follow up on. Of course, Don could not do all of the work... Perhaps we could break into subgroups (or something)? I'm going to ssend out some stuff on the Parliament today (per Mike's request). Peace - John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 14:18:24 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Parliament of Religions info General Info on the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions (Sat, Aug 28 --> Sat. Sept 4) ---------------------------------------- General Info (& Registration) Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions 105 West Adams Street, Suite 800 P.O. Box 1630 Chicago, Illinois 60690 312-629-2990 312-629-2991 (fax) Fees: (Family) Full Registration $500 (1-Person) Full Registration $350 also available per individual: Three Day (any consecutive three days) $200 One Day $75 (Minors are 1/2 price) Hotel and meals are Extra America Airlines is offering a 10% discount on Air Fares (5% off for Super Saver Fares) (Am Air 800-433-1790 give Star file #S-0283KI) Palmer House Hilton Hotel ($78/night per room; max 4-persons/room) 1-800-Hilton or 1-312-726-7500 -------------------------- Plenary Sessions Sat Afternoon: Opening Ceremony (invocation is Native American) Sat. Evening: Interfaith Understanding sacred dance; Panel responses from:Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, Chinese, Zoroastrian, Morman, etc.) Sun. afternoon "What shall we do" based on "Global 2000 Revisited" Sun. evening: "Call to Action" Common Meal, japanese Tea ceremony Sun Evening: Visions of Paradise and Possibility Images, Visions, and Passages from various sacred texts Mon. morning Voices from the Boundaries depth of need is matched by the wealth of wisdom and inspiration from global cultures. Mon. afternoon Voices of Spirit and Tradition glimpses of wisdom through music, dance, visual art, poetry, literature; focus on unity and diversity and interfaith dialogue. Mon. evening From Vision to Action various religious leaders facilitate a process of orientation for thought and action. Tuesday Morning The Inner Life Presentation from four honored speakers Wed. evening The inner Life and Life in the Community Invocation by Mother Theresa. Various speakers known for their community work. Friday evening The next generation Youth Representatives from various organizations Videos, readings, performances, panel discussion etc. Sat. Afternoon Closing Plenary closing ceremony and address by the Dalai Lama ----------- Many talks, workshops, panels, seminars, demonstrations etc are also ongoing. There are 3 pages of fine print (both sides) which list titles and speakers (i.e. hundreds, too numerous to mention). ---------------------------------------------- The above is brief, and does not do justice to the event.... John Mead p.s. The TS is well represented in many sessions From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 12:36:55 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: old letters 2 Hi again everyone. This letter was written also before the system crashed and I'm now sending it out to the group. This letter was also written on 8/1/93: Hi again everyone! This letter is in reponce to Gerald's comments: Gerald, first off, your letter's format was terrible. I don't know what happened, but each paragraph was one long line! There was no word wrap. If you are using WINCIM, check the "Reformat on send" box. Otherwise, try to format in ASCII at 80 characters per line. Gerald: You wrote Enochian Physics? I've seen the book but never read it. Its published by Llyewellon isn't it? Well, if indeed this is your book, that'll provide me a great impetus to read it! Let me here comment on some of your statements. Theosophists have long taught that we have within us what is called "permanent atoms" There is one each of the physical, astral and mental plane atoms. My sense of what Besant and Leadbeater teach about these permanent atoms is that they are the real basis for genetics and heredity. That even our cellular DNA results from patterns (or memories, if you will) stored within our permanent atoms. At any rate, Leadbeater teaches that your permanent atoms "augment" or actually grow, as you unfold your latent spirtual potentialities. In some respects, this is similar to your idea quoted above. Ok, I've not read your theories so I have to be careful here. However, I have a lot of expereince of trying to mix science and occultism so, on this basis, let me offere a kind word of warning. Its probably a little too much to state for at least two reasons: Frist because I strongly believe that phyicists, in spite of all their high falutent posturing, don't really have the slightest clue as to what all of thier expereimental results mean. And secondly, the reality of psychic phemonea, which stem from the mind, and from human consciousness, I do not believe can be explained in terms of things physicsts have described. I'm very sceptical of the claims of scientists. As I said in the previous letter, its unwise to believe what another scientist says unless you can repeat his results. Often this is not practical, but still, there is a tremendous amount of unfounded dogma in science. And I think the amount of dogma and B.S. is proportional to the amount of publicity that any branch of science gets. So, subatomic physics is high publicity, therefore it is high B.S., which means, be careful about what you believe! But more importantly in my mind, I do not think you can explain mind and consciousness, let alone psychic abilities in physical terms. That is the key phrase here; physical terms. In my book, I go to great lengths to show that to explain mind, the relationship between mind and matter, and psychic abilities, you need to introduce the idea of "nonphysical' matter. In short, nonphysical matter is the seven interpenetrating planes of Nature that all occultists describe, but were described especially clearly by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. In other words, the bottom line of my ideas is that our present sciences; physics, chemistry, physiology, ect. are *completely and wholley inadequate* to explain life as we expereince it directly. I am more sceptical towards modern science than anything else. This is because I do science for a living and I get to see all the crap that goes on behind the scences, and believe me, there's a lot of wool being pulled over the general public's eyes by scientists. Its a "blind leading the blind" situation. I think occultism, and especially the teachings of Theosophy, are a broader form of science. Science as we know it today cannot and will not explain occultism. this was the mistake parapsychoilogy made: thinking it could, with its meager tools, explain centuries of occultism. How presumptuious can you get?! Its the other way around. Occultism can explain all the mysteries unknown to modern science. This is a very involved topic. My book is 300 pages long and barely scratches the surface. However, I'm overjoyed that these issues have come up and I strongly suggest we continue to discuss them. Right now, let me comment on other parts of your last letter. I don't want to get into the subtleties of quantum mechanics here, but I have to agree with Einstein. God does not act in a random manner. Randomness in science is a reflection of our ignorance of cause and effect. Again, this is one place where occultism outshines modern science. What did Blavatsky always say? "There is no such thing as a miracle" or something like that. Blavatsky always said that Nature works according to comprehendible laws, and with this I fully agree. I think the trend towards accepting quantum mechanical randomness reflects the degeneracy of the values of our culture. That is, its not even a scientific question as far as I'm concerned. Its a moral question and our scientists don't have very good morals. They have poor morals actually. Again, a very involved topic that we can get into deeper as we proceed. I fully agree with this. And I think its important that others, even though this may not be their path, at least recognize that its a valid option for those whose path it is. I also have some insight along these lines. On one hand, I agree fully with Dane Rudhyar that ours is a culture in decay and decadence. Fast food, planned obsolecesne, mass markets, over population, crime, corrupt politics; all this points to the fact that we live in a decaying social order. As such, anything this social order touches decays. Thus, you have these ancient practices such as yoga, and they are denigrated by our generally lazy and fast-food oriented culture. We want instant results and thus, we don't practice to create perfection, we seek methods to speed up production, methods to produce instant gratification. This, again, is a sign of a decaying culture. However, again, along Dane Rudhayr's line of thought, there is an even greater historical event unfolding right now. Even though Western civilization is a senile old fart of a civilization on its last decrepid leg, there is the surfacing of the next level of Human evolution as a whole - occuring right now as we speak. This event transcends any culture or any single civilization. Most likely, our very civilization will provide the fodder, the humus, for the rise of the next level of human evolution. And my sense is that this next stage of human evolution will be one "independant interdependance' for lack of a better term. What I mean by this is captured beautifuly in a quote by Dane Rudhyar: "We are living in a psychological century in a time of total revolution and hopefully, at the threshold of a new age in which individuals will be able to encounter openly the universe and all experience without intermediaries forcing social, religious or ethical categories upon them." Dane Rudhyar, The Sun Is Also A Star, (1975) In my mind, this quote says it all: "..without intermediaries forcing social, religious or ethical categories.." How quickly or slowly this will occur, who's to say? Its the direction Humanity is moving, but it could be millenia before this spirit has captured the whole of the race. At any rate, I don't necessarily agree that this "western occultism' is anything more than a mere shadow of things to come. The "things to come" is a keynote of spiritual energy that has already been sounded and ever so slowly the vibe is irreversibly altering all of Humanity. I suspect that when this vibe has run its course, there will no longer be any such thing as "occultism", for what we today consider "occult" menaing "hidden" or "concealed" will eventually come again to the surface of our consciousness and just be the normal course of events in human life. So, that's enuff for now. I invite all comments and criticisms from any of the group members. All my best to everyone, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 12:36:47 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A Response to Don Don, Sorry about the formatting. I write using Wordperfect, save as ASCII, and upload via WINCIM. I have never had the problem that you noted before, but will try to remember to check the "Reformat on send" box, as you say. Thanks for the tip. I don't fully share your denigration of scientists, but I certainly agree that they haven't a clue about psychic (or higher) realms. They consider consciousness to be the product or resultant effect of matter as prime cause; in short, they have it just backwards. Consciousness is not a product of the brain. My *theory* is that we are inherently a consciousness-center (HPB's term) and that matter is one of our expressions in spacetime. I am an engineer, not a scientist. But I have found most scientists to be well-intended and fairly open-minded. However, the *new* sciences, such as chaos science, have left many in the dust. After all, scientists are human beings, and human beings have always had a hard time changing their worldview. I don't expect scientists to embrace theosophical ideas until such ideas can be proved in a lab - and this won't be done for awhile yet. But I see scientists in general as slowly approaching a theosophical worldview in spite of themselves (they are coming kicking and screaming, as it were). First of all, let me qualify my statement about *all* psychic phenomena, etc. What I meant was psychic phenomena that act through the physical body, such as levitation, health, long life, strength, invisibility, the production of heat, and so on. Science clearly does not recognize such phenomena. Yet people have claimed to do these things, and others have claimed to see them, far too much to be dismissed. My theory is that consciousness changes subatomic particles (their spin, for example) in the body during meditation. Yogis know this to be true in many ways, such as opening the kundalini (which science has not yet recognized). Besant writes that meditation can physically affect the brain, headaches being one symptom of this. I know of several people that, after heavy meditations, have been able to detect feelings and thoughts in others, that they couldn't do before. I also have observed phenomena in myself as a result of meditations over long years. *Something* is certainly going on. Your "nonphysical matter" is, in fact, my 5th dimension - the dimension of consciousness that science has ignored so far. I am not familiar with the term "permanent atoms" but they seem to be equivalent to monads, with which I am familiar. But you say that they "actually grow." As far as I am concerned, if something grows (i.e., changes) then it can't be permanent. Something is wrong here. How can something be permanent and yet grow? (Perhaps *permanent* is meant in a relative sense; i.e., relative to the physical(?).) My own theory is that we each have within us a divine spark or consciousness-center, and this consciousness- center is a monad, and it does not grow or change in any way because it is outside of the spacetime continuum where all growth takes place. Its expressions in spacetime change (they can both evolve and involve) but our inner monadic essence is unchanging and eternal. Now, I would like to say a few words in defense of chaos. I wrote an entire book on the subject, but so far it has not been published (2 rejections to date) possibly because of its explosive nature. Chaos was ignored and misunderstood by most scientists, who lumped its effects (which they could not ignore) into a "fudge factor" in their equations and pretended it didn't exist. It does. Chaos is also ignored by most occultists who like to think that All is Order and Perfection, and that chaos is ignorance, and like darkness, it will disappear with the light. All of these otherwise esteemed people forget about duality. I like to think that there is a great law operating through our universe called the Law of Duality. According to this law, if there is order in our universe, then there must also be chaos - you can't have one without the other. I have called its effects *the Chaos Factor* and have found that this factor can jump up and bite us at any time, despite our karma (the Chaos Factor is under our collective karma, and is not subject to our personal karma). Anyway, insight into this factor allows me to understand a lot of what goes on in the world that is otherwise unexplainable. I cannot agree that because cause and effect (themselves a duality) simply cannot explain some phenomena. The quaint *explanation* "you must have done something to deserve this in a past life" begs the question, and in my opinion is of little value to us in the present since we have no memory of it. I have become a firm believer in randomness, and I got this way from years of experience and study. Order itself implies the existence of randomness - both are required and you can't have one without the other. I want to thank you for your letter, and for your insightful thoughts. I am looking forward to reading your book. Maybe I will read Dane Rudhyar as well. But the idea of a new level of humanity rising today is not new to Rudhyar, cause HPB said it too. She said we are in the middle of the Fifth Root Race and that the beginning of the Sixth Root Race has already begun, especially in the USA. This has nothing to do with the Aquarian Age, as you know, but reflects a far larger time cycle. I like your idea of the word *occult* becoming antiquated, but I fear it will not be in our lifetimes. I also like your quote because this is the battle cry of the OTO and other magical groups. While I remain a loyal theosophist, and am not a member of the OTO (Aleister Crowley's thelemic organization) I nevertheless applaud their goal of non-servility. