KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA61 (Andemicael)

Commentary 5 (to C3 by Mutnick)

( WORKING SPACE-TIME )
by Adrian van der Meijden
19 Aug 2003, posted 2 September 2003

QUIBBLE. Quidditas, Quo vadis, Querulous.

Yep, it's inside ourself we can be objective to ourselves, whatever such a self amounts to, small or large, self enclosed or open, an individual choice not be decided on by some for all. Don't we just make such divisions to split off what we don't line up with versus what we can ? or get in tune with or resonate with or not ?

This aligns well with fields, zillions of them. Fields can bounce off, merge, exchange and whatever else. Being In-tell-i-gent we donate this with a self, something our society, as a selection of some in common prejudices in the matter, which varies per culture, with an identity, as forced by words. Also our society forces us to have an identity, convenient for bookkeeping.

To me the enstatic experience is mind on its own and as a stream when hooked in with the senses. In a pure form it is dark, we can turn on the light or render it as visions, which last is our way to make it seem more familiar.

"People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true." Francis Bacon

Is not going full tilt for the subjective simply doing again what we did with Descartes division of mind and senses ? Unfortunately language requires considerable forcing to get it across otherwise. Perhaps a wish to have it still unified which we cannot have ? I dislike the one explanation fits all approaches, for which the Quantal uses many closed Hilbert spaces or quaternions and Lie Algebras. I also fancy that it is more likely that knowledge will be absorbed into Q rather than the other way around, just as has happened with Logic poking Aristotle into a small subset. Expansions of knowledge lead to re-examination of the old stuff, inside an ampler vista. Consider Electricity since Maxwell. How many years did it take to figure that out ? Dear Rutherford, told his assistant "They'll think us alchemists". Fields are a ?nice? way to have oodles of them while still having a given unity. It is also possible that "science", not scientists, will fall back onto being technologic and leaving other disciplines free of quantising ? Shall we pour the sea into a cup, or the cup into the sea ? The fish won't be "happy" in a cup.

---------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden