“…The union of mathematical genius and mysticism is common enough. Originally from Samos, Pythagoras founded at Kroton (in southern Italy) a society which was at once a religious community and a scientific school….”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pythagor/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism On Sep 15, 8:30 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > While I understand that physics can be used as an effective metaphor > or simile when describing spirituality I do not think that they are > the same thing. By trying to equate physics, which is roughly an > analysis of the motion of things, and which is therefore a part of > natural science, with spirituality, is to miss the meaning (and > frankly the beauty) of both. To me, it almost doesn't matter what > Newton thought, although I do not think he was thinking along the > lines you mention. (He was trying to explain Kepler's laws and they > deal with the motion of astronomical bodies which were based on Tycho > Brahe's observations. He was a young man on leave from the university > because of ... N1H1 virus....no wrong century!... > oh....yea ...plague? ) But either way it is important to remember that > spirituality, true spirituality, comes from an appreciation of the > metaphysics of reality and, when one starts to equate it with physics, > one unfortunately throws the baby out with the bathwater and then > descends into the error of fundamentalism. > > A more fruitful approach is to understand the meaning of an element in > a set and its relationship to the meaning of a thing in space and > time. When one parses the meaning of both one finds other, more > mystical ways of experiencing the material and one gains intellectual > access to the basis of spirituality. Then and only then, when > spirituality is understood correctly, will one be able to address the > intellectual challenges that arise when one who is only acquainted > with materialist ontology attempts to understand spirituality. > > Objectifying spirituality, or de-objectifying the physical model in > order to form some common natural description that somehow "explains" > spirituality is itself a distortion. Spirituality is not objective > (nor is it subjective) and while physical material may also not be > strictly speaking objective, still by careful use of more than one > object model, and by the careful extension of objectivity into > spacetime one can derive very useful and predictive concepts that form > the basis of modern physics and the geometry that is underneath all of > it. So in that sense physics is objective. > > The resolution of the apparent contradictions between the spiritual > literature and modern physics all occur because the spiritual > teachings are taken as a literal description of objective nature. Why > continue the error? They are not objective or natural descriptions- or > more precisely, if they are interpreted that way then they are very > bad science. Likewise, the interpretation of modern physics, if it is > taken literally as a spiritual doctrine, will prevent one from > understanding its meaning properly. Better to take a calculus course > or one on probability and statistics. > > (Have never taken a physics course? If you have not I recommend it! > Some people say they haven't "because its too difficult"? I assure you > that it is not. Like everything else there are a levels of ability but > no matter how challenged one is mathematically I think after repeated > exposure one gets it. Then you have the insights which are truly > amazing somehow. The equations are inherently amazing and I highly > recommend them! Why miss them? The views and insights are wonderful) > > On Sep 15, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When I got home last night, it dawned on me that Sir Isaac > > Newton’s main goal and deepest interest was to discover how spirit and > > the universe interact; which is why a huge percentage of his writings > > were alchemical—the scientific findings were, more or less, a by- > > product of his overall search for a Theory of Everything, which would, > > necessarily, include spiritual phenomena. I then had the thought > > that, perhaps he had intended his ‘Laws of Motion’ not just to include > > physical bodies, but spiritual bodies, as well. Now, his laws have > > been expressed in many ways, but, at home (which is where I am at the > > moment of writing this), the only book that I found (I’m sure there > > are a couple more, but I couldn’t find them and went with what I found > > first) that has them listed is ‘The Hutchison Encyclopaedia—1997’, not > > the best source, but, I think, it’s good enough. > > The first law states that “unless acted upon by a net force, a > > body at rest stays at rest, and a moving body continues moving at the > > same speed in the same straight line (direction)”. Now to me, that > > just screamed out “That is the Western scientific version of the gunas > > of Hinduism”. Vam, I expect, may want to set me straight here with > > respect to a few details I gloss over, as his knowledge of Hinduism > > far exceeds mine, but, I’ll describe this as I see