Archive for the ‘science’ Tag

Quora answer: What are good ways to retain information?

One good way to retain information is to create diagrams of what ever you are studying. I learned this from a teacher of philosophy I had in college whose name was Professor Alfonso Verdu. He would draw diagrams of the philosophies that he was teaching. So I took this method as my own, and did diagrams of all the philosophical works I studied over the years. What is amazing is that I can remember diagrams that I did years ago, or those that Professor Alfonso Verdu used in teaching us philosophy. I converted many of my diagrams into digital form in my books and papers. See for instance, The Fragmentation of Being and the Path beyond the Void (http://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer).  The key is to avoid using the same format for each diagram like, for instance, MindMaps.  Each diagram has to be tailored creatively to the content being portrayed. The work of creating the diagram that is suitable for understanding needs to be kept in a notebook so it can be referenced. If you look at it occasionally when you are thinking about the problems then that reinforced the memory. But just the act of creating the diagrams more or less imprints it permanently on ones memory. Once one has done diagrams like this for a long time, the diagrams are no longer really necessary, but they always help. Not sure why this is so. I guess the brain gets accustomed to think diagrammatically about concepts and one eventually learns just to do it spontaneously.

Here are some examples:


6

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Quora answer: If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

Quora answer:  If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

Kent Palmer http://kdp.me Copyright 2011


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

I am a polymath. I refer you to my answers on Quora, and my works as evidence. Now it is for you to decide if I am actually one.

For instance, Socrates claims to not be a Sophist. But in certain circumstances Plato makes him look precisely like what he is against. Thus, what are we to take from that when we become disillusioned with Socrates and his difference from the Sophists as Nietzsche did for instance. Socrates was an anti-polymath, and the sophists were seen as the polymaths, and that is one of the things that Socrates held against them, he thought of them as Hydra, having many heads, and said that they escape into holes with many exits in the course of arguments. But Plato can be seen as a Polymath, if you read all his dialogues. So we have a Polymath with a character who is not a polymath, and who is against Sophists who are normally polymaths, from whom Socrates is hard to distinguish except by external factors like the fact that Socrates is from Athens and not a foreigner. and that Socrates does not ask for money to engage in conversation. Rather than knowing anything himself, Socrates is seen as one who is good at asking, hard to answer questions bout the real meaning of abstract words. So eventually you are completely caught up in Plato’s irony and you don’t know what to think. Basically to your point Plato and Socrates have the ideal of not being Sophists but in the end it seems that they themselves may be sophists. And so their claims must be pointing to something else than the nature of sophistry, something beyond sophistry like the Nondual for instance. Something not recognized in the tradition that followed, and something truly lost in oblivion in our tradition due to active suppression.

Being a Polymath in our society is highly discouraged. Everyone is a specialist. And specialism is in fact nihilism. Thus if you are to overcome nihilism oneself one is forced to try to become a polymath, but in that search for knowledge one puts oneself beyond the pale of academia, because the whole purpose of academia is to control knowledge and who might claim to have it. And everyone says that it is impossible for anyone to know everything in our age, but no one claims that it is impossible to know everything that is significant. That is still open as a goal. But then how do you decide what is significant? My measure is whether or not it relates to the structure of the Western Worldview as it is rooted in the Indo-European worldview. And significance is gained by comparing that to the various nondual traditions like Taoism, Buddhism, DzogChen, Sufism, etc. Significance comes from ones problematic. My problematic the nature of Western Science in relation to the structure of the Western worldivew, and we do this by studying anomalous cases like Acupuncture that has no scientific explanation, but is recognized to work by the establishment even though no one knows why. These anomalies suggest we might have blindspots in our own scientific approach to the world, which come from the structure of our worldview, which is now world dominant. Significance comes from the spread of the Kurgans due to horsepower, Colonialization, and now Globalisation by the Indo-Europeans whose worldview has become world dominant. This coincides with the ultimate nihilistic act which is destroying the planet, i.e. the ultimate terrorist act of destroying the planet and taking everyone else including all other species with you, which this world dominant Worldview seems to be in the process of attempting to realize. The fact that it cannot control itself to stop the emissions that is causing global warming and leading to a greenhouse planet suggests that there is something fundamentally self-destructive in this worldview, which is terrorizing the rest of the planet. In some respects Terrorism is a reflection of ourselves in the mirror of the world. The first terrorists were European anarchists. We developed the weapons of mass destruction which are being used to kill masses of people. If we had not spread them all over the globe we would not find them being used by others. So it seems fairly clear that the Western worldview is its own worst enemy, and unfortunately the enemy of all, including the other species on the planet.

