TurquoiseB wrote: > Although the relative world is purely relative, > it is *also* pure Absolute. > So, you're saying that you hold a dualistic philosophy.
> That is the very essence of its mystery. > The mystery is why you'd adopt a metaphysical explanantion of the universe, when a physical expalanation is all that is needed. How can there be two reals? > I'll jump in, even though I haven't thought > about this stuff in Physics metaphors since > I left the TM movement (and haven't missed > thinking that way). > > I suspect you have a good point about any > Unified Field Theory that physicists could > come up with having to do purely with the > relative world. That is the only "field" > they play in. > > As for the relative world not being Jack > Kennedy, however, my experiences have con- > vinced me that it *is* Jack Kennedy. Although > the relative world is purely relative, it is > *also* pure Absolute. That is the very essence > of its mystery. > > But, at the same time, I have my doubts > as to science's ability to ever "grok" that, > much less include it in any of their theories > of How Things Work. Things only "work" in the > field of the relative, and thus that is the > field they are playing in and trying to find > some way to describe. That'll take them long > enough and will be challenging enough. They > should leave asking the Absolute to get up > off the bench and join the game to mystics. >
