[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Social Sciences/Origin of Spin

Sep 01, 2008 11:13 PM
by Leon Maurer

Since intuition, logic, or reasoning based on fundamental principles,  
apparently aren't your strong points -- I'll refrain from any more  
detailed explanation of the ABC *hypothesis* (not a "dogma" BTW -- as  
is the blind belief in a pre cosmic "creator" separate from the  
creation)... Consciousness, based on intelligence and wisdom is the  
only "creator" as far as I can see.  But, I'll comment on some of the  
irrelevant and non sequitur gaps in your thinking below.

Maybe you should have more carefully studied the explanations and  
diagrams pertaining to ABC theory at: 
23/13 -- as well as the research site below that triggered this  
dialogue  -- before whistling in the wind with such ad hominem remarks.

On Aug 31, 2008, at 8/31/0812:16 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:

> Neon's ABC dogma which must be called 'the gap hypothesis', states:
> "subjectivity or consciousness is a fundamental quality of the same  
> absolute space that gives birth to and underlies all objective  
> matter-energy..."
> Gap 1: Between Nothing and the sudden appearance of Absolute Space  
> (AS), unless the latter is the eternal, self-existeng, omniptent,  
> omniscient and omnipresent uncaused first cause. You might as well  
> or do better to believe in a Creator.

Absolute space is no "thing"...  But is "THAT I AM" -- which  
eternally was, is and always will be existent as both *emptiness* and  
*fullness* -- before the appearance of metric matter (things or  
fields, particle-waves, etc.) ... Objects that cyclically involve and  
evolve, expand and contract, centrifugally, centripetally, and  
(spiral vortex) hyperspherically out of its eternal infinite force or  
non linear spin momentum.  So, what need is there for a separate  
"Creator"?  Especially, if this Absolute Space is, itself, the  
"eternal, self-existeng, omniptent, omniscient and omnipresent  
uncaused first cause"...

So, there is no "belief" or "dogma" in my ABC point of view.  How can  
anything be intentionally created (by a separate being) out of  
something eternal that already exists -- with its own built in laws  
of force and cyclic expansion-contraction based on fundamental  
principles of electrodynamics?  If there were such a being, who or  
what created it?  Have you never studied and considered what is the  
*real* basis of general relativity theory?  If that theory is  
correct, then singularities (as the causeless cause and center of  
every spherical material structure) must exist as independent  
realities... (Even if you might insist on still calling them [or it]  
"God". ;-)

If there was no underlying Absolute Space to build everything in/on/ 
of, how could there be anything at all -- including consciousness?
> Gap 2: Between AS and ZPE, sudden appearance of energy from space,  
> as if by ordering and re-arranging 'space atoms'. What orders?

The "orders" are already BUILT INTO its (AS) fundamental *abstract  
motion* or spin momentum.  How else could ZPE appear ubiquitously on  
the physical plane to generate and empower all the fundamental  
particle-standing waves?  Particles just don't appear out of  
nothing.  As Einstein pointed out, energy cannot be anything more  
than the linear vibratory motion of AS, Ether, or total space...   
And, this *appearance* can only be the extension of its inherent non  
linear spin momentum or abstract motion.

So, what are the "atoms" of space -- other than ubiquitous  
singularity's or "laya points" of potential physical forms of matter  
(fundamental particles, et al)?  So, how can unconditioned Absolute  
Space have any physical particulate attributes?  Doesn't "Absolute"  
mean; forever static, unchangeable and immovable, yet having infinite  
potentiality's, both subjective and objective.?
> This is very similar to the Darwinian 'non-science' of sudden  
> appearance of life by ordering rearranging matter atoms. What  
> orders?  The only difference is Darwin assumed life first and  
> consciousness later