So it is from this global crisis that we take the significance of our problematic. And it is from this crisis that we take the energy to pursue the quest for self-knowledge whereever it may lead. And it is the fact that it leads to many disparate fields that produces the polymatic qualities, which are a side effect of the intellectual journey being taken over a lifetime. And in fact I would guess that all polymaths have a similar motivation, they find something which is fascinating and they pursue it whereever it may lead in the pursuit of understanding, and knowledge of many subjects picked up as tools along the way is the result. They are not seeking to be polymaths, but they are seeking an elusive query, that continually hides in various fields of inquiry or endeavor and the only way to continue the pursuit is to master to some extent those various fields.

So the sign of a true polymath in my opinion is one who has a deep enough problematic that it cannot be bound by specialization, and who thus becomes a renegade from the Academic control structures built to reign in and control knowledge.

A Crank on the other hand is someone who is obsessed with something which is not related to the cutting edge of the tradition and does not recognize the tradition and its judgment on what is valuable and what is not valuable. Every polymath is somewhat of a crank, because they are willing to develop ideas that totally break the mold of the tradition. But the crank really does not understand the tradition, and thus pursues a vision completely out of kilter with it. The Polymath on the other hand is so involved with learning pursuing his goal that he just happens to learn a lot along the way, without regard to whether the knowledge is useful or fits into normal categories manufactured by Academia to control knowledge, The Crank is the person who is filtered out by the academic control system. The polymath does not care about the boundaries for learning established by the Academic knowledge control system because he is pursuing a problematic that is a crosscutting concern and too busy doing that to bother with specialization and the peer pressure of peer reviewed publications. The the true polymath has no peer. Because all the peers implicitly recognize the boundaries of specialization and are loath to transgress those  boundaries.

This brings us to the trees in the Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Trees). But it appears there were actually five trees  trees of life, of immortality, Knowledge, comprehension, and knowledge of good and evil (http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm). Aristotlec says “There are five virtues of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and nous (1139b15). ” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/). Throwing Blake into the equation we have several lists of terms we might try to reconcile.

<pre>
5 trees                     nonduals        Aristotle    Blake
(source of 4 rivers)  Root              nous          albion
Immortality               Source          sophia       Urthowna
Life                           Fate             phronesis   Tharmas
Good & Evil             Good           (metis)        Luvah
Comprehension      Right           techne        Urizen     (reason)
Knowledge              Order           episteme    Beulah Land
(Information)          InfoEntropy  (senses)      (created world)
</pre>

Only a Polymath can come up with a table like this. Whether it is meaningful or not you have to judge for yourself. If it is not meaningful then you would have to judge me a crank. If it is meaningful then it means that there is a lot more to life than just knowing a lot of things, and being a polymath is merely the most superficial of characteristics that we would desire as human beings if we could have all the depth we might  be able to attain.

Nous also called intellect or intelligence, is a philosophical term for the faculty of the human mind which is described in classical philosophy as necessary for understanding what is true or real, very close in meaning to intuition. It is also often described as a form of perception which works within the mind (“the mind’s eye”), rather than only through the physical senses.[2] The three commonly used philosophical terms are from Greek, νοῦς or νόος, and Latin intellectus and intelligentia respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

Note: “Phro­nesis is the histor­ically implicated, communally nurtured ability to make good sense of relatively singular contexts in ways appropriate to their relative singularity.” (https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture/knowledge/episteme/phronesis)

The Polymath merely collects knowledge though his fascination on his intellectual quest after what is sought from his problematic. This is indeed only the surface. What we need is something deeper that takes from all the trees in paradise rather than only one.

19. Jesus said, “Blessed is he who exists from the beginning before he comes to be. If you are my students and listen to my words, these stones will become your servants. For you have five trees in Paradise, which do not move in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall down. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”
http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm

Reference: https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture

http://kp0.me/GQuvME

http://www.quora.com/If-someone-self-identifies-as-a-polymath-is-he-she-actually-one

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Quora answer: If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

I am a polymath. I refer you to my answers on Quora, and my works as evidence. Now it is for you to decide if I am actually one.

