So, I hate to just play devil’s advocate, but since Dixon isn’t here to make his scrunched face and all-disabling, universal comment, “EEEh. I don’t know…” I feel obligated to be a little disruptive.

From what I gather from everything you’ve posted here in Part III, the sense is that the probability of our current universe and situation in all its complexity happening is really slim. Therefore, there must be an intelligent design behind all of it.

I have two major problems with this. First, as in the example of the all-heads coin flipping, the probability of that exact combination in that order happening is exactly the same as the mixed heads-tails result. Thus the uncanniness of that result firmly lies within us, not in the empirical result itself. This brings me right to the heart of existentialism and Jean Paul Sartre.

At least as far as I know/remember at this point (it’s been a while) Sartre asserts that existence in and of itself is not meaningful. For all intents and purposes, it’s chaos…possibly with some basic material laws underlying its functioning. To this chaos we bring our intellect and psyche and make meaning out of it. We create meaning. And with our will, we can change our world towards whatever end we are willing to work. No grand plan. No inherent meaning. Just us, making our world. So why must we project our own produced meanings and wills as underlying existence when it is only in ourselves and possibly (subsequently) actualizable in the world?

My second objection comes from Voltaire. Namely, my argument is that the idea that the complexity of the universe mapped onto the low probability that existence coming into being ignores the fact that many other possible, equally complex existences are just as highly improbable of coming into being. To privilege this current existence as somehow more valuable or rare and thus the result of some great, hidden intelligence seems to rely on the idea that this is “the best of all possible worlds.” Voltaire lampoons this idea repeatedly. There are probably plenty of other, better possible worlds; if so, then why would this “intelligence” not have chosen one of those? If one of the others is better, this “intelligence” would be pretty stupid not to choose it, no?

So, apart from my doubts, may I throw in an idea I’ve been tossing around in my mind? “Intelligent Design” seems to me to imply a very well planned, thought through construction of existence. What if existence isn’t very well planned. Maybe it’s pretty stupid and crazy. This doesn’t mean that there’s a multitude of higher beings trying to rein in this beast and guide it somewhere, nor does it take away the possibility that there’s some Divine source/energy/being underlying everything. Maybe it’s just not very well planned and has no ultimately intended direction. Any thoughts?

The self as meant in this article is certainly not relinquished simply because one has ‘become a Christian’. But then not all variations of Christianity feel that the self is given up at all at that moment.

I do feel that those denominations that do stress losing the self are in that sense close to the above understanding of the spiritual path.

One of the many things that attracted me to the Theosophical Society was the organization’s motto: There is no religion higher than truth. My goal here is to look for the truth in the debate around evolution to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, much of the debate hinges on math and science that is far beyond my ability to effectively discern.

I’ll deal a little further with the science, but my focus here will eventually switch to the wider concept of evolution and how it has been used by theorists like Hegel, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Sri Aurobindo and Jean Gebser.

I hope we keep you engaged, and please keep the comments coming!

Thank you for your reply.

I think you are stating that you are seeking to identify the masters who are specifically carrying on the work of HPB and the Theosophists. And it would also seem, as exemplified by footnote 6, quoted below from your article ‘The Masters and their Emissaries,’ that perhaps you are also looking for ‘the Master of masters’ as well.

In footnote 6 you quote, ”

“It is the Law that Our Blessed Lord comes among you, be His welcome what it may, though even he may not outstay His welcome. And only at long intervals, so far, has He been able to bestow upon you the priceless benediction of His immediate presence in your midst. We have to wait. So be it. Yet, if His welcome lasts, perchance grows, He may dwell long with you, and the doors thus be flung wide open between Our world and your, and between other worlds and yours, that they may become one world, Ourselves restored to Our natural place among Our younger comrades, and Devas and mankind be once more together in happy comradeship.”

I like the opening quote by Kuthami, in your article:

“Stand beneath the waterfall and receive unreservedly the flow of the hierarchy of Aquarius that comes through our embodied messengers. When the waterfall ceases to flow, move on, for hierarchy will not be stopped. We will open another stream and prepare a channel for the crystal-clear waters of life.”

I hope you are successful in finding what you are seeking.

All the Best,
Mark

Only just found your questions. My answer is that I’m convinced that Elizabeth Clare Prophet was the Masters’ representative during the last quarter of the last century. I consider her the H.P.B. of the 20th century. I’m not sure who followed in her footsteps, but there are some claimants.

Last year I facilitated a class at The Theosophical Society and one of our subjects was the finding and evaluation of candidates for the 20th century slot of Centennial Effort, about which H.P.B. wrote in the last pages of her The Key to Theosophy. for the sake of a guest lecturer I provided abackground briefing on this endeavor. (The accompanying spreadsheet you can find here)

Many years ago I also wrote a ‘master’ narrative aboutThe Masters and their Emissaries.

I am glad you are exploring this because I too started out with the audio version of the Design Revolution, and am now wrapping up The Design of Life as well as Edge of Evolution by Behe.

I am a strong proponent of ID, and My own quest taught me right away that I really needed to bone up on what Darwinian Evolution really teaches in order to critically think about it (the same was true for ID). I discovered that the more I learned and the more I listened to Darwinists, the more I realized that they too were functioning from non-empirical metaphysical explanations for things.

I also realized that some very famous Darwinists (ex: Lewontin) were intellectually honest enough to admit that they were predisposed to methodological naturalism, and therefore, allowing bias to pre-determine their conclusions regardless of data.

Last – What is remarkable to me about ID is that its “tent” can house evangelical creationists (both old and young earth), SETI researchers, Directed Panspermia (LGM), and yes, proponents of Common Descent (Behe). The Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer believes the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but to listen to Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest, you’d think everyone at D.I. were flat-earth snake charmers holding tent meetings.