So, if Darwin's theory is based on an assumption that still cannot be  
proven -- why is the ABC proposition any less reasonable?  There is  
no claim in ABC that matter suddenly appeared out of nothing.   
Absolute space "substance" is, in its fundamental spin momentum, the  
primal root of everything... And the impelling cause of that  
objective *appearance* of everything would have to be the inherent  
subjectivity (root of phenomenal consciousness) of that static space  
itself.  So, the comparison between Darwin's flawed theory of organic/ 
physical/material evolution, with the ABC fractal hyperspace  
involution and inorganic/organic evolution -- is pointless and  
irrelevant hand waving.
> Gap 3: Between AS and awareness or consciousness. Sudden appearance  
> of consciousness

The "appearance" of consciousness (which I assume you mean its actual  
*subjective experience* of qualia) cannot "suddenly" arise out of  
nothing... But must be the result of the evolution of organic matter  
that, ultimately, can neurologically process sensory information  
capable of being detected, decoded and experienced by fundamental  
"awareness", and responded to by equally fundamental "will" -- which  
aspects of consciousness are inherent in every zero-point of the  
ubiquitous "ether" (or physical aspect of Absolute Space).

Thus, all physical forms of matter are potentially phenomenologically  
conscious, right from the get go.  So, what proof is needed, besides  
its direct introspective or subjective experience and intuitive  
comprehension?  You either see it and know it, or you don't.  And,  
"science" can only blind you -- just like religious dogma or  
preconditioned so called, "scientific" beliefs, that matter is all  
there is and that consciousness is an epiphenomena of neural complexity.

> Gap 4: Between consciousness and life with sudden appearance of
> intelligent motions

Senseless comment!  What is "intelligent motions"?... And, what is  
the difference between consciousness, as phenomenal  awareness/ 
response, and "life"?  Motion itself, cannot be intelligent -- since  
its phenomenal linear change of position is dependent only on the non- 
linearity of fundamental spin.  Therefore, only the subjective  
consciousness, that perceives and responds to the modulated wave  
interference patterns (or cyclic linear motion) of information  
carried by electrodynamic radiant fields, can have "intelligence" or  
knowledge. The information itself has no knowingness, nor do the  
fields that carry it or the brain that processes it.
> Gap 5: Between life and its taxonomy with three broad divisions of  
> plants, animals and humans
> Gap 6: Between life and death with no AS reqirements of introducing  
> death and decay (entropy) into the AS products
> Gap 7:  Between truth and lie. Did humans suddenly started lying?
> Monkeys do not lie, they are too noble with respect to humans  
> especially the post-modern scientists!!!

These pointless and opinionated comments are nothing more than  
mindless, spiteful and prejudicial hand waving -- e.g., lies are only  
when they can be proven false.  So, let's end this pointless and  
implicatively negative ad hominem sparring on your part once and for  
all, and just agree to disagree about each of our respective  
assumptions about the true nature of fundamental reality, and our  
beliefs or disbelief's in a separate God-creator.

I see consciousness and matter as simultaneously arising... And you  
don't.  I see God being in and of everything -- as total cosmic  
consciousness that is, was, and always will be infinite or eternal,  
as is the cyclic universe (in its own infinite subset)...  And, you  
don't.  I also see all objective things originating from the linear  
motion or vibrations of absolute space... And, you don't.  I see  
consciousness as the inherent quality of ubiquitous zero-point  
space... And you don't.

Let's leave it at that.