For instance, Socrates claims to not be a Sophist. But in certain circumstances Plato makes him look precisely like what he is against. Thus, what are we to take from that when we become disillusioned with Socrates and his difference from the Sophists as Nietzsche did for instance. Socrates was an anti-polymath, and the sophists were seen as the polymaths, and that is one of the things that Socrates held against them, he thought of them as Hydra, having many heads, and said that they escape into holes with many exits in the course of arguments. But Plato can be seen as a Polymath, if you read all his dialogues. So we have a Polymath with a character who is not a polymath, and who is against Sophists who are normally polymaths, from whom Socrates is hard to distinguish except by external factors like the fact that Socrates is from Athens and not a foreigner. and that Socrates does not ask for money to engage in conversation. Rather than knowing anything himself, Socrates is seen as one who is good at asking, hard to answer questions bout the real meaning of abstract words. So eventually you are completely caught up in Plato’s irony and you don’t know what to think. Basically to your point Plato and Socrates have the ideal of not being Sophists but in the end it seems that they themselves may be sophists. And so their claims must be pointing to something else than the nature of sophistry, something beyond sophistry like the Nondual for instance. Something not recognized in the tradition that followed, and something truly lost in oblivion in our tradition due to active suppression.

Being a Polymath in our society is highly discouraged. Everyone is a specialist. And specialism is in fact nihilism. Thus if you are to overcome nihilism oneself one is forced to try to become a polymath, but in that search for knowledge one puts oneself beyond the pale of academia, because the whole purpose of academia is to control knowledge and who might claim to have it. And everyone says that it is impossible for anyone to know everything in our age, but no one claims that it is impossible to know everything that is significant. That is still open as a goal. But then how do you decide what is significant? My measure is whether or not it relates to the structure of the Western Worldview as it is rooted in the Indo-European worldview. And significance is gained by comparing that to the various nondual traditions like Taoism, Buddhism, DzogChen, Sufism, etc. Significance comes from ones problematic. My problematic the nature of Western Science in relation to the structure of the Western worldivew, and we do this by studying anomalous cases like Acupuncture that has no scientific explanation, but is recognized to work by the establishment even though no one knows why. These anomalies suggest we might have blindspots in our own scientific approach to the world, which come from the structure of our worldview, which is now world dominant. Significance comes from the spread of the Kurgans due to horsepower, Colonialization, and now Globalisation by the Indo-Europeans whose worldview has become world dominant. This coincides with the ultimate nihilistic act which is destroying the planet, i.e. the ultimate terrorist act of destroying the planet and taking everyone else including all other species with you, which this world dominant Worldview seems to be in the process of attempting to realize. The fact that it cannot control itself to stop the emissions that is causing global warming and leading to a greenhouse planet suggests that there is something fundamentally self-destructive in this worldview, which is terrorizing the rest of the planet. In some respects Terrorism is a reflection of ourselves in the mirror of the world. The first terrorists were European anarchists. We developed the weapons of mass destruction which are being used to kill masses of people. If we had not spread them all over the globe we would not find them being used by others. So it seems fairly clear that the Western worldview is its own worst enemy, and unfortunately the enemy of all, including the other species on the planet.

So it is from this global crisis that we take the significance of our problematic. And it is from this crisis that we take the energy to pursue the quest for self-knowledge whereever it may lead. And it is the fact that it leads to many disparate fields that produces the polymatic qualities, which are a side effect of the intellectual journey being taken over a lifetime. And in fact I would guess that all polymaths have a similar motivation, they find something which is fascinating and they pursue it whereever it may lead in the pursuit of understanding, and knowledge of many subjects picked up as tools along the way is the result. They are not seeking to be polymaths, but they are seeking an elusive query, that continually hides in various fields of inquiry or endeavor and the only way to continue the pursuit is to master to some extent those various fields.

So the sign of a true polymath in my opinion is one who has a deep enough problematic that it cannot be bound by specialization, and who thus becomes a renegade from the Academic control structures built to reign in and control knowledge.

