Re: Lipton to Blavatsky to ABC
Apr 25, 2006 08:42 PM
In a message dated 4/17/06 9:43:48 PM, email@example.com writes:
> I just read all the relevant material written by Lipton that's available on
> the web.
> I agree with Lipton. I do not agree with you and what Blavatsky says is
> just the longstanding Hindu belief that everything including atoms and electrons
> has consciousness.
Well, if everything you base your ideas of consciousness on is "belief," I
believe you are looking in the wrong direction when you think -- just because
Lipton is a scientists and uses science as his crutch (which is limited to
biology and psychology that in my view are not "hard sciences") -- everything he
says is the truth. I need much more than that to convince me that you are
right in saying I'm wrong.
It's also apparent that you have not studied Blavatsky's metaphysics in depth
and therefore you have no right to make out of context assumptions about what
she is concluding. Also, if you wish to make such blanket judgments, please
quote the statements you are referring to, as well as the related metaphysics
that she claims justifies it.
In spite of all your nay saying, my ABC model is simply a logical and
scientifically consistent interpretation of the metaphysics explained thoroughly
enough in the Secret Doctrine to enable the intuitive student, especially one with
some engineering and scientific background, to understand the interrelationsh
ips between consciousness and matter, as well as with all its coenergetic
fields, particles, forms, and their physical properties. No matter what
arguments used to refute it, consciousness can only be an a-priori aspect of
fundamental reality that is a necessity for the initial radiation, involution,
evolution and ultimate formations of substantial matter -- starting from the cosmic
singularity, where they both must have their initial joint coadunate existence,
until that initial cosmic zero-point reflects itself in every zero-point at
the center of origination of every coenergetic field throughout the cosmos.
This fundamental fact of nature, while as counter intuitive now as was
relativity when Einstein intuited it, will, in my view, be the basis of the new
scientific paradigm that will eventually override both relativity and quantum physics
-- while including some modification of the holographic paradigm of Bohm,
Pribram, Susskind and others, as well as the string and M-brane theories of Kaku,
Greene, Whitten, and others.
If you can't swallow that, step outside of the scientific boat you are
trapped in, and find out what fixed and fundamental realities there are in the
universe that are keeping it afloat. Such realities can only be intuitive -- that
is, if one has any working imagination at all. I'm sure Einstein wasn't
joking when he said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> What Lipton says is limited to cells and bacteria and does not include
> more elementary forms of matter. Here are a few relevant excerpts from Lipton:
> I believe that cells teach us not only about the mechanisms of life, but
> also teach us how to live rich, full lives.
> human beings are simply the consequence of "collective amoebic
> I don't really know all of the members of the plant and animal kingdom
> either, though I believe they also comprise God.
> It is not gene-directed hormones and neurotransmitters that control our
> bodies and our minds; our beliefs control our bodies, our minds and thus our
> The above is a far cry from Blavatsky or the ABC. Lipton claims that cells
> are infleunced by EM signals but makes no claims for EM waves not already
> well known to science. His primary teaching is that what you believe and more
> important what you know about how your body functions, it functions as a
> cooperative community of organisms, will make you and your body happy. I believe
> that is true and believe that I experience it myself via the religious practice
> I have evolved.
Well, if that's your fixed religious belief -- there's no point in discussing
any of this from a scientific point of view, is there? Besides, that's
nothing more than the "spiritual materialism" Chogyam Trungpa spoke about. As
far as I'm concerned Lipton and his beliefs, based solely on biology alone have
little or no relationship to the ABC model. In any event, beliefs are in the
mind, and the mind is connected to both consciousness and matter through
awareness and will. The ABC model fully covers the reasonable explanation of
both the mechanisms and processes showing how all that works -- which neither
you, Lipton or all of science has yet to understand, let alone explain.
Blavatsky, on the other hand, certainly did know all of that and expressed it
innumerable times in her writings (which she claimed was the words of her
Tibetan masters or teachers) that synthesized science, religion and philosophy,
as well as spoke much about human psychology and the "psychic powers latent in
man (mind)," that modern psychologists are just beginning to find out about
and consider as real. She also knew all about relativity, the unity of mass
and energy, light as a wave and a force, gravity as an overall dual force that
is the "mother" of all subsequent forces, as well as quanta -- which she called
"fundamental atoms" on all planes of consciousness.
Whatever mathematics that was necessary to scientifically explain all that,
was yet to be worked out later by Einstein and others that followed him.
Unfortunately, they still can't come up with a GUT -- since they don't realize
that zero-point consciousness and its latent G-force or "spinergy" is the
linchpin that joins all those fields and forces together at the primal zero-point --
which is everywhere. Maybe it's time for them (and you) to wake up, smell
the roses, and realize that the all empowering "God particle" is in everyone and
everything. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) there are
only very few of us who know how to get in touch with it. BTW, Blavatsky's
instructions on the "correlation of forces"-- if one could find them scattered
loosely in all her writings (which took me over 15 years to search out without
attempting to reference anything) -- could be a good place to start (if one has
the time and the motivation). ;-)
> If you are really interested in the possibility that particles of matter
> like electrons and protons are conscious, you should look into Bohm Quantum
> Mechanics, for it requires such consciousness. I could even be persuaded that
> Bohm Mechanics is true. But BM is completely consistent with the recognized
> forces of nature. No higher order fields, esp EM fields are needed for BM.