it. The three > > gunas are: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are spiritual qualities/ > > forces that, together, express the ‘net spiritual forces’ that affect > > us. Sattva is usually depicted as simple (!), clarity of mind, Rajas > > as a disruptive, disturbing influence and Tamas as dullness and > > lethargy. In this analogy, I see Sattva as representing an > > individual’s truest sense of self, their own unsullied consciousness, > > and Rajas (the general disruptive, interactive force) and Tamas > > (spiritual inertia), is how one individual experiences another > > individual’s Sattva. Whilst it is true that one can be affected by > > another’s Sattva, it is harmonic enough as to not distress the soul as > > do the other forces of Rajas and Tamas. Tamas is what keeps a > > depressed person depressed and why it’s harder to motivate a depressed > > individual than one who is not depressed. So, too, a mind/soul filled > > with Tamas will tend to remain at rest (and depressed and slothful > > and, in extreme cases with the right combination of Rajas, self- > > harming) until acted upon by sufficient Rajas (and/or Sattva [but it > > takes more Rajas at first!]) such that it can, once again, achieve its > > own Sattva. Too much Rajas can make an individual aggressive, like a > > bull in a china shop and is what keeps the manic, manic. Sattva is > > the quiet forward motion with no external forces impinging on it. (Too > > much Sattva usually leads to moksha and is not considered > > problematic!) > > So, to paraphrase Newton’s first Law: A (more) Tamasic soul will > > tend to remain Tamasic until acted upon by Rajas (and/or Sattva) and a > > (more) Sattvic soul will continue to be Sattvic until acted upon by > > Rajas (and/or Tamas). (I inserted the word ‘more’ in there to denote > > that each soul is, in most but the rarest of cases, comprised, to some > > extent, of all three gunas.) And, we have a sound spiritual concept > > (that’s been recognised by Hindus for millennia) that is an almost > > perfect corollary to Newton’s first Law. > > Looked at another way—probably Newton’s alchemical way—Sattva > > becomes Salt, that perfect combination of opposing (with respect to > > charge) elements that forms a complete bond with itself (its Self). > > Rajas is Sulphur, the fast burning element that scorches its way > > disrupting and disturbing. Tamas is, then, Mercury, the heavy, liquid > > and poisonous metal. I think Newton understood the gunas in this way > > and may well have hinted at it in this first law. > > The second law states that “a net force applied to a body gives > > it an acceleration proportional to the force and in the direction of > > the force.” This is vastly important. Given the first paraphrased > > law, this second law implies that the interactions between spiritual > > bodies impart an eternal effect, that is, when one set of gunas (one > > spiritual body) communicates with another, it imparts a force that is > > irremovable and it receives a force that is irresistible. From that > > moment forward (in a spatio-temporal cone), all the actions of B have > > become affected by B’s communication with A and vice versa. > > Spiritually, we can interact in an intellectual and/or emotional way > > with one another, if not a combination of both (not to mention that > > intimate, physical communication, certainly, can have emotional > > effects). This is the ‘emotional communication’ that Gregg Bradon > > intended in his book ‘The Divine Matrix’; especially his ‘Key 4’: > > “Once something is joined, it is always connected, whether it remains > > physically linked or not”. THIS concept is my answer to the other, > > recent topic of “one flesh”. I believe the reference is metaphorical > > and represents that, once two people have had ‘spiritual > > intercourse’ (a topic for discussion all on its own, but I mean it in > > its simplest level of even including a casual ‘Hello’ passing by > > someone on the street), they have a permanent spiritual bond, as the > > effects of their interaction continue onwards throughout space-time. > > Also, the implication that our interactions cause eternal (from that > > point forward) effects should make us feel the utmost responsibility > > in just how we impart and/or receive one another’s influence. So, to > > paraphrase Newton’s second Law: A soul/spirit always imparts (and > > receives by the third law, below) gunas when communicating with > > another soul/spirit. Here we have another sound spiritual concept of > > which the Hindus have been aware for millennia. Alchemically, it’s > > simply that all spiritual interactions can be reduced to the > > principles of Salt, Sulphur and Mercury—the absolute foundation of > > alchemy. > > The third law is the one most of us have already derived or run > > across at some point but, for completeness’ sake, I have to re-hash > > it. The third law states that “When a body, A, exerts a force on a > > body B, B exerts an equal and opposite force on A.” This is sometimes > > phrased, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” > > To me > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