A Crank on the other hand is someone who is obsessed with something which is not related to the cutting edge of the tradition and does not recognize the tradition and its judgment on what is valuable and what is not valuable. Every polymath is somewhat of a crank, because they are willing to develop ideas that totally break the mold of the tradition. But the crank really does not understand the tradition, and thus pursues a vision completely out of kilter with it. The Polymath on the other hand is so involved with learning pursuing his goal that he just happens to learn a lot along the way, without regard to whether the knowledge is useful or fits into normal categories manufactured by Academia to control knowledge, The Crank is the person who is filtered out by the academic control system. The polymath does not care about the boundaries for learning established by the Academic knowledge control system because he is pursuing a problematic that is a crosscutting concern and too busy doing that to bother with specialization and the peer pressure of peer reviewed publications. The the true polymath has no peer. Because all the peers implicitly recognize the boundaries of specialization and are loath to transgress those  boundaries.

This brings us to the trees in the Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Trees). But it appears there were actually five trees  trees of life, of immortality, Knowledge, comprehension, and knowledge of good and evil (http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm). Aristotlec says “There are five virtues of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and nous (1139b15). ” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/). Throwing Blake into the equation we have several lists of terms we might try to reconcile.

<pre>
5 trees                     nonduals        Aristotle    Blake
(source of 4 rivers)  Root              nous          albion
Immortality               Source          sophia       Urthowna
Life                           Fate             phronesis   Tharmas
Good & Evil             Good           (metis)        Luvah
Comprehension      Right           techne        Urizen     (reason)
Knowledge              Order           episteme    Beulah Land
(Information)          InfoEntropy  (senses)      (created world)
</pre>

Only a Polymath can come up with a table like this. Whether it is meaningful or not you have to judge for yourself. If it is not meaningful then you would have to judge me a crank. If it is meaningful then it means that there is a lot more to life than just knowing a lot of things, and being a polymath is merely the most superficial of characteristics that we would desire as human beings if we could have all the depth we might  be able to attain.

Nous also called intellect or intelligence, is a philosophical term for the faculty of the human mind which is described in classical philosophy as necessary for understanding what is true or real, very close in meaning to intuition. It is also often described as a form of perception which works within the mind (“the mind’s eye”), rather than only through the physical senses.[2] The three commonly used philosophical terms are from Greek, νοῦς or νόος, and Latin intellectus and intelligentia respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

Note: “Phro­nesis is the histor­ically implicated, communally nurtured ability to make good sense of relatively singular contexts in ways appropriate to their relative singularity.” (https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture/knowledge/episteme/phronesis)

The Polymath merely collects knowledge though his fascination on his intellectual quest after what is sought from his problematic. This is indeed only the surface. What we need is something deeper that takes from all the trees in paradise rather than only one.

19. Jesus said, “Blessed is he who exists from the beginning before he comes to be. If you are my students and listen to my words, these stones will become your servants. For you have five trees in Paradise, which do not move in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall down. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”
http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm

Reference: https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture

http://kp0.me/GQuvME

http://www.quora.com/If-someone-self-identifies-as-a-polymath-is-he-she-actually-one

Quora answer: Are Harold Bloom’s books worth reading as a layman?

Harold Bloom is a key Literary Theorist for many reasons, but I think the most interesting of which are his books the Anxiety of Influence and the Map of Misreading, where he talks about how creativity is really stealing, and then covering up what is stolen. For instance, now it is fairly clear from recent Scholarship that Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger stole large portions of their “innovative” ideas from the later Husserl which is documented in The Other Husserl The Horizons of Transcendental Phenomenology  Don Welton; Another case is that of Foucault who at the end of his life according to Dreyfus admitted that His theory of Power merely substituted that word for Being in Heidegger’s Being and Time. These are crucial transitions in Continental Philosophy and it seems the anxiety of influence dynamic that Bloom pointed out out holds true in these particular cases. The map of Misreading is similar to Drefyus’ idea of how changes occur in the tradition, where peripheral concerns become central and central concerns become peripheral. In the Map of Misreading each poetic genius misreads the earlier generation, and we can see that misreading is having other concerns that bring to the fore what is peripheral in the earlier generation’s works. So Bloom zeros in on a particular dynamic that explains change in the Poetic tradition and that is probably also true for Philosophy if not more so.

