--Thanks again, Jim; I just got a jolt of your "Shakti"....very Blissful. (my hairs stood on end). Due to lack of time I haven't had time to present some interesting parallels between monist non-dualism and mathematical physics principles; (the arrows of time will have to wait...; except to mention that there about 8 of them); some explained rather resourcefully over the years; but some are still conundrums. Just off the top of my head, some linear arrows of time are: 1. probably the most important and the one which the neo-Advaitins will quibble with: the psychological arrow of time; 2. various biological arrows of time; 3. time "itself" (refer to a book by physicist Julian Barbour in which he claims time "in itself" is non- existent; but this is apart from the obvious monist position. At any rate, Barbour argues that what people call time is simply a complex of images, categorized according to an artificial construction; and that in themselves, the images are simply: images, having no particular significance than images associated with what people call the past and present. However, he could be wrong. I'll come back to the arrows of time later. For now, a brief discussion on a metaphorical analogue to the question at hand: a. the neo-Advaitin (everybody's enlightened) view compared to b. No, somebody needs to acquire something in linear time. These two complementary viewpoints present a paradox, not unlike the Complementary principle enunciated by Neils Bohr and the other quantum pioneers: Schroedinger, DeBroglie, and Heisenberg. In a nutshell, quantum particles can be viewed EITHER as particles, OR as waves, depending upon the experimental setup but not both, simultaneously. Going back several centuries, various geniuses such as Newton, Goethe, and others, reflected upon the nature of Light. Some felt Light was a bunch of waves, others quanta. Finally, during the 20's the Quantum pioneers solved the apparent contradiction: Light exhibits the Complementary Principle: depending upon your viewpoint (i.e. the type of experimental setup): light can exhibit either, but not both at the same time. In other words, if one is "zeroing in" on information, say this "T"; we are losing sight of the whole picture. So-called "complex conjugates" of quantum particles come in pairs. If we gain precision in say the location of a Quantum particle, we LOSE knowledge of the momentum. The product of the two conjugate variables is a constant, (in Heisenberg's Uncertainty relationship). Example...and that's it for now. ENERGY and TIME are two conjugate variables. If you want to teleport through a wall, this would require a huge amount of energy. Increasing the energy component reduces the TIME component proportionally, so "chances" are, that if one could acquire this Sidhi, your powers might give out half way through the way. (there's an Edgar Allan Poe story with this theme). That's it for now.!...
- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> 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. >
