At least we don't write faster than we thinksarek wrote:Y'all write faster than I can read, but trying to keep up.
Please don't take my word, or not alone. Actually, our Dr. Hoeller is a very good resource. Listen to his lectures too. At least the first introductory one.sarek wrote:You know what Lu? I will gladly take your word for it and will attempt both methods whatever works best for me. I have lots to learn anyway and will surely find my way with this
Yes, sorry - I find it hard to keep that in mind. For some reason I always take that serious. Strange, I know.sarek wrote:I keep forgetting you are a people reader like myself. However there is also so such a thing as cheerful tongue in cheekishness which I tend to liberally inflict on myself
Well, it is. But that's all very Tolkien-centered, so it might not work for you.sarek wrote:I will do that. It might be instructive if you could post a few basic methods which those who have not done this before can use.
Or maybe that is already there, hidden in the IV material.
This is why I keep hammering on this let-go-of-rationality; because that might give you a clue about what your "point of entry" might be.
Yes. I understand all that very well. I am an understander, too.sarek wrote:I want that because that is who I am. I am an understander. I am someone who wants to encompass things, comprehend them. And once I do, go yet one step further. It is my driving force, my religion almost, as it were.
I have built my whole persona from the ground up, starting as a nerd and now functioning as a high sensitive intuitive feeler.
Traveling beyond, into the realm of the Imaginal is for me a natural continuation of my voyage of discovery both of that which lies within and outside of me.
And that is why I am so set on trying to tell you that understanding as such won't bring you closer to the imaginal. I know what I am talking about.
The Copenhagen interpretation is about probabilityspace. It is the superset of all possible choices at quantum level.sarek wrote:With the caveat that I am not only speaking of realspace but also of the much larger realm of possibilityspace.
I think that this is exactly where the itch is. I dare say that the imaginal is not part of any possible (rationalistic) model.sarek wrote:The Imaginal is not necessarily part of physical reality, that I agree with. Its is however part of possibilityspace which is a much more encompassing whole.
As long as you keep adding the imaginal realm to the factual realm through these sort of links - by making it subject to any theory or model at all, you deny the very nature of the imaginal, and hence you are not talking about the imaginal but something other than that.
OK - but since theories only make sense in a rational context, they should essentially be falsifiable. If you can't do that, it isn't a proper theory.sarek wrote:I understand the above and as yet science does AFAICT not yet have a conclusive answer whether or not this applies to the functioning of the brain.
My intuitive hint is that it does indeed apply, but I have no way of proving it.
Again I wonder why you would take the effort of creating something that isn't a proper scientific theory (because it cannot be verified) and can neither be applied to the imaginal (because of it's nature as a rational explanation)?
OK, let me see if I've got this straight: you take ten cats, in ten different timelines, and you perform the Schrödinger experiment on all of them. Why wouldn't the cats that did not survive this, not really be dead? Surely not just because they are on different time lines?sarek wrote:What if my theoretical Grand Arbitrator(tongue in cheek TM) were to use the many worlds hypothesis as a way of performing the various experiments? All you need to do is retroactively pick a timeline. The inhabitants of that timeline would have no way to tell there was anything special going on with their timeline.
I wouldn't bet my life on that! Causality may mean nothing outside of a temporal context. Or maybe it needs a much broader definition.sarek wrote:Yet causality remains.
As soon as you introduce probability there is no longer one causality line, but merely "paths of higher or lesser probability". This leaves plenty of room for randomness I'd say?sarek wrote:It could, if it were not again for that pesky creature called causality. Causality creates a link between events, regardless of whether there really is a timeline. I very much doubt if, looking back down any given causality line, there is any space for randomness at all.