Of course, this theory of Dreyfus and Bloom explains only incremental change and not Emergent Events. Emergent Events are radical changes that are very difficult to explain in this way, like the discovery of Quantum Theory for instance. Einstein’s Relativity could be seen as an example of this sort of change of the way we are viewing things already known by looking at them differently, i.e. via an Anagogic Swerve. But explaining things that come out of nowhere to change everything, like Super-conductivity, or Solitons, or Quaternions, for instance, cannot be explained by this type of theory. Thus we need to augment Bloom’s theory with a theory about the nature of Emergent Events and when we do that it takes us deeply into the structure of the worldview.

http://kp0.me/GQrAn9
http://www.quora.com/Are-Harold-Bloom-s-books-worth-reading-as-a-layman

Quora answer: Who are Western philosophers of self-realization?


This is a difficult problem, because I don’t know of any, except perhaps Plato. My own opinion is that all philosophers are sophists, including yours truly. The Western tradition, despite Plato’s warning is basically Sophistry, and we do not see much self-realization in this lot. They were trying to describe everyday mundane experience, and particularly the role of science. They were not going beyond that into self-realization or any type of spirituality for the most part. The closest thing we have to a purely nondual spiritual master is Meister Eckhart. Mostly those who advocated nondual perspectives were killed off by the Inquisition if they arose. Meister Eckhart was careful to say that if you had a vision, or some other conceptual or experiential psychic phenomenon that you have not really begun the way to god that must go though the emptiness of God’s essence, in order to arrive at self-realization. If you want self-realization then you best bet is Buddhism, Taoism or Sufism, i.e. some non-Western nondual tradition. But Ironically this does not mean that the Western worldview does not have a nondual kernel. The core of the worldview generates nihilism, but due to the fact that the core is fragmented showing signs of discontinuities, like the lines in the divided line of Plato, means that ultimately in the kernel there is nonduality there. That is why it could spawn Buddhism and Islam as nondual heresies. And ultimately to these nondual heresies that are rejected by the Western worldview must return home, i.e. realize themselves in their source and origin which is in the kernel of the worldview.

Thus in a sense, in spite of the fact that all the Western philosophers are Sophists, whose only goal is to portray the essence of mundane consciousness or being-in-the-lifeworld, in fact they all together are pointing toward nonduality of the kernel of the worldview. And this was made possible because if read in terms of nondual understanding, Plato set the stage for this possibility. This is because in Plato’s dialogues, we really have a hard time to distinguish Socrates from the Sophists, yet all the various characters in the dialogues together point toward the nondual kernel of the worldview as the inherited wisdom of Egypt. So just as the distinction between the wise man and the fools cannot ultimately be made, all of the characters (who were actual people) in the Dialogues together point toward wisdom via irony.

The Western dualistic tradition was very effective at stomping out nondual heresies. So much so that it is hard to name anyone who made a fundamental indication of nonduality in the tradition. Now most heresies in the West were extreme nihilistic reactions to the nihilism of the worldview like Gnosticism for instance. An excellent exposition of this is in Morris Berman’s Coming to Our Senses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Berman

http://morrisberman.blogspot.com/

http://kp0.me/H25EK1

http://www.quora.com/Who-are-Western-philosophers-of-self-realization

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , ,

Quora answer: What is a Koan?

If I am going to answer what a Koan does I better answer first what a Koan is….

A Koan is a question that uses language or sometimes an utterance that is not a word and sometimes movement of the body to point at the nature of reality, i.e. emptiness of all appearances. In a Koan the roles of Questioner and Answer-er are reversed. Normally a person who does not know something, asks someone else who does know something for the answer to their question. In the case of a Koan it is a test from the master to the student to test their understanding of Buddhist enlightenment and their embodiment of it. So the one who is enlightened is asking a question of the one seeking enlightenment. But in that question there is also a pointing toward the nature of enlightenment as it is hidden in the current existential situation that the student and teacher are in at the moment. Many times the answer refers to previous Koans, to Sutras, to folk knowledge, or generally the Buddhist tradition.

To illustrate I am going to refer to a very rare movie called Satori. In this movie Satori is a monster that eats thoughts. Satori is following around a girl who is the only one who can see him. The movie is about how she deals with this monster and the fact that she cannot get rid of him, and stop him from following her around. So the main character will be talking to someone in a kitchen say, and Satori will be curled up on the cabinet, listening and up to his usual mischief. Now this is a folk image of what Buddhist enlightenment is like, and I think it gives us some insight into the nature of enlightenment in the Zen tradition which is that you get rid of all your thoughts.