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 12:37:12 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Gerald's conversation Hi even again everyone!! Well, this is a fresh responce to Gerald's latest letter. So, it looks like the group is going to get the whole conversation thus far dumped on them in one big lump! So, this is all directed to Gerald's letter. First Gerald, let me say that this is getting fun. I think we have a great talk going here. Let me address specific points you raise: < My *theory* is that we are inherently a consciousness-center (HPB's term) and that matter is one of our expressions in spacetime.> Well, we agree fully here. Though a statement like this needs lots of elaboration. < But I have found most scientists to be well-intended and fairly open-minded. > I guess it depend on how you frame the situation. I know many scientists, either my university profesors or my co-workers now at the university. I don't know if I would apply the term "open minded" to them. Mostly, as a group, they are nice and sincere people. Some of them are even cool people, but, generally speaking, I don't consider them intellectuals, at least not of the type we are here. We are "seekers" and are not content by the usual answers. Most of the scientists I know personally are not seekers and they are highly content to go with the status quo. In short, most scientist I know do a trade, and they do this trade to make a living. My impression is that they really don't care very much what is behind their activity, nor do they question beyond what are acceptable and legitamate questions. See, my denigration of scientists is not a personal attack on the people that do science (well, there may be an exception to this occasionally, i.e. Hawkings' secular pompous nonscence). My denigration is on the way our cultural in general glorifies science. It is simply not all its cracked up to be. Like I said, there is a lot of talk in the popular press, but this is an altogether different thing than what goes on day in and day out in laboratories, scientific conferences and journals, classrooms and funding agencies - which are the real life things that make science what it is. See, it is the seekers such as our selves who have glorified science with the expectation that it can answer the profound truths of life that we seek. I completely bought into this attitude years ago and have since discovered that it is a falsehood. Science cannot provide the answers we seek. Science is an interesting intellectual endeavor, but it is not "soul food". The pronouncements of science have a very, very limited vlaidity, either confined to some mathematical formalism (like quantum mechanics or chaos theory) or to a specific experimental setup in which a natural thing is isolated from its natural context and then dissected (in this latter case I have much expereince). These are very limited viewpoints and to attempt to apply them outside of their boundaries is, more often than not, quite misleading. Who knows? Maybe one day. But really, a lab is a physical thing. Most of the ideas of theosophy refer to nonphysical things (i.e. thought-forms, auras, chakras, ect). Physical things cannot measure nonphysical things, otherwise, for example, our eyes could see astral matter or we could touch astral matter, ect.. At best, we can devise instruments that allow us to *infer* nonphysical factors (as for example, quarks and neutrinos have been infered from things we can measure, but these particles never have been measured directly, and some claim that quarks never will be directly observable). But attempting to build sophisticated devices soley to infer nonphysical matter is a tremendous waste when we actually have latent faculties that allows to directly percieve nonphysical realities (i.e. the third eye). Herein is the reall ""proof" of theosophical, or more generally, occult teachings. Learn to do it for yourself, then it doesn't matter if skeptice don't "believe" in the nonphysical. For if you have expereinced it first hand, then this direct expereince is worth infinitely more than anyone's academic and merely intellectual statements. Regarding your starements here, about psychic events that are physical. See, the physical and nonphysical facets are intimately intertwined and these ideas are taught very clearly in the theosophical literature. In a certain sense, the physical does not cuase the nonphysical or vice versa. These are actually simultaneously existing levels of our being that either may operate together in more or less harmony with themselves. It is the interacting resonances of thesse levels that affect each other. Thus, for example, dissonant emotions can lead to disharmoniuos vibrations in the whole human, and these disharmonious vibrations can then affect the physical body (via the central nervous system) and lead to ill health. You go on and mention the fact that meditation causes changes at the physical level. You site your own and other people's expereince as example. You then appear to be attributing these changes to consciousness acting upon subatomic particles. See, actually you hit upon a profound question. First, lets accept that mediattion causes changes at the physical level. So, the profound question is: how are these changes affected? First off, a lot of these changes can be explained in traditional neurophysiological terms without any recourse to occult iddeas at all. Understanding of the relationship between the brain and behavior has advanced considerabley in past years and many chemicals are now known that mimic many behavioral changes that people display. So, for example, a particular meditation excersise causes as increased activity in certain brain regions. These regions in turn produce chemicals that then affect another part of the body say, increasing body temperature or causing a headache or whatever. Simply, you do not need to evoke subatomic particles to explain these physiological changes. The levels of cause and effect are biochemical (cellular) and physiological. Now, all this of course raises the profound question of the intent, will power and consciousness behind the meditation excersise. For we have to use our mind and our will to perform a meditative excersise that will eventually cause changes in the body(ies). Where do these - mind and will - come from? And how is it that the manifest on the physical plane? Again, the best explanations I've seen of this involve theosophical teachings of the astral, mental and buddhic vehicles, the chakras and the etheric body. I would suspect that the mechanisms whereby the astral and mental plane energies can cause changes in the etheric body are beyond modern physics. Changes in the etheric body causes changes in the physical nervous system and this may involve subatomic physics. However, the mechanisms behind the ehteric/physical connection are probably beyond the scope of modern physics. I say this because the traditional occult idea of the energy that links etheric and physical levels is called prana. Prana is a form of etheric energy. I don't know of any idea in modern physics that can easily correlate to the idea of prana. I think of the situation like this: prana simply must be real. Centuries of expereince by yogis cannot be ignored. If indeed prana is etheric energy, then it is likely energy from either subatomic levels or a form or aspect of electromagnetism that has not yet been identified by scientists. Thus, again, the conclusion here is that evoking what is known in modern particle physics probably will not give you as good an explanation of how consciousness acts on the physical body than is already available in occult/yogic/theosophical teachings. The implication here is that we can use occult ideas to suggest models and expereiments that will expand the scope of modern physics. I would recommend, Gerald, that you check out Leadbeater's book "The Chakras". The basis for most of my statements are derived from this book. The term "permanent atom" has a very precise meaning in the theosophical literature. Permanent atoms are *not* monads. The monad contains within it, or I should say, affiliated with it, these permenant atoms. It is by using this concept that Besant and Leadbeater explain how a monad can carry over qualities of a previous incarnation into its current incarnation. In other words, this idea is the theosophical concept of how heridity works. The genes that scientists have discovered stem from these permenant atoms. The best description of them is in Annie Besant's book "A Study In Consciousness" which is highly highly recommended reading. Besan't book is extremely profound. Briefly, the permanat atoms (pa) reside within the monad, are attached to the monad by an energy thread, if you will. There is one pa for each plane that the monad incarnates into. As a monad gains expereince in a given plane, that pa is the receptical of the vibrations the monad expereinces in that plane. As the monad's expereince enlargens, the vibes stored with in the permenant atom increase. The next time the monad incarnates into that plane, its body in that plane will be composed of the vibes stored within that pa. This is the basic idea of permenant atoms. I understand your use of the term "permenant" as refering to something eternal. This is not what Besant and Leadbeater meant. They were refering to "permenant" in the sense of factors that persist between incarnations, which is only a relative permenance. Uh oh! Last major topic to address: chaos theory. I too have a great interest in chaos theory, Gerald. It is highly relevant to my fields of experetise, i.e. biochemistry and physiology and the application of chaos theory to these types of systems is growing exponetially. < Chaos was ignored and misunderstood by most scientists, who lumped its effects (which they could not ignore) into a "fudge factor" in their equations and pretended it didn't exist.> Let me give a brief run down of chaos theory for the other group members and also to lay a basis for further statements I shall make ahead. Chaos theory is a form of math. A new form of math. It is like fractal geometry in terms of how the equations are set up and solved. Technically, what you do is take a nonlinear equation and iterate it. This process leads to a graph of the equation and if such a graph displays a pattern (or orbit is the technical term) in which there are an infinity of possible orbits, then this graph is called chaotic. First, Gerald, may I suggest that your interpretation of chaos as the opposite of order is not pertinant in the context of chaos theory. The reason scientists call these graphs "chaotic" is not because there is no order there, on the contrary these equations are completely ordered and totally deterministic. You plug in a number to your function and you always get the same answer back. This is what a deterministic equation does. However, the reason these equations are called "chaotic" is because, say you plug in number x and get a certain orbit. Now consider the number (x + a very small, infinitely small as a matter of fact, number , ususally denoted by the term "delta"). Now, with classical equations, you could always say that, if number x, when plugged into our equation gives an orbit, then the number x+delta will also give this same orbit. This is because x and x+delta are almost the same number, so it seems logical to suppose that they'd give basically the same answer in our equation. And for the past couple hundred years, scientists took advantage of this small error in the intitial conditions (x is the intital condition, and delta is the small error) of their equations though it didn't alwyas work and sometimes a small eror in x would produce a large error in the answer - it is this that is the "fudge factoring" you refered to. So, this made the classical equations really comfortable to work with cause say, theoritically we need an x of say, 1.0000 (i.e. a perfect 1), but, say under the expereimental conditions in the laboratory all we could produce for x was say x=1.001 because of limits on machines or whatever. Now, wqith classical equations, this difference of 0.001 didn't matter and one could get away with pretending that the 1.001 was 1.0000. However, the essence of chas theory is that you can't do this. In chaos theory, in all likelihood, if you plug in the number 1.000 to your equation you will get a completely different, but nonethess completely predicatble and deterministic answer than if you plug in the number 1.001. This is what scientists use the term "chaotic" because a very small fluctuation in intital conditions (x) will produce a completly different answer in your equation. This is the exact opposite of what happens with classical equations. However, Gerald, and this is absolutely fundamental to understand. *This is not randomness!* In either case, x=1.000 or x=1.001, you get a completley predicatable and deterministic answer using chaos theory. Period. Randomness implies unpredicatablity and this is just not what is going on in chaos theory. To describe randomness, you have to use statistics and probablilty theories which are *completely different mathematical theories*. In principle a chaotic system is just as deterministic as Newtons equations of motion. Again, what seperates chaos and classical equations is the status of intital conditions. With classical theory you could get away with assuming that small errors in intital conditions were insignificant. With chaos theory you cannot make this assumption. This has nothing to do with randomness at a mathematical level. To the best of my knowledge, there is no mathematical connection between chaos theory (which is an extension of classical deterministic math) and probablility theory. To the best of my knwoledge there is no relationship between probability theory and any other branch of deterministic math! Probability sits there all by itself. This, as a matter of fact, has been the biggest problem with quantum mechanics because people today associate a probablistic interpretation with the math of quantum mechanics. This is not a formal interpretation, it is a mental overlay on top of the math. A lot of scientists still believe, like Einstein did, that this is a wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am one such scientist. The association of probability with quanum mechanics is purely analogical, which is not formal mathematical proof by any strech of the imagination. And its deductive proof, not analogy, that is the criteria of mathematical relationship. Thus, the door is still wide open to model quantum mechanics in a compeltely deterministic fashion. And actually, I think chaos theory here is extremely relevant inso far as, when we make actual and real life mesurements there is always uncertaintly in our intital conditions (i.e. the delta I described above). I suspect that the real essence behind the Heisenburg uncertaintly principle may have its basis in a chaos interpretation of quantum mechanics. And what would it do to replace the uncertainty principle with a chaos theory model? It would make quantum mechanics much more deterministic than it is now!!!! It would be a giant step towards eliminating probability (i.e. randomness) from quantum theory. So, having outlined what chaos heory is, let's address some of your comments about it. Yes, in a limited sense, there is a law of duality, but if you look at the impetus of science over the past 400 years, and look at the basic tenants taught by theosophy, the underlying idea is that, *in diversity, there is an underlying unity.* Science has been one long quest to sift through this diversity and attmept to discover the underlying unity. And actually, theosophists have quite clearly stated this underlying unity in qualitative terms, and believe it or not, scientists also have the answer in theiri hands, only they don't have the collective wisdom to see it for what it is. Let me start with a simple example to make my point. Consider the numbers. There are basically two types of numbers: positive numbers and negative numbers. They are mirror images of each other. See, the duality is that you have the mirror images, the unity is that they are all numbers to begin with. Its the same with us humans. There are male humans and female humans, hence your law of duality. But the underlying unity is that men and women are humans. And our essential humaness far transcends and outweighs the differences that exist becuase humaness expressess itself in the duality of male and female. Now, to carry this logic to physics. See the essence is not chaos verses order. As Blavatsky herself says, "everywhere is the working of universal laws". In essense there in no such thing as chaos, not in the sense you use the term. Anything that appears to be chaos in your terms does so becuase we do not have the right framework of understanding to see the laws in operation behind the phenomena. This has always been the attitude of scientists and they have constantly searched and sifted through myriads of seemingly chaotic phenomena and events in the quest to find the underlying order and unity behind appearances. Ultimately, the principle of underlying unity is patheticaly simple. Again, as I said above, theosophists know it already, scientists know the idea but do not see it in its broadest significance like theosophists do. And to give it a simple label it could be called "the law of harmony", or to use Rudhyar's term "the law of cycles". This is the ultimate principle upon which our reality and expereince, at every single level rests. This is the OM of Brahman, the universal law behind all apearances. All is vibration and all obeys the principles of vibration. There is harmony and there is discord, but this dualism is complety contained within the law of cycles, of vibration. Harmony and discord (which correspond to your law and chaos) are but the two faces of vibration. And every single phenomena in Nature, or more precisely, the entire Maya, operates according to this principle. Its extremely important to qualify all this by attributing the law of vibration to the Maya. Because Maya is the relativity of form and existence. None of what i am saying here applies to the Absolute, to Brahman, God, ALL THAT IS, or whatever term you use to denote the eternal and absolute essence behind all appearances. The eternal has all characteristics and has none. It is a paradox and beyond the boundaries of all form. So, everything I say here only applies to the Maya, or, as Plato said, "the shadows on the cave wall". Again, it seems to me that our difference here is one of semantics and interpretation. What you call "order" I call "harmony", what you call "chaos", I call "dissonance". Again, i do not think the chaos theory of modern phhysics is even pertinant to this discussion. And the implication, apparently between our respective formulations of our life and expereince is that with the order/chaos idea you end with an unresolvable duality which you call "the law of duality". The implication of my formulation is that duality is only seemingly real and underneath is underlying unity, i.e. the law of vibrations. Now you bring in another point I'd like to address and this is the idea of "emergence". You stated it thus, <" I have called its effects *the Chaos Factor* and have found that this factor can jump up and bite us at any time, despite our karma > Emergence is the advent of new stuff, the unpredictable coming into manifestation of something completely new and different and novel, often quite unexpectely, something of which, I'm sure, all of us are familiar. Now, you consider emergence to be a reflection of randomness, if I read you correctly. I however, see the situation quite differently. Aside form my professional interest in science, I have a strong avocational interest in art and I both draw and write music. Thus, i have a lot of experience with creative emergence. When drawing or composing I'm always surprised to watch the art unfold, seemingly of its own accord, to grow before my very eyes. Often i sit down with some faint idea of what I'd like to draw or compose, but once I start on something, the end product is always much different than what I may have been originally thinking. This is emergence. My sense of this process is that, contrary to the popular view of the artist as someone creating something, that its actually a process of channeling. That is, I've ceated nothing. My role in drawing or composing is as a vehicle that allows something pre-existant to manifest here on the physical plane. Or in other words, the skills I have developed that allow me to draw or compose also allow me to be a suitable channel for a force that transcends me, Don, the guy sitting here writting this stuff. Perhaps you could say this transcendendal force is my "higher self' or what have you. At any rate, the point of all this is that I don't see emergence as a random process. I see it as a process of a suitable vehicle channeling a transcendental energy through into the physical plane. The aspect of novelty or unexpectedness is again a function of my ignorance of these transcendental forces. These forces however are not random or unpredictable in principle but are, in all likelihood, completely understandable within the proper framework. We are all nested within greater cycles of being, and these cycles will unfold themselves through us. If we are ignorant of these greater cycles then this creates the illusion that something unexpected is occuring when, in actuality, it is some larger cycle unfolding within the context of quite logical and comprehendable (i.e. predicatble) laws. I'm sorry Gerald, but Blavatsky has just rubbed off on me a little too much. I can't turn back even if I wanted to. This idea that law pervaes all reality, and all levels of existence (of the Maya again) is so permeated in my thinking and is so justified in my expereince that I can't begin to imagine a world, a universe, in which order did not prevail everywhere. And importantly from a personal perspectivehaving this idea in my mind creates the constant and never ending challenge to me that I don't know it all, and that I continue to learn as I go. New emergence reveals to me my previous ignorance. And I try then to eliminate that ignorance until my new situation is comprehendible. This process itself is a cycle, subject to the one law of vibration, of harmony and dissonance. Well, thats enuff for now. Boy I've really rambled on here! I still hope this is not a bother or inconvinience to anyone. At any rate, I really enjoy this, and I really believe that this kind of discussion is nothing but completely productive and good in every sense of these words. All we can do here is accelerate each others growth. So everyone, take care till the next exciting installment! Bye, Don DeGracia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 12:37:02 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: old letters Hi Everyone! This is a letter I wrote before the system crashed (written on 8/1/93) so I'm sending it out now. I'm writing in reponce to Leonard's letter (of 7/29), but this material is directed to the whole group. < I don't have MS Windows. I installed it when it first came out, but I got mired down in the detail> If your machine can handle Windows (i.e. you have the appropriate hardware), I'd really recommend using it. Its much, much better than DOS. Now that I'm using Windows, I won't go back to DOS. Windoiws is very well designed and it makes your computer a much more efficient machine. If you need any help at all, I'd be very happy to help get you going, and I'm sure others here in the group could help too. I'm for freewheeling it. Once school starts, I won't have any time to read anything other than my school work. < HoloNet. Cost: $6.00 a month plus connect charges of $2.00/hr. offpeak and $4.00/hr peak. Local call in over 850 cities nationwide; modem to 510-704-1058 (8N1) to find the closest access number and a free demo.> This sounds like a good idea. I was telling Mike that I am concerned with costs and that we need to find a cost effective way to hold this group. Right now, its costing me too much to operate out of CompuServe. What is everyone else's feelings on this? Leonard, I gave a brief intro to Occult Chemistry (OC) in a previous message. I myself am greately interested in this topic. Generally, i think the greatest significance of OC is that it serves to vindicate the theosophical world-view more strongly than anything else I am aware of. Its easy for skeptics to dismiss theosophy and other forms of occultism for any number of reasons, but OC is not easy to dismiss. An interesting approach to OC that won't boggle us down in chemistry and physics is to focus on *how* Besant and Leadbeater clairvoyantly observed the elements. They claimed to have used a psychic ability (or siddhi) called "anima". Anima is the ability to percieve minute and gigantic structures. Patanjali desribes this ability in the Yoga Sutras. According to both Leadbeater and Geoffrey Hodson, there is an organ in the third eye chakra in the etheric body, a tube with an eye at the end of it, and it is by using this organ that one develops anima. The Egyptians seemed to have known about this organ as it's represented by the snake that protrudes from between the eyes in some ancient Egyptain art. Now, the psychic ability anima is generally little known here in the West, as opposed to other psychic abilities such as telepathy or telekinesis, which are better known, However, though the anima is not recognized as a psychic ability here is the West, there are actually many documented cases of it. One of the most famous examples is the chemists Keluke who discoved that the molecule benzene has a circular structure. According to popular myth, Keluke is reported to have had a dream about oroborus, the snake who eats itself from the tail (the one in the theosophy symbol), and by seeing this he realized that benzene was circular. But, this is the popular myth, and I was even taught this in school. However, I have read Keluke's actual journal entry about this expereince and in his own words he describes how he would come home from the lab at night and rest in front of the fireplace. Often, he explained, he would see marvelous visions when his eyes were closed, though he himself says that he wasn't asleep. One night in this amazing state, he saw dancing colored lights forming all kinds of interesting geometric patterns, patterns that he fancied were the atoms of his body. He says that he saw a group of these colored lights form into a circle and it was then he realized that benzene was a circlur molecule. So, what this all sounds like to me is that Keluke actually possessed a rudimentary clairvoyance and actually saw atoms and molecules much like Besant and Leadbeater did. It seems that Keluke has the spontaneous ability to use anima. Furthermore, you will note that Keluke claimed that he was *not* asleep, but just highly relaxed. Thus, he did not dream. The expereince Keluke describes is called by psychologists; the hypnogogic state. Hypnogogia is the state that occurs right before one falls to sleep. This state is characterized by the fact that one often percieves images, very vivid images. I myself have seen a lot of things in the hypnogogic state and as well have often used it as a spring board into the state called astral projection. Many of the members in the group may have actually had the expereince of seeing vivid images of perhaps faces or forests, buildings, or anything, as they have fallen off to sleep. If not, I strongly recommend to all members that you try to pay close attention as you fall off to sleep. Pay attention and look for these images. They will come if you don't just drift off to sleep. Now, my reason for going off on all this is the following: I very strongly believe that the ability that Besant and Leadbeater used to see atoms - anima - is within the grasp of all the members of this group. To some extent or another, you can learn to do exactly what Besant and Leadbeater did. By learning, even if only to a minor degree, to use anima during the hypnogogic state, then you will see *first hand* that there is a very real and substantial basis behind Besant and Leadbeater's claims. This prevents alienating you from their teachings and also brings their teachings closer to home, makes them more real in your personal expereince and less abstract and obtuse. This way you have some type of experiential basis for accepting or rejecting what other Theosophists have taught and you will not be so depandant to accept their ideas on sheer authority alone. I think this approach is very, very important. It is the way science works. A scientist does not simply accept what another scientist says. Ideas are constantly tested, and only those ideas that hold up to independant confirmation get accepted. I think this is a very useful policy to initiate for any learning, and most especially for any occult learning. That is not to say that its not useful to study the teachings of the great teachers who have come before us. What I am saying is that, along with studying and learning the ideas, you must develop concrete means of testing the ideas as well. You need both approaches. If you just learn the ideas without them having any relevance in your actual experience, then the ideas don't have a lot of worth. At the very least, you stand on very shakey intellectual grounds. On the other hand, if you can spit out a bunch of ideas and *at the same time* teach people methods that will allow them to confirm your ideas, then you are on subtantially better intellectual grounds. I strongly recommend that we as a group try to find concrete methods that substantiate the theosophical ideas we discuss. Thus, if we are to discuss Occult Chemistry, I recommend that we discuss methods whereby each of us can, to some extent or another, actually *see for ourselves* that what Besant and Leadbeater taught has a basis in actual fact in so far aas we can develop similar faculties. It takes very little effort to pay attention as you fall off to sleep at night, and I'll bet that if every memeber of this group did this, that by the end of the week at least one of us will report having seen a hypnogogic image. These hypnogogic images are a rudimentary form of the type of clairvoyance that Leadbeater described and used. So, there, that's a different slant on Occult Chemistry, a slant that puts the material within each of our grasps, and none of us really need to know much about physics or chemistry to appreciate this aspect of Occult Chemistry, which, again, we are now focusing on the psychic ability - anima - used by Besant and Leadbeater. So, that's it for now. I'll be very happy to hear anyone's comments on anything said above. All my best, Don > Date: 16 Aug 1993 13:48:05 GMT Submitted-by: oneill@cs.uml.edu > Posting-number: Volume 23, Issue inf02 > Archive-name: admin/starter.kit [Date of last change 11-Nov-92 Release 1.9.1] UseNet CBIP Starter's Kit This kit contains what you will need to begin downloading files from comp.binaries.ibm.pc. This kit contains: 1) Instructions 2) Text source for UUDECODE 3) Documentation for UUDECODE 4) BOOZ 2.0, ZOO extractor, in uuencoded form All you need is a file editor. What to do: You will need to split this file into 3 parts. Each part is separated by a line stating "---CUT HERE---" and a short description. Using a text editor, separate the parts for the UUDecode program and the BOOZ extractor. Save the UUDecode program as "uudecode.com", making sure that there are no blank lines at the top, and the first line begins with "ENC.COM.". This is a special encoding of an executable which is a true text file, but is still executable. It was produced with COMT by Alex Pruss, and the file was provided by him...this eliminates the need for BASIC or DEBUG to create UUDECODE.COM... Make sure you save it as a DOS file, with CR-LFs at the end of each line. Then use the UUDECODE program to decode BOOZ into executable form by saving the BOOZ.UUE file and saying UUDECODE BOOZ.UUE This will create BOOZ.EXE, which can be used to extract ZOO archives by specifying BOOZ X FILENAME NOTE: This file is for the purpose of ease of use on any system. Although other formats (such as shar files) are easier to handle, they present a problem on the portability between systems. UUDECODE.DOC by David Kirschbaum UUDECODE uudecodes uuencoded files to original binary form. It is compatible with the Unix (and other) uuencode/uudecode utilities. Usage: UUDECODE Displays usage message, prompts for input file name. UUDECODE [-o ][d:][\path\]filename.uue Produces a uudecoded file, with the filename taken from within the uuencoded file (which might include a path), (provided the filenameCODE /? (or -?) Writes a brief help screen to STDOUT and terminates. Notes: UUDECODE checks for existing files with the same name as the newly created output file. It will produce an error message and abort if it finds one! (Use the "-o" switch to force overwriting existing files.) UUDECODE will accept an input path\filename up to 80 chars long, and will prompt if none is specified. A uudecoded filename is taken from the uuencoded source file and is written to the current directory (or to the path included in the file header). Input files may be any length. Uuencoded file headers (mailing headers, etc.) need not be removed. However, any spurious lines between the "begin" and "end" lines MUST be removed. Anything beyond the "end" line is ignored. If no "end" is found, the output file is saved, but an error message is displayed. Certain uuencoders append a "checksum" character to the end of each uuencoded line. UUDECODE ignores these. Uuencoded files generated or moved through a Unix system may have LF (ASCII 10) line endings instead of the DOS-convention CR/LF (ASCII 13/10) endings. UUDECODE will handle those LF ends of line as well. you MAY get a "end not found" message, but the uudecoded file will be intact. Certain systems and mailers will strip off trailing spaces on lines. UUDECODE attempts to replace them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 17:52:22 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Don's Intro-Theos windows file - feedback Hi -- I received a few comments from Nathan (and John Algeo) reagrding minor changes to Don's Theosophy Help file. =========== four brief comments ============== 1. HPB Bibliography --- DROP one written by Mead ADD new one by Sylvia Cranston 2. Leadbeater Bibliography --- DROP one by Tillet (not a good reference) 3. Add Rudyar selections --- _Planetarisation of Consciousness_ and/or _Rythm of Wholeness_ 4. Add Information (Bibliography or etc) a. Olcott b. Judge c. G. De Prucker (sp) 5. Some general discomfort with the user friendliness of the system, and limitations of the software (usuable only on/with Windows). { I find number 5. interesting... It probably says more about Wheaton computer illiteracy than anything else???} ======================================================= This is good sign ... i.e. no major complaints. The main problem with using it at the coming Parliament is mostly one dealing with logistics (i.e. having a Computer out to use ==> having one out to be stolen, etc.). I am still waiting to hear if TPH wants the added responsibility (i.e. to baby sit hardware during the week). My comment was that if they had inventory out on display *anyway*, well ... a computer is "harder" to walk off with (but more tempting??). Hmmmm... I have volunteered to help set it up etc.; However, I'm not sure that the People at TPH will want the responsibility. In any case, I told them we (i.e. Don) were going to go ahead and make the changes and then place it out there (Cyberspace) for public access. Take Care -- John Mead p.s. Don -- if we get this distributed (i.e. post to CIS, and etc.) we could then try a study Guide.(??) It would be nice to get some feedback from the other group members on this idea, as well as format etc. Perhaps someone could volunteer a topic/Subject?? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 22:32:29 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Response to Don on Chaos Don, I want to thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful ideas. I suspect that we are in agreement with most of this, but semantics are getting in the way, except for one problem which I will get into. I write this in the spirit of loving and friendly discussion, and nothing more (I don't know anyone here enough to be personal, and wouldn't do that anyway). I hope to tread on no ones toes. My reason for using subatomic particles was not out of any *need* to evoke them, as you say. But rather that they (especially virtual fields and virtual particles) help us to understand the boundary line between matter and energy (which is an expression of spirit - matter's polar opposite). Yoga has taught for centuries that the mind influences the body. Quantum physics helps me to understand how this can come about. Thats all. Indeed, I agree wholly that as well as subatomic. Matter and spirit/energy unite at the realm called a virtual field, where matter in the form of subatomic particles rise up into existence at a random location and then dissolve again into "quantum foam" or whatever. Scientists have completely ignored the effects of consciousness on these particle-formation processes. But they do relate matter and energy - the uniting factor being a combination of space and time (ie the speed of light). I have enjoyed Leadbeater's CHAKRAS for many years. The only idea that I have a hard time with is his image of the snake- like protrusion from the brow chakra (I believe you said he called it the 'anima' somewhere - not to be confused with Carl Jung's inner femininity). He is the *only* psychic ever to mention or describe such a thing, and his confusion of it with the Egyptian Uraeus Serpent (a symbol of wisdom shown on the headdress and statues of several Kings) doesn't help me at all. Until someone else confirms this, I remain a skeptic. But not of the psychic power itself, call it anima or whatever you want; this ability is true enough (but why single out one psychic ability with an etheric "organ" and none other?). Now, as to the word dimension, I meant it in the sense of a direction within a continuum. We can move (our monadic essence has inherent Motion) through space in three dimensions, and we can move through time in one dimension/direction (Hawking, your favorite scientist, calls this the Arrow of Time) making Einstein's famous four dimensions. My theory is that we can also move backward in time (by going faster than the speed of light with the speed of thought which is faster, and thus time has two dimensions or directions) and also move through the Cosmic Planes of Manifestation via consciousness as a fifth dimension. The planes of nonphysical matter can be considered as measured digits along the axis of consciousness, in a manner of speaking. So I talk about a space-time-conscicousness continuum. Your idea of *proof* by experimentation sounds good, but won't we each have different experiences and who will know who is correct? But I agree with you that personal experience is really all we have (other than blind faith, of course). I know from my own life so far that our experiences can change dramatically. I have been an Episcople, a Christian Scientist, a Unitarian, a Buddhist, and a Theosophist, as well as a believer, a non- believer, and an agnostic at various times. My worldview has changed greatly over the course of my life, and may change some more. I have discovered that there is a law at work here - whatsoever we experience will always tend to confirm our belief system and strengthen our worldview. Always - until we reach a point where an experience simply cannot be defined by our belief system or be described within our worldview. When this happens - called a significant emotional event, or SEE for short - we enter a dark night of the soul, so to speak, and our belief system will change accordingly and our worldview will expand accordingly in such as way as to assimilate the new experience (or we will die as a way of coping out of the whole business). This kind of process continues throughout life, making me wonder if there is any worldview or belief system that is *right* or *wrong* but making me rather suspect that all are relative. For this reason I do not claim that my own theories are *right*, but rather that they are right for me at this point in my life. This, I believe, is what relativity is all about. Life exists relative to each living person (ie to an observer), and any objective or *ultimate* existence is questionable. Which brings me to chaos and the whole business of our worldviews. I sense that you, like most folks, believe in a harmonious paradise-like existence somewhere. Obviously it is not on this Earth. Christians like to think it is in the heavens. Buddhists believe in Buddhalands where everyone follows the dharma all day long. I do not want to break, or even to try to break, anyone's worldview (a SEE is no fun to experience). So I am uncertain as to how to precede. I was going to add a lot of quotes from various books and authorities - but I don't like it when someone does that to me, preferring to hear their own opinions. So I won't. I am not a scientist, but rather an engineer. The term 'fudge factor' comes from my old college days at the University of Maryland, where engineers (who considered themselves to be practical people) snickered at scientists (who engineers considered to be perfectionists and egg-head theoreticians). The engineering professors used the term 'fudge factor' as a snide contemptuous slap at scientists whose mathematical attempts toward perfection always ended in a special term, usually on the right side of an equation, that was 'experiential' in nature and often required tables to find the right amounts. The