Thanks for listening!

Like this blog, it’ll probably wax and wane with activity, but with a little help, it could be another good resource.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/jokes.html

Greetings!

I came across an article that seems to have originated with your website, entitled: “Pope John Paul II Meditating of the Tarot?” It prompted the following thoughts for your consideration.

So, why would a Catholic, and especially a Pope, be reading Tomberg’s “Meditations?” I am Roman Catholic and Esoteric. Most Catholics who know me would be impressed with my observation of the Catholic Faith. Many of the same would be confused by my inner meditations, speculations and beliefs. I have read Tomberg’s “Meditations” and it articulates well much of my own thinking; it was like coming home. Regarding Pope John Paul II, I was aware of the photo of Tomberg’s book sitting on the Popes desk and the gift of this book to him from Cardinal Balthasar, who penned its forward. A few musings … The name “John Paul” was first taken by John Paul I in 1978. He said it was in honor of his two predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI. This was the first time in papal history that a pope had taken a double name, and the first time a pope had officially appended the designation “the first” to the regnal name. What is it’s true significance?

The “Church of John” has always been a cipher for the “secret church” or esoteric stream of Christianity. “Paul” has traditionally been code for the exoteric church. Here, in this double name, we have John and Paul re-uniting. Could this have been a deliberate decision based on an esoteric understanding that it was the proper time to bring the two streams back together? Interestingly, John Paul I was pope for 33 days and then died. 33 – the number of years of Jesus’ life. 33 – the number signifying the culmination and integration of the 32 Paths of Wisdom of the Tree of Life into a coherent whole. The 32 paths of wisdom = the 22 paths of the Tree of Life + the 10 Sefirot. The 22 paths of the Tree of Life = the 22 Arcana of the Tarot. (And of course, we have the 32 degrees of Scottish Freemasonry, with a 33rd degree bestowed on the select few.) Anyway, John Paul II takes up the mantle by assuming the same double name. Deliberate? Of course, but esoteric? Perhaps. Without going to find the references, Pope John Paul II, in his youth, was involved in a theatre troupe working though the anthroposophical mystery plays of Rudolf Steiner. This was just prior to the young Wojtyła being hit by a truck and encountering Christ in a way that caused him to enter the Catholic priesthood. Much could be written on certain aspects of Pope JP II’s theology that reflect these anthroposophical themes. In any case, there is an early connection to the very stream of esoterica in which Tomberg was steeped. So, years later, we see the aged Pope with a copy of the original German two-volume copy of Tomberg’s opus. Hmmm. Beyond the notice of most, and only meaningful to those who recognize the sign. Another tangential, yet interesting, clue that a hermetic stream has existed within the exoteric shell of Roman Catholicism is the Seal of the Jesuit Order, and the Order’s abbreviated (esoteric) motto, “Magis,” taken from the official (exoteric) motto, “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.” Magis … ahh, the connotations! More! Master. Teacher. Magistrate. Magic. Magis. The seal, unveiled in all its glory, stands naked and revealed by the great Jesuit polymath (and father of Egyptology), Athanasius Kircher, in his work, “Oedipus Aegyptiacus,” or “Son of Egypt.” You can see an image of what I call the unveiled version herein. There is a veritable esoteric feast contained therein. Draw your own conclusions. These are just a very few thought on how and why Tomberg’s work would up on John Paul II’s desk. Hope you have enjoyed.

Regards,
Doug Hein, Ordo Unim

The official Jesuit Seal, and the very intriguing Kircher version!
[See images here]

Thanks for engaging the Goswami material. We just watched at the TSA convention his “The Quantum Activist.” Was very satisfactory experience, at least spiritually speaking, to see a hard-core physicist venture into spirituality, consciousness, mysticism and even chakras. Methodologically speaking it was quite frustrating as there was too much vagueness and conceptual confusion. Hope he does better in his books.

Maybe one of the keys is to admit the difference between a worldview and a scientific theory. The first one can never be proven scientifically, but should be such that it at least does not get falsified by science and at best incorporates as much science as possible, preferably in a philosophically critical way in order to clean up possible materialist or idealist reductionisms.

As you pointed out, Goswami might be going too far in his “consciousness first” principle, which makes him something of a Monist Idealist, and in that way he is actually a reductionist. This might indeed be different than HPB’s more moderate position. I think the possible solution might lie in a more subtle interpretation of Fohat as the link between consciousness and matter.

My researches are steadily going along phenomenological lines as they have a clearer grasp of the structure of consciousness and the concepts of possibility, necessity, actuality, intentionality, time, memory, etc. The entry point, as usual, is to understand that consciousness is always already consciousness OF something it is not. Consciousness has no content nor is it an energy. but it has a structure which is a “directing-itself-towards.” It’s a nothingness which enables something to come into being like a memory, a visual object, a state of affairs, a fantasy, a skill, a bodily movement, a piece of art or technology, etc. Through inter-subjective, first-person, reflective investigations we can lay bare some of these structures and get a better grasp of how consciousness is connected to what it is conscious of. As this endeavor is metaphysically neutral (it’s not materialist nor idealist) it will contribute to an understanding of Fohat based on personal experience, not on deductive or speculative reasoning. It has to be tried. More later. Maybe start here.

I know I didn’t make that clear above. Thanks for bringing it up.

I’d like to add that what Goswami says is also added in this approach is creativity. That is: instead of thinking that what we see around us is the result of natural selection and chance combined, he says it’s the result of natural selection and creativity.

While there is a randomness in what we do, and we create a lot of unnessary chaos in our lives, there seems (to me) to be an order and a stability in consciousness.

How would freewill fit into quantum spirituality?