Of course, this kind of Mind-Only idealism is in fact a departure from the middle way. Bodhidharma who brought Chan to China from India, supposedly, emphasized the Lankavatra Sutra which is an extremely idealist offshoot from the Yogacara and Tathagata schools of Buddhism. It interprets enlightenment as the stopping the thoughts of the mind. It took a while for Hui Neng to correct this doctrine, and thus we got a split between Northern (slow enlightenment) and Southern (fast enlightenment) schools of Chan Buddhism.

Koans were a practice that Chan added to Buddhism, and we can see that it replaces the Sutra as the center of attention in some schools of Zen. Renzai Zen concentrates on the Koan as the route to enlightenment via dialogue with the enlightened master. Soto Zen concentrates on meditation practices and the understanding of dialectics.  However, we must not think that Zen Priests did not know the contents of the Sutras, but rather they assume that you know it, and need to go beyond it to experience enlightenment itself.

It was Renzai Buddhism that was the main branch imported into the USA by D.T. Suzuki and others, and so we think of Zen through that lens, but actually there is a variety of schools. Of those, to me the most interesting is Soto Zen which has more intellectual content, with sophisticated dialectical theory, and also that is the school of Dogen Kigen who was a genius. One particular chapter of the Sobogenzo is the one called ExistenceTime which is particularly significant.

Most Zen/Chan teachers assume the teachings of the Hua Yen school of Fa Tsang as a background for understanding Zen/Chan practice. This school and the Tien Tai school are attempting to find a middle ground between Taoism and Zen Buddhism. And the way that Hua Yen does that is to posit that emptiness is identical to the interpenetration of all things. That is to say they have formulated a positive characterization of the nature of the Form/Emptiness chiasm.

The concept of the Koan is that language can be a medium for transmission of an awareness of interpenetration, but it may be indicated by an interference or a movement, or anything that points to the inherent emptiness that makes interpenetration possible.

One way to think about it is via Quantum Mechanics, which itself is for us one huge KOAN. In QM there is entanglement and superposition. When we try to marry it with Relativity theory at the Planck scale we get contradictions, paradox and absurdity. But lets suppose for a moment that QM operates on a macro-scale as it does in Bose-Einstein condensates. Or we can appeal to Cooper pairs of electrons in Super-Conductivity that are entangled and moving through a lattice of the material that is cooled sufficiently for this phenomena to appear. These electrons interact with the vibratory phonons in the lattice in order to synchronize with the lattice and to avoid all resistance from imperfections in the lattice. These electrons probably use superposition to pick the path of least resistance. They use their entanglement to triangulate with the phonons in the lattice. Or anyway that is one theory.

Point is that at the quantum level there is an ultra-efficacy (hyper-efficient and hyper-effective) that allows Cooper Pairs to avoid all resistance at a certain temperature in certain materials. Now just for the heck of it lets say that a similar phenomena can operate on a macro level, sometimes that is called FLOW, when we get in a groove, and we do everything just right, and can handle what ever the environment can send at us. This is a basic theme in Adventure movies, they model Flow of the Hero’s as they navigate the obstacles in the imaginary world of the movie. It is like when you fly in your dreams. So such a case might even occur on an interpersonal level, say between enlightened master and student. The idea of Synchronicity and Psychoid phenomena in Jung points to this possibility.

So say you are with your teacher who is enlightened. Some situation comes along, and the teacher will use that situation to point at the nature of reality, usually by some pertinence statement that has multitudes of meanings, that one grasps all at once. If one is in the right state the transmission can occur where the state of consciousness of the teacher passes directly to the student as if it were some type of contagion. And in that moment the student realizes that the natural reality of his self has always been enlightened from the very beginning. The Koan is the means of this transmission, and these are collected in the Zen tradition and given to students as problems to solve, which they supposedly exhaust their reason on, and when they give up trying to understand with their mind they are then able to reach the goal of mindlessness that is seen my many as the goal of Zen.

However, in my view this is completely wrong. If we take Plato’s divided line as the model then it has two limits Paradox and the Supra-rational. Paradox (entanglement) is the extreme of DOXA which is appearance and opinion. Supra-rationality (superposition) is the extreme of RATIO which is our understanding. This NO-MIND doctrine throws you from one extreme to the other. The extreme of figuring things out rationally, to the extreme of pure appearance. Even though Buddhism is basically phenomenological, that does not mean that appearance in itself is enlightenment. This would not be the middle way. But since we fall into Paradox so naturally, the Koan is a sort of antidote that cancels the paradox with discontinuity and separation instead of mixture of incompatibles.