I've looked into it, and while Bohm's vision is close to the ABC model, as
was Einstein's, although on different levels, I can't find any way that any of
their scientific explanations, dynamics or mathematics connects consciousness
with matter or answers the hard problems. Bringing this into our discussion
is simply another straw man to attempt to denigrate Blavatsky and deny or
refute the ABC model based on her teachings -- which covers all those grounds in
detail -- with full credit to both Bohm and Einstein as well as Pauli and other
imaginative and intuitive physicists who have come close, but not close
> My main complaint about your ABC is that it requires fields that are not
> known to exist, even to Blavatsky as far as I can tell.
As far as you can tell is not very far at all. That's because, you haven't
studied Blavatsky in depth and correlated ABCs fractally involve coenergetic
fields with her "coadunate but not consubstantial fields or planes of
consciousness." Incidentally "not known to exist" has to be qualified by "whom" and
"what" science or mathematics, etc., that can logically prove such things can't
exist? Not knowing is not a counter argument for knowing. And what I know
about those fields, I have found out by serious study coupled with
imagination, intuition, and ultimately, reasoned geometric and topological logic. If
you are able to use all those faculties based on the ABC model alone, along with
sufficient study -- you will also know. And, then, maybe, you can be the one
who correlates all its scientific and mathematical proofs. (Although I'm not
at all convinced by your arguments that you have the necessary imagination,
intuition or pertinent knowledge.:-)
> BTW- information is a hat you call intelligent information. You cannot
> define your way out of the dead end of thinking that information cannot change,
> such as in making ice from water. Such symmetry breaking is the bedrock of
> physics. To deny it is to deny all of high energy physics.
Who's denying it? The ice-water analogy has no relationship whatsoever to
the holographic wave interference information contained in conscious processes
that can be changed or modified at will. Or, even the information encoded in
the DNA molecule. Such information that serves as the "contents of
consciousness" has never been well defined by science (if at all) -- since they cannot
explain how such information is holographically transformed and transmitted
to our consciousness to be re constructed into the images we see as a hologram
outside of our bodies, etc., etc. In fact, all material or reductive
scientists don't know anything about the real nature of consciousness and how its
information is transformed into perceptions. If they did, they could easily
answer the hard problem. (But, this doesn't mean that I am knocking anything that
physics CAN explain.:-)
As for the breaking of symmetry, ABC is only concerned with the symmetry
breaking of the coenergetic fields after they have radiated from the spinergy of
the primal singularity, fractally involved and inflated into the full extent of
Cosmos at the immeasurable moment after the Big Bang. So, lets not mix up
apples with oranges.
> But you arrogance is so complete, that you will never accept what a
> scientist says if it conflicts with your preconceived notions. Essentially your mind
> is closed. Too bad because a closed mind is a sick mind in the eyes of
> Lipton. Your beliefs make you sick.
I have no preconceived notions, since ABC is a reasoned presentation of a
"theory" of consciousness and its linkage to matter as well as their ontology and
epistemology, that has nothing to do with "arrogance." In fact it is your
arrogance to assume that you know it's wrong without either trying to
understand its reasoning or finding flaws in its logic. Show me the science that you
say refutes this theory, and maybe your arguments will hold some water.
Further, your use of such ad hominem methods of argument is also no sign of
your scientific integrity or knowledge.
Since you also refuse to accept any new paradigm (or even suggestion of one)
that answers the questions that your frozen belief in current material science
(which can't solve these problems) prevents you from understanding -- and
with your reliance on "authority" and "opinions" rather than reason -- I wonder
who really has the sick, closed mind?
> Sorry to have to say that.
Bullshit! You have no right to say that -- based solely on the opinion of
Lipton who knows nothing about me or the way I think. Such ad hominem insults
are just another evidence of your lack of scientific integrity in your
Best wishes, for your eventual comprehension of the true reality that your
blind religious beliefs coupled with your equally narrow minded belief in
physical science that can't go beyond the assumption that matter is everything, and
spirit or consciousness is nothing or simply an epiphenomena -- will
eventually be overcome -- and you might see the light of pure reason that doesn't
separate itself from the universal consciousness.
P.S. The reason I am not sending this response to the mind-brain group as
usual, is that -- since you didn't respond through the forum (as I would expect
from here on out) and also changed the subject line -- I don't wish to
embarrass you in front of your peers. (But I can't guarantee that it won't be seen
by my peers -- since all these letters referring to ABC are posted to various
private lists and archives prior to publication on a website and in a book
being prepared) LM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application