--- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Many thanks for your excellent first hand account, > most "enlightening"; but be careful of claims as to relative > knowledge; otherwise you would be able to pick winning stocks with > 100% accuracy (you previously said that one of your stocks went in > the right direction while the other one lost $.) That's only 50%.
Glad you enjoyed it! I should clarify that I continue to use my mind for analysis too (lol). And the stocks were just purchased about three months ago- They are both on the way up now! Good point though, as I do recall many years ago being lured by the sense that I could "magically" deduce knowledge. I am working on it, though it is a more complex learning process than I at first believed. > Also, on the two approaches or viewpoints to E (neo-Advaitin vs > progressive); a simple clarification in the definition will clear up > any potential controversey in advance. For example, if we are > using "wiki", this source uses the term "acquisition" and if that's > part of the accepted definition, then E must be progressive to be > consistent with acquiring something in the context of relative space > and time. Also, your outstanding exposition is (in itself) > progressive.. High school - seeker; ....beginning Tm;...etc. That's > all linear. Linearity is a useful property of existence that allows > for more clear human understanding; since the mind has several arrows > of time. Thanks again!. > Cheers! I'd be interested in hearing more about your remark that "the mind has several arrows of time" if there are specifics you had in mind.