By confronting the student with a supra-rational indication, that counterbalances the confusion of the student which is basically a mixed state, when confronted with the paradoxical impossibly of enlightenment as a goal of the self. Because both India and China used Mass logics of Pervasion, these statements mean something essentially different from what we might think based on the set-based syllogistic logic we use in our reasoning. Blythe has collected the koan like statements in our tradition. But since he did not know the difference between paradox and supra-rationality, he included paradoxical statements in his collection, so there is some misunderstanding in what a Koan actually is in our interpretation of Zen/Chan tradition. We think they are paradoxes or absurdities when they are exactly the opposite for the most part. Of course, there are some Koans that are paradoxes, thrown in for good measure, but for the most part they are supra-rational statements.

So lets take the Flag Koan as an example. Is the flag moving in the wind or is it your mind? First we need to know that this points at the doctrine of the karmic function and the “substance” of consciousness which we see in the Awakening of Faith for example. So this is actually a very specific reference that is quite complex conceptually.

The flag is an appearance which flutters in the wind, and thus moves, and anything that moves generates contradiction from a logical point of view (nb. Zeno).

But more generally there is the Karmic Function and the “substance” consciousness (white light). The Karmic Function “moves the emptiness of consciousness interpreted as white light” producing phenomena in consciousness.

So something invisible (air as wind) is moving the substance of the flag (fabric). On the other hand the karmic function as the flux of consciousness is moving the empty substance of consciousness which at its root is a white light experience to produce phenomena in consciousness that correlates with the appearances to us of external objects in the world. Throw into that mix that Buddhists do not believe in the reality of anything outside of consciousness, and you get a deadly concoction, especially when asked what is moving, the external flag in the wind, or the internal karmic function that disturbs consciousness.

If you say it is the Flag outside being blown by the external wind you feel on your skin, then you are rejecting the inherent phenomenological position of Buddhism. But if you say that it is the mind moving, how can the mind move? If anything moves it generates contradictions, so if the mind was to move it would also generated contradictions if not paradoxes or absurdities. The question crosses the inward/outward boundary, and is a boundary violation either way.

But the answer is of course that the whole situation is nondual as apprehended by supra-rationality. So the flag is moving in the Wind, and the Karmic function is moving the white light of the basic “substance” of the mind simultaneously without interference. In the movement of the flag in the wind there is entanglement, and in the movement of the karmic function of the substance of consciousness there is entanglement, but between these entanglements there is supra-rational simultaneous non-interfering synchonistic  and psychoid isomorphic mirroring. What is being pointed at is the mirror between inward and outward. Look into that mirror and you to will see your own nature. Inward exists as the outward, and outward exists as the inward. No more, no less.

The sound of one hand clapping, that is so famous is also pointing at the enantiomorphism of left and right, and how they become the same, if there is nondual experience. And so it goes, Koans point almost always directly at nondual experience of existence as emptiness, whose nature is ultimately interpenetration. When this is pointed out the mixture of confusion in our mindbody is clarified beyond all expectation.

http://kp0.me/H0D9gX

http://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Koan

Quora answer: What does it feel like when you realize that a scientific theory you had complete faith in is proved wrong?



According to Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery all you can do with a theory is prove it wrong. And that has been widely accepted now, so that is why scientists are so happy when their theories are proved wrong because that is itself something that can be known and it thus limits the possibilities of how nature works and how it was “designed”. It is not so much by Intelligent Design, but by Design Intelligence that we come to know the way nature actually works as opposed to how some people would like it to work, i.e. simplistically. Nature is complicated and even complex. Right now we are on the verge of a disproof of a high magnitude, if the Higgs particle is not found soon, and if there is no super-symmetry, and neutrinos really do go faster than the speed of light. We are not there yet, but this would be some big disproofs of well accepted parts of the standard model. And we will have to go back to the drawing board, no matter how elegant those theories are. If they are not true of nature, then we will start from scratch and try to find something better. And we will feel good about it because our theory was disproved, and so that takes us at least one step closer to knowing something more useful about the structure of nature.

http://kp0.me/H5ovQ4

http://www.quora.com/What-does-it-feel-like-when-you-realize-that-a-scientific-theory-you-had-complete-faith-in-is-proved-wrong