Michael A. Williams's Friends

  • norman ball
  • Lady Line
  • L.A Holmes-Boyle
  • Sarah Page
  • Deb
  • Christian von Lahr
  • Ferran Sanz Orriols
  • Bill Keidan
  • Leslie Royce Pochos
  • Dominique
  • Daniel Noga
  • bournemouthsoc
  • Heidi Ann Maycroft
  • M K Ramadoss
  • Katinka Hesselink

Michael A. Williams's Discussions

Faster than Light Speed discovered Reconfirmed.

Started this discussion. Last reply by Michael A. Williams Dec 12, 2011. 18 Replies

I'm been curious as to why this breaking news hasn't been put out here by one of our astute members. This is not a practical joke item in a Tabloid mag.This is 2nd confirmation of 'faster than light…Continue

Could it be that consciousness may not be dependent on the physical brain?

Started Feb 4, 2011 0 Replies

Here are a series of short articles, with videos, on "Seeing and Believing," "Science and the Profane," "The Astral Perispirit," and more, either by or based on Blavatsky and Wm Q. Judge.This was…Continue

Theosophy and Hermeticism

Started this discussion. Last reply by Michael A. Williams Sep 27, 2010. 12 Replies

It seems that Theosophy has some roots in the Hermetic Tradition. Some of you may know this, but perhaps many are unaware of just how deep they go. Here are two Hermetic groups that tie in when…Continue

Gifts Received

Gift

Michael A. Williams has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift

 

Michael A. Williams's Page

Latest Activity

Bill Keidan left a comment for Michael A. Williams
"Hello Michael,I just viewed your comments made in April quoting my article on Krishnamurti, May I say this: I do not buy Aryel Sanat's view of K. as secretly accepting The Masters etc. - I see it as an attempt to sanitize K's limited…"
Sep 25, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Jaakko Matti Johannes Alhola's discussion New Thought
"David, I'm fairly familiar with "New Thought." Here's the Wikipedia entry on it that is an excellent overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought One thing they miss, though, is the deep Hermetic roots of New Thought,…"
Jul 31, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to David Melik's discussion Did Madame Blavatsky fabricate things/words?
"Joe, I'm not going to try to promote or critique Blavatsky, as this has been covered before in several forums through the years. And, this whole issue of the "Masters" has been the most contentious one on this site. But, you…"
Jul 23, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Steve Brett's discussion Opening Science to new thinking
"Thanks, Steve, and since most people reading about the dialogue between Dr. Sheldrake and Andrew  Cohen here are not near London, perhaps you could inform us of any recording that becomes available of this discussion. Being a…"
Jun 18, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Steve Brett's discussion Opening Science to new thinking
"A tip of the hat to John Mead! I don't always agree with the occasional times I catch one of the Aurobindo quotes, but this one certainly dovetailed with the discussion at hand."
Jun 17, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Steve Brett's discussion Opening Science to new thinking
"I didn't meant to imply, Capt., that you should go on a "crusade" to convince anyone of anything, only was illustrating a point that's been made here before many times. That the dialogue between Metaphyscians/sages/philosophers…"
Jun 16, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Steve Brett's discussion Opening Science to new thinking
"You're right, Capt., at one time Metaphysics(philosophy) and Science were united. It was the materialists that broke away, and Dr. Sheldrake gives a brief sketch of the history of this in the video recommended by Steve. In point of fact, Sir…"
Jun 16, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to Steve Brett's discussion Opening Science to new thinking
"I wasn't going to chime in on this, as this topic has been covered in other forums and my views on it were expressed there. I did watch the Sheldrake video and thought it very good. He more eloquently said much of what I've been …"
Jun 16, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"John, you're right about us agreeing on some things and not on others. It was an interesting discussion and, also, thanks for your explanations of your viewpoint. Best to you!"
Jun 4, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"I was hoping this thread was winding down and close to a cordial end. At any rate, I'm aware there is no agreed upon definition of consciousness in mainstream physics. Many continue to work on it. Since, in my view and others, consciousness is…"
Jun 2, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"Thanks, Capt., for the interview with Dr. Carlo Rovelli. It is interesting and timely, but I had to skim most of it as it was geared toward science specialists like you and John. I would disagree, though, with his statement that "science is the…"
Jun 1, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"To begin with, John, Dr. Goswami's definitions were not something he "pulled out of thin air," but are long established in philosophy and philosophy of science. Although, the use of the term "material realism" and…"
May 31, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"It seems to me, gentlemen, that a confusing element is afoot here. Namely, definition of terms, and mainly that of "realism," "physical realism, "  or "material realism"(all meaning the same). My comments earlier…"
May 30, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"Mark, I pretty much agree with you on what you just stated. John, you're referring to articles in professional physics journals. I'm referring to a possible article geared to the interested public in this subject. This is far from a top…"
May 26, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"Thanks,  John,  for your thoughts on the PBR paper and framing it in the lingo that physicists would use professionally. I'm aware that materialists are for the time being in the majority of mainstream physics. Never-the-less, if I…"
May 25, 2012
Michael A. Williams replied to John E. Mead's discussion Quantum Realities, Science etc. in the group Science
"As I somewhat suspected, an argument among materialist physicists. Let them "slug it out." If this PBR paper "proves" consciousness is involved in the wave state mathematically or not, I can't say. But, we don't need, I…"
May 24, 2012