scientists couldn't give the engineers a good reason for the extra term, except that it was needed in order for the answer to come out right. So we called it a fudge factor. Nowadays this term could probably be considered a chaos factor (I have been out of engineering classes for many years, so don't have a clue as to what it is called today). Anyway, I have not read any mathematical books on chaos science, but rather several contemporary books written for lay folks like myself. For example, CHAOS by Gleick, and TURBULENT MIRROR by Briggs and Peat. These books say that randomness and unpredictability are at the very heart of chaos science, and that they exist as realities in the world around us, and that science (and us lay readers) must face them and understand them. For example (I said I wouldn't introduce a quote, so forgive me this once): "The equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity are essentially nonlinear, and one of the amazing things predicted by the theory's nonlinearity is the black hole, a tear in the fabric of spacetime where the orderly laws of physics break down." (p 24 of TURBULENT MIRROR). As to statistics, they apply not only to quantum theory, but also to macrocosmic theories of solar systems and galaxies, and also to all living things including us humans beings (all living beings are said to be complex dynamic open systems and thus subject to chaos or unpredictability. You write which is against all of the books that I have read to date. Or are these authors taking chaos theory further than they should be? These writers use the weather as an example of chaos and unpredictability - maybe because the initial conditions, on which the equations depend, are themselves unpredictable? When we use statistics on living beings, we must always realize that they pertain only to populations, not individuals (I believe that this is also true of subatomic particles in quantum physics). Thus we can say that one in nine women will get breast cancer this year, but we cannot say with certainty that Mary Jones will get breast cancer. Why not? Because dynamic complex open systems are not predictable. Period. The Uncertainty Principle acts on the microcosmic level as a Ring-Pass-Not for our human mind. As we go farther and farther into the cellular and molecular and atomic and subatomic aspects of things, predictability lessens and uncertainty grows. But, interestingly enough, predictability is possible through statistics if we are willing to only look at whole populations. Thus we cannot say where a particle is located at any point in time, but we can predict where most particles will be located. All I have tried to do is to use this same principle on our level of everyday life using the idea of karma - which is both individual and collective. Collective karma is predictable. Individual karma is not. If a plane crashes, was it because each and every passenger did something bad in a past life that warranted his or her death in just such a fashion? Is karma an endless wheel or unforgiving law that would render life a machine always striving for balance? Exoterically perhaps, but not esoterically. People die in a plane crash (or war, or hurricane) because of collective karma. Statistics can tell us how many planes will crash next year and how many people will die (ie population). But it can't tell us the exact plane, or give us an exact date (ie sample). Why not? Because complex open systems are unpredictable; they are all subject to the chaos factor. I am not at all sure that you understand or appreciate the Law of Dualities. But the Law of Cycles is indeed a valid law (every cycle has a high and a low and thus a dual nature to it). There is no question of an "unresolvable duality" because every duality can be resolved as Buddha demonstrated with his Middle Path. That makes me think that you missed the point I was trying to make. Duality is as real as Maya. Every manifestation below divinity (the highest plane, call it what you will) is dualistic. The "underlying unity" as you have it is called nonduality by the Vedantists. To get there, you must, in fact, leave this universe (ours is not the only universe). In other words, in order to reach perfection, which is eternal and infinite, we must leave this spacetime continuum. When we leave (and of course, it is consciousness that Moves) we will no longer be subject to time and space. I do not want to change your mind, nor anyone else's mind on this (by the way, what do you others think?). I am not trying to convert or preach here, but rather just trying to get my point in. So I will close by making you a prediction. I predict that sooner or later, at some point in your life, something will happen that you will simply not be able to assimilate into your current worldview. Perhaps you will have an accident, or a loved one will suffer or die, or some other purely chaotic event will jump into your personal life and disrupt it without your permission. Whatever this event will be (I will not predict the exact event) you will not be able to see how your own karma could have let it happen, nor a loving God (or Goddess), nor anything else. You will rail at the Powers That Be and cry out "Why Me!" and receive no answer. At that very instant in your life, I want you to remember this discussion about chaos and ask yourself what other explanation could there be (and the idea that we mere mortals simply *don't know* or don't have enough data will no longer be found to be satisfactory). Actually, I don't mean to single you out, Don. I make this prediction for everyone who reads this. It will happen, in this life or the next, but likely in this one (it has already happened to me and my wife, and will likely again). Most folks are so locked into what HPB calls the molds (or is it grooves?)of the mind, that they will die rather than change their worldview. I hope that theosophists are easier molded. Enough for now. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:12:03 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: minor problem fixed... Hi -- quick note: The theos-l list had a few down moments because the listserver was not started automatically (by char.vnet.net) at boot time. The problem is now solved. You may have noticed a few messages which were REAL slow in processing due to these delays. I don't think anything was lost though (?). If there are problems when I leave town for two weeks, send e-mail to: elfchief@char.vnet.net he is the one to be notified in case of failure. I'll be checking it from the road too. Peace - John Mead p.s. Don, the reference you need is: _H.P.B.: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement_ by Sylvia Cranston; Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam, 1992. (nothing like a short title!) (nice talking to you again!) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:18:51 -0400 From: 91484615@uwwvax.uww.edu Subject: RE: old letters 2 Dear Group, This last group of correspondence seems to be a sceintist bashing; I will admit that so called scientists have made their share of mistakes, many of which I do not assume responsiblity for (other than memebership in the human race) But I am a scientist (a physicist) and genaric scientist debasement is (in my opinion) an offensive act. Physicis like Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, and Pauli, set the stage for a new level of conscienceness quantum conscienceness. The bad experiences which we have with people who are members of a certain profession do not invalidate the profession. I appologize if I have rated, but predjudice troubles me. Jay Amundson (Physicist) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:48:07 -0400 From: 91484615@uwwvax.uww.edu Subject: RE: Gerald's conversation Don, What an impressive discourse! I liked the part about Hilbert space, and perhaps we should call our dimentions, spaces. since I doubt the people who refer to them regard them as one-dintional extentions of their predessor spaces. I might interject that the metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics could be profound. The concept of observables in of quantum mechanics could be profound. The concept of observables in (sorry my connection to the network is attempting to garble me) conscienceness space, and the existence of state functions which describe the elements of that conscienceness space. Even more interesting is the concept of super-physical operators (Love) which generate hermitian eigenvalues. Science has tools that have been used yet, and the fact that many scientists are not interested is a persistant iteration of past reality. There exists; scientific understanding of things that have not been explained to the world at large. The aquisition of that understanding is not a simple task. The mountain top, brought to the people in the valley is just a rock. Only by striving, is the truth uncovered. I applaud your efforts, Thank you Jay Amundson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 00:15:38 -0400 From: 91484615@uwwvax.uww.edu Subject: RE: Response to Don on Chaos John I really enjoyed your letter, I find these longer messages so thought provoking (thanks again Don). I beleive Einstein abandoned his "God does not play dice" objection to the Born interpretation of quantum mechanics (probabilistic interpretation). The idea of complementarity seems to fit beautifully into the study of conscienceness and mesh with the concept of duality. beleive that Einstein's type -B dynamical systems (which comprise the majority of all dynamical systems) are inherantly chaotic. Chaos is essential to the understanding of the world we live in, and the Taoist's tell us that earth is the reflection of heaven, so chaos is also essential to the understanding of the things beyond this realm. This just keeps getting better! I hope we're all enjoying this as much This just keeps getting better! I hope we're all enjoying this as much as I am. Jay Amundson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 02:01:24 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: More with Don and Jerry Gerald: First, and most importantly, we are playing quite the same game here: < I write this in the spirit of loving and friendly discussion, and nothing more > Actually, I don't know if I'd use these exact words. I'd probably say, "I write this in the spirit of pure impersonality. If you take it personally, its not meant to be that way". Different words, but the essence is the same. And I'm glad we can communicate at a mature level like this. This is all quite heavy stuff we are discussing here and the last thing we want is to create attitude problems. The ideas we are sifting through are challenging enough! BTW, Jay, thanks for dropping in! I'll respond to your statements in a seperate letter. Right now, again, I will address Gerald. Gerald, first, I want to address your prediction. < I predict that sooner or later, at some point in your life, something will happen that you will simply not be able to assimilate into your current worldview.> Regading your letter, I saw immediately, and I'm sure you knew when you were writting it, that it was the highpoint of that letter. So, instead of addressing your points in succesion as I'm wont to do, let me tackle this one first, and then address the others in their turn. As well, I can't address your prediction without addressing this statement as well < I sense that you, like most folks, believe in a harmonious paradise-like existence somewhere.> Actually, I simply don't see how you could have read this into my ideas! (smile). This" law of vibrations" idea implies harmony *and* dissonance. I mentioned that I compose, and most of my music is completely atonal. I'll even untune my instruments! And writing in a key? Sure, as long as each instrument plays in a different key! Discord has an immense beauty, way beyond the harmony structure of Western scales. See, two out-of-tune notes make things called "beat patterns" and, to my ear, it is almost as if there are harmonies hidden inside the discord of the beat patterns, unbelievable harmonies, harmonies locked completely out of the music of our culture by the neofascist nature of rigid tonal Western scale structures. So, harmony, dissonance, so what? They are relative terms. To me, Beethoven is boring because of the rigid tonal structure. This I consider "bad", to me its dissonace. A glass bottle broken on the cement: now there is some rich harmony, rich texture: sounds that are beautiful to me. So, its all very relative. But yea, I am one of those people that " believe in a harmonious paradise-like existence somewhere". And you know where this somewhere is? Everywhere! Pain and pleasure are opposite sides of a circle. You ever notice how the sounds people make when they are having orgasm sound a lot like the sounds people make when they are in great pain? Hate and love are the opposite sides of the same circle. All opposites are the opposite sides of a circle. All opposites are the same thing. Its just simple logic actually. Aristotle was a fool. "law of excluded middle". Leave it to the Greeks to come up with such baloney. It was all that sun they got. Too much if you ask me. So, 2000 years later Bohr is concieted enough to try to patch up this "law of excluded middle" nonscence with his "complimentary principle" (BTW, just read a great and comprehensive survey of quantum mechanics called "The Philosophy of Quantum Theory" by Max Jammer, check it out if you want to get some syruppy, but meaty, reading about QT, especially you, Jay, this may be up yur alley). Bohr, what a fool too. Lets just dig a hole in the ground, and then fill it back up, and then think we've done something great. And for how many thousands of years has the tao symbol been around (the yin and yang symbol)? Doesn't this say it all? And its a circle to boot! Not to mention the Hindu thinking. So, actually, I do not *believe* in paradise. Hell, I live in infinity. What more could you ask for?!? See, paradise is based on the presumption that there is something wrong somewhere. I don't believe this. What is is. period. Whoopee. Good, evil, pain, pleasure, night, day. God made it all. God is the only reality. But I hate to use the word "God" because of the connotations this word has to our cultural mind-set. I do like the word "Brahman". But it doesn't matter what word we use cause all words describe God, all words are made by God. God, Brahman, the Tao, whatever. So, after all this rambling, which was actually a kind of buildup to what I want to say now, let me get to your prediction: What if ones world-view is all world-views but no world-view? What