Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00277)

Brian: If neurobiologists are correct, most brains will come to 
understand reality if properly nurtured. It is ignorance which provides 
the necessity for just-so stories, with all the tragic consequences that 
follow when people defend a flawed worldview at all costs. 

The number of ant-rational responses has been increasing on this list 
lately. There is a good book I have been reading two weeks ago, and 
that is good for all to read dealing with Theosophical literature.

It is Richard Hofstadter's: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Its 
available in almost all bookstores today, for free in most libraries. And 
covers all of the issues brought up here lately.
Brian
--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 08/29/02 6:08:02 PM, brianmuehlbach@y... 
writes:
> 
> > If your belief is based on "inner feelings" (the "inner 
man") , "religion"
> >("Theos-" ) or even so-called "common sense" as you might claim, it 
is
> >far more likely to be wrong than theories based on scientific 
evidence.
> >
> > If what you claim is based on more then religious faith then
> > present the evidence that supports SD creation myth, the posting 
below
> >and the content of your two previous postings. And I' be glad to 
discuss
> >them. 
> > 
> >Brian
> 
> Waste of time -- since all your "limited" physicalist scientific evidence 
is 
> based solely on the lowest or densest "material" plane of universal 
> involution and evolution, and hasn't a clue about the cause, nature, 
> experience, or mechanisms of consciousness, thought, perception, 
awareness, 
> etc... And, cannot discuss the relationship between, or "binding" of 
brain 
> and mind from an objective scientific level, or explain ESP, ASC, 
action at a 
> distance or quantum entanglement, and other seminal questions that 
completely 
> baffle established reductive science (but not theosophical "deductive 
> science"). 
> 
> Besides, the SD does not support the "creation myth" of universal 
origin ex 
> nihilo, since its teachings re universal Cosmogenesis -- originating 
lawfully 
> out of the primal singularity or zero-point of infinite potential angular 
> momenta or "spinergy" -- are based solely on fundamental cyclic laws 
that are 
> logically and mathematically sound... Some of which (re: "coadunate 
but not 
> consubstantial enfolded fields" in at least three to ten+ dimensions, 
> following laws of electricity as well as quantum and relativity physics, 
> zero-point energy, zero-point origination of all fields, etc.) has been 
fully 
> confirmed by the cutting edge developments of Superstring/M-brane 
theory that 
> has falsified or modified much of conventional modern physics (which 
they 
> admit, doesn't have to be correct or truthful, so long as it works in the 
> limited area of its concern... i.e., The metric physical "space time 
> continuum." 
> 
> So, the fact that quantum physics can give us digital computers, CD's 
and 
> cell phones, doesn't mean it knows anything about how the metric 
physical 
> universe composed of the "particles" they work with, came about, or 
> originated... And, from where or what? As for anthropological 
opinions of 
> Man's origins and evolution -- their "evidence " is so sparse, and their 
> conclusions so far from being "scientific" as to be completely ignored 
as a 
> basis of logical discussion.
> 
> Suggest you seriously study the "Secret Doctrine" and find out for 
yourself 
> what it really teaches, instead of basing your prejudicial denials of 
> theosophy and bashing of HPB on second hand opinions, Nazi 
propaganda, and 
> flawed physical science.
> 
> LHM