Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00015)

Keith wrote (among other things):

> To Eldon and Jerry: I think we are all talking about much the
> same thing, but in different "vocabularies", semantic or logical
> systems.
>
> The complex (to me) mathematics Eldon is using to talk about
> evolution and transformation is the most accepted "hard" science
> attempt at a GUT, a grand unified theory that would explain it
> all.  Einstein really wanted to do this.  Maybe we will live to
> see it, but I couldn't read it.  Eldon might have to explain the
> upcoming equations.  <grin>:) But these hard (in more ways than
> one) mathematics are still trying to get to the occult side in a
> very modern manner.

I must agree and (in a friendly manner) disagree.  Thanks to
Eldon for the recent brief, whirlwind tour of Chaos theory
(which, as I think he pointed out, is really only a "theory" as
that word is used in the popular press...its really more of
collection of different perspectives, usually expressed in
mathematical language [and, in fact, many of the most profound
insights can really *only* be expressed mathematically...they
just don't translate into english...any better than, as HPB
pointed out, many truths expressed in sanscrit do].

Anyway, I think that sometimes we are "talking about the same
thing", but sometimes not.  I do not think we can simply assume
that there is some single meta-truth that mathematics is
expressing in one language and mysticism/Theosophy expresses in
another...though this assumption seems to lay unquestioned
beneath the entire recent Tao-of-Physics genre of literature on
the market these days.  Some, or even many of the "connections"
being made between mysticism and science may be false ones.  (And
Eldon's point about Chaos is a good one...in Chaos "theory", the
word "chaos" absolutely does *not* mean *random*...and in fact is
really a highly mathematically specified sort of order...but when
this translates into the popular press...it is given the
connotations of "chaos" as it is used politically...as disorder,
randomness, confusion...and is thus placed on a line with itself
at one end and "order" on the other).

It is from within the theosophical worldview that science is
approaching the "occult side in a very modern manner", but from
the scientific perspective...all science has *ever* done is to
reveal the "occult", if one takes "occult" to simply mean
"hidden".  The very definition of a "scientific discovery" is
that it is a fact or principle of nature that had been unknown
until the discovery.

The problem I suspect we get into in many of our discussions
about truth, inner states, theosophical & kabbalistic terminology
(for instance) and etc., is that english is really such a
mind-bogglingly imprecise and sloppy way to communicate.
Sanscrit, I suspect (not being a sanscrit speaker) is apparently
very sophisticated in its ability to express and convey internal
truths.  Science, in its own way, using the language of
mathematics, is also capable of great precision.  English, as I
belive Crowley once pointed out, was invented by a bunch of
people who mostly wanted to sell cheese with as few
misunderstandings as possible, and hence leaves a great deal to
be desired when it comes to the expression of inner reality.
Sanscrit may have several thousand words...allowing the most
minute nuances to be expressed...that would all have to be
translated into the single english word "God".

It was actually this conversation on the list that brought to
light within me a curious sensation I had never really noticed.
I am currently engaged in the application of complexity theory to
global economic systems, and generally when I am asked by friends
who come over unexpectedly just what the hell it *is* that I'm
doing, I am utterly at a loss to explain it...that is, it is
relatively easy to understand global capital flows within the
complexity paradigm (and some of the chaos concepts Eldon spoke
about apply...the globe does have strange attractors of sorts
around which huge flows of crystallized prana, i.e., money,
cycle) and to think about/express these understandings with the
differential equations from fluid dynamics, but an *enormous*
sense of frustration builds in trying to tell non-math friends
about it....and I recently realized that the frustration is a
sensation almost identical to the one that I experience upon
attempting to put spiritual experiences and meditative insights
into words.

And this is the reason why I would be cautious about simply
assuming that a GUT from physics is really the same as a GUT of
an occult tradition, with only the difference of choice of
language of expression.

As a for instance, I have seen some talk of the probability
matrices of quantum physics discussed on this list...but there
are huge distinctions that are not being made, and that can
*only* be made with math.  The quantum level itself is considered
*completely deterministic*, it is only at the point where a
*measurement* is made, i.e., when a result is translated into the
non-quantum (classical) realm...called "collapsing the
wavefunction"...that probability equations become relevant.  It
is not possible to grasp the actual existance of the quantum
level without an understanding of complex numbers, and to go
further and attempt to discuss the means by which the ratios of
complex numbers that describe "superposition" (a quantum-level
particle such as a photon that as a single thing "exists" in
several different states, or even different places, at once)
manifest as the probability functions describing the actual place
or state the particle will appear in *when measured* is just not
something the english language can handle.  To be specific, if
quantum mechanics were to state a "truth" at its current stage of
development, it would _not_ be that the universe is composed of
an infinite number of probability functions, but rather that our
_perception_ of the universe is _limited_ to the extent that at
best it can appear as an infinite number of probability
functions...two very different things.

Point is, pure occult science, at its highest point, _may_ be
able to be translated into pure math (i.e., they may be reaching
the same insights) and vice-versa, or maybe not....but I suspect
that so long as we are having the discussion in english, we
cannot even know if we are talking about anything close to the
same thing.....imagine, for instance, a republican explaining the
Contract with America, a historian explaining the civil war, and
a molecular biologist explaining the double-helix...all forced to
talk in the barks and woofs of the canine kingdom...not only
would none of them feel like they had even vaguely expressed
themselves...the use of the limited language might give them all
the impression that they were at talking about the same
subject...and if the assumption was there, they might even reach
a point where they believed that they had *reached an agreement*.
Likewise, three people talking about the *identical thing* might,
because of the different styles of barking, reach the conclusion
that they lacked any agreement at whatsoever and be ready to go
for one another's throats because of what each was perceiving as
an attack by another.

Perhaps America, in its short history, has generated some heavy
karma...which we pay off by continually being condemned to
communicate in english....a language that is magnificent in its
ability to express gossip and scandel...and utterly lacking in
its ability to clearly and precisely express the most meaningful
and potent truths in either the objective/scientific or
subjective/spiritual realms.

Sorry for the long-winded babble, -JRC