if one no longer accepts *any* distinctions, but accepts *all* distinctions? What if one completely surrenders to the infinite? What if one see beyond all concepts of relativity and distinction, beyond all concepts of identity and self-hood, beyond all concepts? What if, for arguements sake, one simply does not care? See, your prediction is valid for a certain level of mentality. People who make the fatal error of believing in the Maya, of living in the delusion that the maya has substantiality, then to these people your distinction applies. See, frankly Gerald, I've done too much acid. The acid has blown my mind wide open, has caused my personality to become complete tatters. Don is a fiction. I continue to sustain this fiction for the convinience of people who know only fiction. I, though, have no such delusions. Don is a bundle of qualities, qualities that transform through time. Time itself it the hallmark of the finite. Therefore, Don is the finite. The finite is Maya. Don is of the Maya. The maya is like the sand that slips through your fingers. To try to hold it is the hallmark of the fool. Don is ephemeral. Don is a process that exists forever, in one sence, but does not exist at all, in another sense. Our being is only a *seeming*. We only seem to exist because what we are changes constantly. Thus we are never what think we are. The second we are finished with the thought, "I am this...", we are something other than that. There is nothing to hold onto. And there, in this statement is the key: there is nothing to hold on to. *Nothing*. This is the thing you want to hold onto. This is the thing you want to believe in. This is the thing you want to identify with. This is the thing you want to be: Nothing. Because that is all that is real: nothing. See, see what happens when you take to much acid! So, yea, things will happen to me. But I only seem to exist to begin with. So my reaction to what happens to me will only seem to exist. Like all else we can know, it will pass. Whoopee. Life will go on. Other forms will move, other lives will live. Whoopee. Its all a seeming anyway. Very, very, very strange when you stop and think about it. I'm very beyond the stage of trying to understand it. i know the answer. Its not even 42! Its this: nothing. There is no answer. So, I don't play the game of trying to find an answer anymore. But, since i've played it so much in the past I've got a lot of expereince with this game of trying to find answers, so, instead of wasting this expereince, which I *could* do if I wanted, instead, I keep abreast of those who are still trying to find the answer. That's why I said at the very begining that this is all very impersonal to me. Because I already know the answer. There isn't one. But, I get a very complex type of amusement and pleasure out of communicating with those who are searching for answers, and as well, one can accumulate to infinity, and this seeming called Don has not even sctrached the surface of infinity, so, this seeming called Don continues to play the game, continues to accumulate, accumulate thoughts, experience. But there is no attachement to the game, but then again there is, but there isnt, but there is. I don't have to write all this. But what would I do otherwise? Besides, its in my face and I've learned that its best to respond when something is in my face, so i write this. Whoopee (too much Kurt Vonnegut, sorry ) So, yea. You'll get no rosy, cosy possey little mamaby bamby happy kinda nice scenarios about life from me. You'll only get nothing and everything to the best of my ability to express these inexpressible things that are the substrate of everything and nothing. Sound weird? Believe me, I can't even begin to express how weird it really is. If all that I writ above sounds strange to you, then the statement "you need to break out of the grooves" is a vast understatement. Once those grooves really break, you are right, Gerald, death seems to be the easy way to cope, but that too is an illusion. Once this damn on understanding breaks there is no going back. It doesn't matter if you are dead or alive (whatever that means!), it doesn't matter what world you are in, it doesn't matter what form you assume. There's no way to hide anymore. The illusion is broken. And the abstraction of our being begins to reveal itself, in all of its completely flipped out, unbelievable and unintelligible glory, and all the words cannot contain. Speaking of "all the words...", heres a cute poem I wrote that says it one way: Somewhere in a house I remember perchance to say A Dream Of Divine Wisdom and Passion However so elusive was this Dream All the words cannot contain Yet from a corner stares The ever-probing Intellect Who questions and argues With what there are no words to explain Poor silly concieted Intellect Why do you not also Dream? For though you think you see through all With logic sharp and clean Your logic is naught but a dream Within a dream within a Dream Just as a clue here: The "house" is the mind, and the "dream" is life. Abstract beyond your widlest hopes, fears, fantasies, dreams and expectations. Even the many-worlds hypothesis is lame in comparison, even the view of Krishna in the Bagavad Gita is lame compared to the "truth" that underlies our seeming. No product of thought I know of even comes close to capturing the unbelievable abstractness that is the foundation of our being. Anything we know is sane in comparision. As a matter of fact, sanity is a subset of insanity, not vice versa. Meaningful thought is a mere infintesmal sliver of the set of all thoughts. Like the old cliche goes "You aint seen nothing yet, baby" Well Gerald and all, I'm tired, its late, and I'm too slap happy to go on any more. Gerald, I have to say thanks. Thanks for presssing a botton in me that has catapulted me to, to, to, well....I love stimuli that pop me into this abstract never-never land that Ive been rambling on about right now. I call it the "realm of no definitions", which is where we are all at right now anyway, floating in our little bubbles of coherence in this vast sea of something far, far beyond insanity. But our poor little pathetic and simple human minds can only concieve of it as insanity, so, oh well. Gerald, I'll adress your other points tommorrow when I come out of this! zzzzzzssstssst Best to all and to all a good night! seeming to be....Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 02:24:01 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: My 2-cents of mindal-solution.. Hmmm.. alot of discussion here. all quite good too. Concerning QM... The recent issue of Physics Today had a good article on how classical Chaos can simulate the solutions of the QM wave equations. However, they also point out that some QM phenomena *cannot* be described by this (semi-classical) approach. Basically any QM effect which totally contradicts a classical physical event will NOT occur through this semi-classical approach. Some key examples are QM tunnelling and self interference. I might also mention the recent issue of Scientific American (next to recent issue now, I think) which has some very persuasive experimental evidence supporting the QM "Philosophy" versus a deterministic (hidden variable) theory. This is VERY hard to ignore and get aro anyone wants :-) ). I (also) have had the "Life" event (or two) which defy the reason of a totally deterministic Karmic Law. (Helms Happens) (a NC joke!) Perhaps another compromise (i.e. idea) is in order.. 1) QM is a deterministic theory, but it only determines the Wave function *exactly* (side-stepping measurement interpretation). 2) The "real" object, which is so precisely "determined" by QM, is unobservable (the wavefunction). .....(nice "out" huh?) 3) The "observable" events conform to classic physics. i.e. particles are observed caught IN potential wells; or observed "outside" potential wells (energy conservation is *observed*, not violated). reality does it's QM-only events (e.g.Tunnelling) only where it is "virtual" (not physically observed!). (we don't observe partially cancelled particles either) 4) The *deterministic* "Reality" of QM is an existance only in the mental plane (where the Wave function exists). Hence, the mind(s) *should* be able to affect it (and observe it) there. In fact the global consciousness can/should be able to interact with it. This can explain the separation/appearance of personal and social/society Karma (i.e. getting clobbered by an "unpredictable" Life-event). The idea is that we have a deterministic (when viewing ALL levels of existence simultaneously) theory whicha allows for a purely statistical QM "Philosophy" (i.e. non-deterministic) when dealing with the "Physical" world. I assume an enlightened individual (totally aware and active at all levels/planes) could live a life *free* from the "random" (i.e. societal and/or "unpredictable") Karmic events. Gee... I think I just straddled everyone's position (well, only in a limited fashion). The question is whether Bell's theorem (which has "proven" that QM is "Physically-Correct" i.e. PC) can allow for this deterministic approach on the higher plans. I think the answer is yes.?? comments?? Peace -- John Mead p.s. I think when people are referring to "Scientists" as a group, that they are using the word in a limited fashion to represent the Atheist/MaterialWorld-Only thinking that is (relatively often) seen in that group. Being a Scientist (or misfit of science), I too grump more than I should about that type of "closed" thinking. But then, I spend ALOT of time around those people and need the stress release to cope on a daily basis!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 03:24:00 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: too more sense worth.... Hmmmm.. may be more agreement here than people are letting onto. I was reading a work on the Vedas recently, and the author has taken the approach that music is the key to the early Hindu writings. It goes something like this: 1) Vedic man/woman approached all of life through sound/words (the Hymns were originally chanted ONLY, not written down). 2) The Musical concept of reality permeated their conceptual development to the point that they viewed all ideas on a relative basis; just as the musical scale can be started from any single vibration. Hence there is no ABSOLUTE pitch to work from. It is all relative (fractions/Harmonics etc.) to an individual. 3) To accept the relativeness of reality, the individual must sacrifice his own basis (key notes) on which he formulates his ideas. This sacrifice allows one to arrive at a position (transcended relative viewpoint) independent of any absolute reference. This allows all ideas an equality of value/pitch. 4) This sacrifice of the individual (ideas/keynotes) allows the mind to experience reality from a transcendent basis which creates (mentally) the absolute (brahman) flesh of reality. Hence the sacrifice creates the flesh of the Reality which is the true form of existence (associations <==> flesh ). probably not said well (by me), but I tried. He also has a translation of the Gita in similar vein. John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 17:03:44 -0400 From: "Leonard E. Cole" <71664.3642@compuserve.com> Subject: Windows/HoloNet/Hypnogogia Don, Thanks for your offer to help with MS Windows. After removing W's, I installed DesqView 386. I don't have the money to invest in the latest version of W's plus the W's versions of my other software, and I shrink from the major task of re-installing everything. So, I guess I am stuck in my Windowless rut. Regarding HoloNet - I recall someone (was it John?) mentioning a $25 a month fee for accessing Internet. I don't remember who said it or what access service was involved. I thought HoloNet might be a lower cost alternative. My knowledge in this technological arena is very limited, so I may be completely off base. I, personally, will stick with CompuServe until it becomes too unwieldly, inadequate, or costly for my overall uses. Regarding hypnogogia - I have experienced a few, very brief flickering images, but I have not been able to induce the state at will. The occurences have all been "accidental" and very short in duration. They have interrupted my going to sleep so I have viewed them as undesirable and useless phenomena. However, your comments, Don, have stimulated me to think it over. I am intrigued by this because I have long felt there has been too little work on the 3rd object of the T.S., i.e., "To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man." This might be an area where I can do something on my own, as experimentation. Don and Gerald, I enjoy the exchange you two have been so actively involved in. I can't comment on the same level of understanding, but I'm not ignoring your "papers" either. Keep it up. Peace, Leonard Cole From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 15:51:45 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: About Jay's comments Jay! Hello! Welcome to the conversation! What I'll do here is in this letter respond to the 3 seperate letters you sent. I agree here. In this context, I use the following words interchangebly: "world", "space", "plane". Sometimes I use the word "dimension" in this context too, but then it is very clear that I am not talking about a variable in an equation. I've thought a lot along these types of lines. At one point I was actually trying to construct a mathematical model of human consciousness based on quantum mechanical concepts. It entailed making a fractal Hilbert space (believe it or not!). I needed to use transfinite numbers though. The model fell apart when i realized that you could not map the real numbers to the class of transfinite numbers called "aleph knot". However, that was many years ago. I've since abondoned such attempts. Since then I've come to the opinion that, hell, why do we need to model these things (i.e. our human psychology)? I mean we *do* *expereince* them! It comes to the simple question, "what's the point?" I mean, lets say we construct a mathematical formalism that represents complex human psychological behaviors such as love (or more generally, emotion), memory, cognition, ect. Well, so what? Does learning this formalism make us any better as indivdual people? Will I be kinder, more tolerant? Or will I, as is usually the case, become self-rightous and think I am better than people becuase I have this complex and obtuse understanding of human behavior. See, its only a hairline away to becoming a fanatic and I no longer like to tread on this hairline. As I've told others, anything you wish to know, any process in all of Nature, is within your grasp of understanding. You don't need fancy machines or obtuse mathematics. These are mere overlays that, more often than not, blind us from seeing the simple truth of things. But any knowledge you could desire is within you already. You want to know how the brain works? You want to know what the essence of consciousness is? You want to know if there is life after death? Do you want to know about the world of subatomic particles or the vast worlds of the stars and galaxies? Its all in you already. All you have to do is learn to tap into it. As I keep telling Gerald, the yogis are correct. Their teachings lead to this knowledge. Their teachings show you how to bring this knowledge into your indivdual consciousness. And then, if you feel like making a machine or a mathematical theory, well then, go for it. You can do that too. But to expect a machine or theory to reveal to us anything but the most limited of truths is to be delusioned or to have a totally inadequate understanding of yourself as a being. You say: < The mountain top, brought to the people in the valley is just a rock. Only by striving, is the truth uncovered.