Profile Information

Comment Wall (5 comments)

You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

At 5:13am on September 25, 2012, Bill Keidan said…

Hello Michael,
I just viewed your comments made in April quoting my article on Krishnamurti, May I say this: I do not buy Aryel Sanat's view of K. as secretly accepting The Masters etc. - I see it as an attempt to sanitize K's limited philosophy so that it should be compatible with Theosophy instead of something of a betrayal of the same. If more people had access to some of the hateful and vitriolic comments that K. earlier made about the Masters and their disciples it would be obvious that he had some sort of schizophrenic breakdown in consciousness, as indeed stated by Dr. Nethercot. I do not feel that K. ever really recovered from this breakdown. The sort of ambivalance that Aryel Sanat suggests is totally out of kilter with those who know the Masters and would therefore be loathe to allow misunderstandings to develop around them. I don't know that I should really say this but, aspects of it are already in the public domain: In  the original manuscript of Geoffrey Hodson's Light of the Sanctuary - the Occult Diary of Geoffrey Hodson (1988) there were several entries by Geoffrey which spoke adversely about K's break from the T.S. and there was one in which one of the Mahatmas informed Geoffrey directly that K. had made a mistake. I understand that these extracts were pulled prior to publication probably to preserve harmony within the T.S. and especially since many Theosophists had embraced K's philosophy thinking it to be Theosophy, including some very influential members. Those who have sighted these pulled passages are not I think going to make them public, but the fact that they exist gives hope that one day the full story may come out. May I say in regard to the revelations made in Radha Rajagopal Sloss's book, which to me sound totally objective, the sexual dalliance and adultery component of K. is of less importance than the sustained legal persecution of Rajagopal who K. owed his public career to. Either way both behaviours are incompatible with a realized yogi or an occultist where there has to be consistency in thought, word and deed. But then K. was only really a philosopher and philosophers of this modern ilk are quite capable of saying one thing and doing another. I do regret deeply that the fabric of Theosophy has been degraded by the Krishnamurti issue and I look to a brighter future when these mistakes will be rectified. 

At 6:46am on April 5, 2012, Ferran Sanz Orriols said…

:-) hahaha I liked your post on Monad's thread!!!

At 1:07pm on November 4, 2011, Lady Line said…
Thank you again for replying my discussion! : )
At 7:54am on October 3, 2011, Lady Line said…
Thank you for answering my discussion!
At 4:02am on October 5, 2010, Heidi Ann Maycroft said…
See you in the forum!
 
 
 

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2014   Created by Theosophy Network.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service