> Best regards
> Philip
> CC:
> From:
> Subject: Re: Social Sciences/Origin of Spin
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:16:39 -0400
> To:
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 8/30/0810:37 AM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
> Hi, Leon: You had written me on two separate issues: 1. the Kinsey  
> Report; 2. Origin of Spin and your ABC model. Is  
> your new address?
> No, that address belongs to Richard Ruiquist, and is the one he  
> uses on the consciousness forums. It was used by me inadvertently,  
> since my original email was addressed directly to him.
> As for your comments related To the above subjects, you are  
> entitled to your opinion.
> Nevertheless, I have good reason to believe that subjectivity or  
> consciousness is a fundamental quality of the same absolute space  
> that gives birth to and underlies all objective matter-energy...  
> That, in my view (and which can be directly observed and  
> experienced by anyone in a deep meditative state of consciousness),  
> can only consist of modifications of that space in relative linear  
> motion.
> Thus, all objective information must be modulations of the wave  
> interference patterns of that motion -- which, when carried by  
> radiant electrodynamic fields (to which all organic matter is  
> transparent) can be discriminatively detected and interpreted  
> subjectively by zero-point consciousness, located everywhere in  
> absolute space or ether.
> Incidentally, this fundamental vibratory wave state of matter is in  
> perfect conformance with the original equations of general  
> relativity... And the fractal involved nature of all matter-energy  
> fields surrounding every zero-point, is entirely consistent with  
> the mathematics of string and M theories (based on Kaluza-Klein  
> hyperspherical fractal geometry).  Such fields, therefore, are the  
> most likely medium of information transfer between non local (yet  
> globally *entangled*) zero-points of consciousness, and the lowest  
> order EM fields of the brain... With such information being carried  
> as holographic wave interference patterns on their surfaces, and  
> transmitted from one field phase order to the next (down to the ZPE  
> spin fields themselves) by phase conjugate adaptive resonance.
> I would like to point out, however, that I never said "spin and  
> consciousness are the same".  Spin (as explained in the below  
> referenced "Resonance Project" papers) is the abstract non liniar  
> motion (infinite angular momentum) of that ubiquitous absolute  
> space singularity... And consciousness is the quality of that same  
> space in perfect stasis (motionless) at the exact zero-point center  
> of spin.  One aspect, being purely subjective, and the other,  
> entirely objective... Starting from the "primal beginning," and  
> extending through all successive (cyclic) lifetimes of all material  
> forms surrounding each singularity (as a holographic unity).  IOW,  
> the universe, and all its parts, always is, was, and will be coming  
> and going into and out of phenomenal existence, all together, at  
> each singularity. everywhere.
> So, until physical science can come up with a valid theory of  
> subjective consciousness, explain its relationship to objective  
> matter, and answer all the hard problems -- I will continue to  
> posit my ABC fractal field cosmogenesis model as the fundamental  
> basis of a comprehensive unified field theory of everything  
> (including consciousness and all forms of light and dark material  
> substance).
> Best wishes,
> Leon Maurer
> -------Original Message-----
> Hi, Leon: You had written me on two separate issues: 1. the Kinsey  
> Report; 2. Origin of Spin and your ABC model. Is  
> your new address?
> I. On the super-pervert Kinsey:
> (1) Most of the samples come from prison populations and male/ 
> female prostitutes, and that (2) The small number of supposedly  
> volunteer population interviewed about any taboo subject suffer  
> from the problem of self-selection and volunteer bias both of which  
> undermine the usefulness of the sample in terms of determining the  
> tendencies of the overall population. In 1948, the same year as the  
> original publication, a committee of the American Statistical  
> Association including the notable statisticians John Tukey,  
> condemned the report.
> This was (similar to the "missing link" finds a deliberate hoax  
> perpetrated by a confirmed pervert and his pedophile colleagues on  
> an unsuspecting general public and the willing accomplices in the  
> academia (investigations are still proceeding to determine if the  
> university funds were deliberately used for child molestations).  
> These are the intended and calculated consequences of incorporating  
> "quantum lies" into psychology (which is not Quantum Mechanics,  
> only an Eastern Maya based groundless interpretation); false  
> application of Relativity to social sciences (Relativity has an  
> Absolute = speed of light in vacuum; what is the Absolute in Social  
> Sciences?) and foolish meddling with uncertainty principle (which  
> involves conjugate physical properties, not sociological or  
> psychological factors).
> II. Spin and ABC
> The ABC concern is not on the origin of spin, but of consciousness.  
> No matter how spin originated, you have only an unproven and  
> unproveable assumption that spin and consciousness are the same  
> because both have something to do with ZPE and ZPE is the eternal,  
> omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity beyond which and  
> before which nothing can exist.
> Best regards
> Philip
> To:
> Subject: Origin of Spin - Scale unification theories
> From:
> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:05:54 -0400
> Richard,
> How do you see this research relating to my ABC hypothesis?
> Is this the mathematics we have been waiting for?
> =
> =
> Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to  
> share. Get Ideas Here! =

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application