> Science is for the valley people by the valley people. Yoga is the quest to achieve that mountain top. And I should add to all this, Jay, that I don't expect you to just take my word about this stuff. I've spent a lot of time and effort learning what I said above. These ideas are not self evident. I have only found them after a lot of hard work. The best I can do is suggest directions of thought and study that will profit you if you decided to pursue them. Unfortunately, here on the physical plane, I just can't directly transfer my understanding, thoughts and feelings to you. Thus, the best I can do is suggest. < Einstein's type -B dynamical systems > Jay, what are type - B dynamical systems? Whatever these equations are, its not surprising that they are chaotic. It should be clarified at this point that chaotic equations are the result of *iterating* a nonlinear equation. We've been talking all this chaos theory without ever defining exactly what it is and where it comes from and how chaos math is related to traditional equation solving. Scientists have been using nonlinear equations since Kepler (i.e. his ellipses). The difference is, these "classical" equations were subject to the "domain/range" way to solve an equation, i.e. plug in an x and get out a y, and then plot x verses y. However, the advent of chaos theory has been the advent of computers and the ability to iterate an equation. Iteration means we plug in some number to the equation, call it x, then get an answer, call it x1. Now, we plug x1 *back* into the equation and get a new answer, say, x2 and again plug x2 into the equation and get a new answer, x3, and so on. This is iteration. And you keep plugging in until your answer either goes to zero or infinity or some real number, which is called convergence. A chaos plot is a plot of the convergence of the function under iteration at some point in the defined domain. So, I just wanted to define this stuff for the others out there that may not know what we've been talking about when we say "chaos theory". Again, the idea of "chaos" refers to the fact that two numbers close to each other on the coordinate plane (domain) may give completely different answers to an equation that is iterated. Guess that's it for now. Thanks for the comments, Jay. Keep 'em coming! Best, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 15:55:39 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Gerald and Don continue Hi everyone! This is a continuation of my reply to Gerald's latest letter. Interestingly, Gerald, in Beyond the Physical, I evoke the idea of virtual particles and fields as a modern metaphor to understand what the "thought-forms" described by Besant and Leadbeater are. However, I don't want to go off on this here. Instead let me say a little about my understanding of these concepts and how they fit in to your viewpoint. About virtual particles, ect. Again, my sense here is that its like what I said with Hilbert Space. Scientists have come up with the idea of virtual particles for reasons very specific to what physicists concern them selves with. As a matter of fact the idea of virtual anything stems from the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle. See, the change in energy is a noncommuting operator with the change in time. That is, time and energy are complimentary, which means that, when you manipulate these operators using matrix algebra, they do not commute relative to one another.. Thus, the more you know of one, the less you can determine the other. The idea of a virtual particle is that its existence in time is smaller than the uncertainty alllowed by the Uncertainty principle. Thus, it is unobservable, thus "virtual". There are a number of technical contexts where this is a useful explanatory concept. Now, to say "Scientists have completely ignored the effects of consciousness on these particle-formation processes. " kind of misses the point. The idea was *created* by scientists because it serves as a useful explanatory framework for some physics experiments. To what extent you can carry the idea out of this context I am uncertain. Are virtual particles "real"? To a physicsts this is a contradiction. And furthermore, I think they could care less. Its just like asking "is Hilbert Space real?" in some metaphysical context. To a physicst it just doesn't matter. However, again, the lay public gets a hold of these ideas and reinterpretes the concepts outside of the context that scientists use the concept. So, popular accounts of quantum mechanics with a metaphysical bent will say things like; "virtual particles are a means by which God can interact with his creation", or what have you. Really, the statement is meaningless to a physicst, unless the physicists gets into the field of speculative philosophy, like David Bohm for example. So, I don't know what it means to talk about "consciousness's effect on virtual particles". Scientists don't ignore this. Its simply irrelevant to how they use the concept "virtual particle". Beides, scientists ignore consciousness anyway. The scientists who *do* get into the popular press want to convince us that all of creation is a random process of evolution and that there is no God anyway. They are fools, and to adhere to their pronouncements as if they are gospel is a case of the blind leading the blind. See, that's why the typical scientist, as Jay pointed out, is more conservative. The good scientists knows that their ideas apply only to a very limited context, either experimental or theoretical, and they don't try to mix their science with speculative philosophy. Its just so much talk. The yogis have had the right idea since the begining: Go see God for yourself, then you don't need to worry about words or concepts. New topic:re Leadbeater's The Chakras See, I've had numerous expereinces using this organ, so its much more than a mere idea to me. I have entered the dream world, or whatever plane I enter, through this organ. I've never seen anyone's etheric chakras to see whether this organ is there or not, but I've had a number of perceptions of images when in trance that appear to be at the end of a tunnel or tube, and I have used Leadbeater's idea as a explanation for my expereinces. In my mind, knowing all I know about psychic abilities, Leadbeater's idea fits Ocam's razor best. I think a couple times I've actually seen chakras. Once, in an astral projection, I saw my image in a mirror and I had neon glowing circles at my forehead and heart, though I saw nothing like a petal structure. Another time I was stiing on a floor wearing what I thought was a very elaborate robe with beautiful flower decorations running its length and decorated with gold branching inlays. But then it dawned on me that this could be the anatomy of one of my subtle bodies. So, again, I generally tote occult ideas that help explain things I've expereinced either in altered states of consciousness or in my normal waking consciousness. Also, the point of bringing up The Chakras was because Leadbeater describes how an enegy he calls "vitality" enters the chakras on a U.P.A. These U.P.A.s are probably a subatomic particle that physicsts have not described yet, thus the idea seems much along your lines of thought. About Dimensions: This is indeed the interpretation given to a dimension in the dynamical equations of space and time, at least its very clear in the case of Newton's equations. Its not as clear in Einstein's equations. In relativity, one speaks of light cones. I like the reference to Hawkings. You know I love the guy! I don't want to get into the relationship between dynamics and theromdynamics (i.e. the arrow of time) so I wont bite at this one! A theory is nice and all, but if it leads to no practicle results than it is just talk. Just *how* can we moce backwards in time? If you can solve this you'll be more famous than Einstein! Besides, the speed of thought is the speed of propagation of a nerve action potential which is about 5 miliseconds. The speed of light is 3.0e8 meters/second, considerably faster than the speed of thought by about 10 orders of magnitude! < Your idea of *proof* by experimentation sounds good, but won't we each have different experiences and who will know who is correct?> The idea behind my concept was conveyed nicely in a metaphor by Starhawk. She spoke of the mind as a house, and this house is surrounded by a garden that we have cultivated, and beyond this garden is a wilderness. The house is our conscious mind. The garden is our subconsciousm mind, or, in occult terms, our aura. The wilderness is the planes. I believe that it will take a strong concerted effort to show the objective reality of the planes, but I am confident it can happen. My prescription for obtaining hypnogogic images works, and at this point, I believe its important to get methods that work out and make them avalible to anyone who wants to use them. Once we get workable methods, then we can worry about what it is the methods produce. See, this is an "engineering mentality": don't care how it works, just that it does. For example, like I said above, I've had numerous expereinces that correspond almost to the letter about things Leadbeater has written. this is why i take Leadbeater so seriously. there is no question in my mind that there is a "consensus reality" to the planes just as there is here on the physical plane. This is an effect of keeping a sloppy mind. Its good to always work against this effect. The best method is the experimental method. This is why science works, because it tests its ideas. This is why its so important, Gerald, to always try to frame your ideas in such a way that they can be tested. If you can't test an idea, its not much good. At least that's my opinion. < Always - until we reach a point where an experience simply cannot be defined by our belief system or be described within our worldview. When this happens -called a significant emotional event, > You don't need to call it an SEE. That is, of course, one valid way to look at it. Why can't you just call it, "the result of an experiment"? Really, Gerald, take the plunge. They *are* all relative. This is extremely important to recognize. When you see this, really see and understand this, then there are no delusions. < and any objective or *ultimate* existence is questionable.> What to me is questionable is *ideas* claiming some absolute or ultimate character. Our existence is quite absolute in its relativeness. Existence is one thing, ideas about existence are another. Thanks for sparring me the authority quotes. I respect that move very much. I only quote if someone can say what I want to say better than I could. I never quote simply on the basis of authority. Yea, I got my training as a scientist at an engineering college. I know all their little attitudes towards each other. Now I'm involved in the medical field and the same type of relationship exists between medical doctors (M.D.s) and scientists (Ph.D.s). Its a petty mentality and I ignore it. About Chaos theory: Ok, Gerald, you hit the nail on the head about chaos and unpredictability: < maybe because the initial conditions, on which the equations depend, are themselves unpredictable?> This is it, this is the key. That's exactly right. Uncertainty is in the initial conditions. See, Gerald, you have to put all this in its proper historical perspective. Have you ever heard of LaPlace? LaPlace was a scientists from the nineteenth century. He believed that, with the laws of physics, man was omnipotent. LaPlace believed in a type of determinism. Thus, it became quite fashionable to have this attitude. See, there is an important principle in human history we need to recognize at this point. A movement is always followed by a movement in the opposite direction. A group comes along and says "yes", and they are later superceded by a group that says "no". There is always at any time in history some dominant, official ruling mentaility. And this official mentaility, simply by existing, creates its own opposite. This opposite is a called a "counter cultural movement". That's whats really going on here in science today. For the past few centuries there has been a trend towards absolutism in the pronouncements of science. At the turn of the century people started to rebel against this and move towards a trend of uncertainty and relativism. Einstien was the last great voice of absolutism. Bohr was the champion of relativism. Chaos theory is just a continuation of the trend that Bohr represents. Actually, this type of pendular movement in fashionable philosophies is nothing new in history, its just history doing its thing. First to one side, then to the other.. Back and forth like some gigantic lumbering pendulem. Now, the question is; to what extent do you want to get caught up in this? Again, to repeat a common theme in my thinking; screw the words. The yogis have said it right all along: go do it for yourself. Do you know what Leadbeater had to say about the sway of public opinion? I's fickle, like the weather. Its a sandtrap for the initiate. Ignore it and get on with your yoga studies and excersices. That's how I feel. Controversey is for minds who do not know what they are talking about. Its more important to learn to discriminate truth, and this comes from learning to be truthful, not from studying controversey. So, frankly, I don't care if Nature is deterministic or random. This is all just tons and tons of hot air. There's better things to do. Pictures to be drawn, songs to write, I have a wife to love, experiments to perform, things to see in the planes. I use ideas, i don't let them use me. Ideas are creatures that live in our mind, just as E.Coli lives in our GI tract. Most often, the idea creatures become parasites and they feed off our existence. And we become vehicles for the idea creatures instead of using them to enhance our own life. As a matter of fact, back to this idea about our communication being impersonal to me. This is the essence of it: I, as a living soul, feel that some idea creatures merit space in my mind and others do not. When we speak, it is these idea creatures batteling it out for the right to stay in my mind. When you challenge my ideas, you are not challenging me, you challenge these idea creatures. I take none of this persoanlly because there is nothing personal going on. This is an evolutionary "survival of the fittest" kind of thing going on between the idea creatures that inhabit each of our minds. I have no love for these creatures, no more love than I have for the E Coli in my gut. But these idea creatures are a part of my anatomy, just as E Coli is, and, as I keep my body healthy so that the E Coli don't take over my body, likewise I keep my mind healthy so the idea creatures do not take over my mind. Thus, again, nothing personal going on here. Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program: <"The equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity are essentially nonlinear, and one of the amazing things predicted by the theory's nonlinearity is the black hole, a tear in the fabric of spacetime where the orderly laws of physics break down.> See, this is what I mean about layman's interpretations of science. Its an affect of the math that Einstein used that it has singulairities. Einstien didn't build the singularities into the math. That is to say, its a weakness of the math that the equations blow up to infinity at certain points. But then, some metaphysical goon comes along and says that the singularity is a tear in the fabric of spacetime. No its not. Its a place in the equation where the answer goes to infinity. Its etches marked on paper, not a tear in space time. And its poor math modeling is what it is. "One man's garbage is another man's gold" I guess. There is a tremendous thrust in modern theoretical physics to eliminate these singularities from the models of space time and energy. I've followed this to a certain extent, but I think its all foolish this thrust for a Grand Unified Field theory. Not only is it preposterously presumptuous, but, soley on a scientific level, these guy completely ignore entropy, and, in my mind, entropy is one of the most important generalizations of modern science. If you can't account for entropy, you ain't got a "unified" field. So, again,the above quote is metaphysical hoopla that is 20 steps removed from the actual concerns of physicsts. Statistics: I know about using statistics. In my field you can only use statistics to analyze your results. There are no theoretical math models of cells or organs. Statistics is the ultimate fudge factor. I give no fundamental credence to statistics at all. They are simply a bandage on our ignorance. Here, see if you can follow this metaphor. Imagine standing on the 5th floor of a building and looking out to the street below. Below is an active city street. You see people coming and going from the various buildings, see the traffic go by, ect. From your window, it all looks quite random, but you sit there day in and day out observing the street below. You notice certain regularities: for example, that at 9Am and 5PM the streets fill up more, at noon a greater percent of people go into the deli accross the street, and at midnight you see there is very few people on the street. Now you could sit and model this street very accurately with statistics. So, at noon there is an 80% change that anyone passing the deli will go in. At 9 AM there is a high chance that people will enter buildings, at 5 PM there is a high chance that they will leave buildings, ect. So, now you have come up with a statisitcal model of the street below. Now, when you tout statistics and chance like you are, Gerald, what you are saying is that there is no reason behind these occurance you've modeled. It just happens that way because God created a random universe and the best we can do is understand these probabilites of things occuring. However, this model of the what goes on in the street below you gives some idea of what a "hidden variable theory' is. For all of those people are not mere random events only capable of being observed in bulk, or as a population. Each is an indivdual with very specific reasons for doing what he or shet is doing. That is, there is a definite cause and effect in operation for every single event occuring in that street below you. All of which is completely ignored by looking at the events on the street with statistics. See, any model based on statistics cannot say anything about cause and effect. I refuse to call a model based on statistics a theory. It is in fact only a rough outline of the charcteristics of the system, what a rough sketch is to the final painting. Again, are you going to try to convince me that what we observed in that city street was random and that there was no causes behind the behavior we observed? And furthermore, this metaphor even highlights the initial value problem in that, we observers, situated 5 stories up simply do not, from that perspective, have enough information to derive accurate initial conditions. However, if we could go and ask each person why they did whay they did, we would find perfect explanations for every event we observed. Question: Gerald, do you ever use statistics for anything? I know that in engineering you often use statistics in quality control, and perhaps to a small degree in process design. BTW, what kind of engineering do you do? Again, statistics is a purely pragmatical approach to understanding things. Very much an "engineering" approach . Statistics simply cannot answer the "hows" or "whys", it only gives broad trends and outlines. As a matter of fact, that so many scientists accept statistics shows how science has degenerated from its original vision. Scientists have become lazy. To suggest that statistics is fundamental, as Bohr has done, is just an admision of intellectual laziness, of the lack of desire to find the causes behind the statistic patterns we observe in events. In the case of quantum mechanics you get into a thing called the "measurement problem" which has to do with the problems of measuring very small things with big machines, but I don't feel even this is fundamental. Even you said, I don't believe this Gerald. Its only one point of view. And we've already established that points of view are relative. We are not absolutely locked into these machines to understand the subatomic world. Leadbeater prooved this in Occult Chemistry. So, again, I think that the schools of thought who advocate statistics as fundamental are just intellectually lazy people. And even then, these people just reflect the degenerate character of modern culture. < Duality is as real as Maya. > < Every manifestation below divinity (the highest plane, call it what you will) is dualistic.> Please. Sorry, its EVERYWHERE and NOWHERE at the same time. No, you don't get it. Our entire world is but one infintesmal expression of the perfection of the infinite. Lets see, I guess this is it for this letter. All the rest was the prediction stuff, which I have already addressed in another letter. So, that's it, another exciteing installment. Let me know your reactions to all this Gerald. And once again, this is fun. I'm having fun. Are you having fun? BTW, I'm going to Toronto for my Honeymoon and won't be back till next week. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 21:38:44 -0400 From: "Michael R. Meyer" <73053.1433@compuserve.com> Subject: Rudhyar Have been tuning into the Theos. network over the past few days. Feel like I've walked into the middle of a discussion. Waiting to learn how to tap the backlog. One thing, I haven't heard Rudhyar mentioned, discussed and recommended so much in years!!! Since around 1975! Since 1968 I was a principal associate of Rudhyar's. He was indeed one of the great hidden "Raja Stars" of the Theosophical Movement during the 20th Century. I suppose it was Nathan who suggested "Plantization of Consciousness" and "Rhythm of Wholeness." Also add "Occult Preparations for a New Age" (Quest Books, 1975) . . . NOT an astrology book! We are preparing for the school's Fall Term here at Krotona. . . and we are planning an extra special event here this Spring . . . more about that soon. Michael R. Meyer 76220,131 (CompuServe) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 21:40:33 -0400 From: "Michael R. Meyer" <73053.1433@compuserve.com> Subject: "Ecumenical" Theosophical Conference Planned by Krotona 19 August 1993 Ojai, California USA The Krotona School of Theosophy in Ojai, California is pleased to announce it plans to sponsor and organize an "Ecumenical" Theosophical Conference. The event, carrying the theme "Theosophy: Past, Present and Future," is scheduled for March 1994. It will be held at the Krotona Institute of Theosophy in beautiful Ojai, California. It is hoped all major theosophical groups will be represented at this special gathering devoted to exploring our common roots and mutual destiny. Group harmony and mutual respect will be emphasized. The focus will be on the core theosophical principles that bind all theosophists, everywhere and always, together inspite of surface differences. This is an opportunity for all theosophists to come together as brothers and sisters, to experience the living power of Theosophy that joins all true Theosophists -- past, present and future. It is an opportunity to explore or roots, our current situation and how we, as individual Theosophists and as groups, may work for creative tomorrows! Details regarding date, format and participants will be announced during September. Michael R. Meyer Public Relations Krotona School of Theosophy 76220,131 (CompuServe) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 22:54:21 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Leonard, hypnogogia, ect. Leonard: The offer for help with Windows is always open, so if you ever convert over, feel free to ask for all the assistance you want. This is my one main objective! To me, this is the main utility I get from Theosophy is that the teachings explain more clearly and comprehensivley than any other occult system about the nature of psychic abilities. I am much less interested in other theosophical topics, but the books about auras, thought-forms, clairvoyance, ect, are the ones that interest me, and as well, are the some of the absolutely best material on these topics available in the English language. I'm overjoyed to hear that you have had some expereince with hypnogogia. I wasn't kidding when I said you can use this state as a spring board into astral projections/lucid dreams. Most people have spontaneous accounts of hypnogogia, and most often the imagery is very short lived. Even at my best I've been able to stare at an image for less than a minute. Often its more a flickering in and then its gone kind of thing. Also, one circumstance I find myself in frequently is that, I will be laying there falling off to sleep and be starring at an image and not realize that its there. Then, the second I recognize it, I become just startled enough and the image dissapears. That's interesting that you considered these images to be a bother. I guess if you are trying to fall asleep, then they would be! Still, the nice thing about studying hypnogogia is that it doesn't take a lot of effort to get the images. Like I said, all you have to do is just stare behind your eyes as you are falling off to sleep and keep you attention up. If you do this, you are guaranteed to see *something*. Again, all this fits in with my philosophy that a teaching isn't worth the price of the ink used to write it down if it can't lead to results. So, I really encourage you to "practice" looking for these images. Its a great way to get into learning to eperience altered states of consciousness and, once you get used to it, then it opens the door to more extensive expereinces. Again, if you have any questions or are unsure about anythng, or want more detail on technique, just ask. I'll help out in any way i can. One thing that ties in nicely here and is also fairly easy to do, but has long term bennifits as well, is keeping a dream journal. If every morning, right upon waking, you record your dreams, this will help strenghthen the connection between your waking and dreaming minds. Again, its easy: only 15 minutes or less when you wake up. And the long term bennifits are manifold. One, it will actually help you recall your hypnogogic expereinces. Two, it is, like the hypnogogia, a "primer" type excersice for learning how to astral project. Also, remembering your dreams and recording them will help you learn more about the nature of dreams and the information they contain. I think its valid to view dreams as a means by which the subconscious speaks to the conscious mind, and you will often find useful clues that will help you get by in your everyday life from your dreams. Thanks for the nice letter and good luck looking for the hypnogogic images! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 23:13:33 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Internet Messages? I have a question. Previously, when I sent a message to Theos-L through Internet, I would receive my own message back again. I presume that this is because I was on the list and everyone on the list got every message (?). But the other day I sent several messages and have yet to receive any of them back. Did they get sent? Did something at Theos-L change so that I won't automatically receive my own mail messages? And another thing - I was told that there would be a 25 cent charge for my last message. Is this something new? Help. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 23:26:01 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Michael Meyers & Dane Rudhyar Michael! Hello! What a privalage to have you around! I'm a great admirer or Rudhyar's works. As a matter of fact, I've recently written a book in which Rudhyar and his teachings plays a key role. I am presently working on a second book about the relevance of occultism towards the social sciences, also in which Rudhyar's ideas play a central and key role. I agree completely, not only that Rudhyar was a