Marie Louise von Franz - On Divination & Synchronicity

[chris]

Hello all,

Is anyone familiar with the above referenced book? I have read it twice over the years and would like to talk about the book - or perpaps re-read it in a kind of book-club type of format. von Franz relates divination (and the I Ching) to what she calls "Chinese mathematics". I never really understood this connection. She makes a significant distinction between quantity and quality - and I think between counting and ordering.

Any responses or comments would be great.

Thanks,

Chris

(ps... I live in Post Falls, Idaho US and am a researcher in post-graduate medical education, learning design/architect specializing in asynchronous dialogue, and an amateur epistemologist. I am learning yoga (from my wife - who is a yoga teacher) and helping raise our two sons ages 11 and 14.

 

[heylise]

I don't know it, but it sounds very interesting. I will certainly try to get it.
I will mail when I have it.
LiSe

 

[chrislofting]

Hi chris,

you wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is anyone familiar with the above referenced book?

I read it and have it tucked away in a bookshelf 'somewhere' ;-)

> I have
> read it twice over the years and would like to talk about
> the book - or perpaps re-read it in a kind of book-club type
> of format. von Franz relates divination (and the I Ching) to
> what she calls "Chinese mathematics". I never really
> understood this connection. She makes a significant
> distinction between quantity and quality

sure. issues of precision (quantity) vs approximation (quality) - reflected in our brain structures.

> - and I think between counting and ordering.
>

So do I ;-) the latter in the context of cardinality and ordinality. again reflected in our brain structures. See http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html - for the ICPlus material see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/newindex.html

How much of an interest do you have in Jung's work (von Franz being an associate of his)?

Chris.

 

[pedro]

One thing I never quite understood, did Jung ever come up with an explanation to synchronicity, as to how and why it worked, or did he just postulate that it did work, that is, some coincidences have particular significance?

 

[martin]

Hi Pedro,

I think it depends on what you mean by "explanation".
For example, Jung thought that the distance between two synchronistically linked events doesn't really matter. He thought that even events that happen very far apart in space could be linked in this way. He didn't expect the link to become weaker with growing distance.
From the viewpoint of physics this would require explanation. Because an influence that seems to be invariant in relation to distance in space is unusual. Gravity, for example, doesn't behave like that. A gravitational field (or the corresponding curvature of space-time in the Einstein-Minkovsky model) doesn't have clear borders but it is essentially local.
The same is true for electromagnetic fields. And even for the unified field that Einstein tried to find all his life, I suppose.
So if Jung was right (distance doesn't matter) then what is going on here?
But from the viewpoint of Jung things looked differently. He saw space-time essentially as a psychic reality, much like the philosopher Kant. In this view space-time is not really out-there. It's rather in-here, in our psyche, and we project it on the world.
Now if you look at space-time in this way an "actio in distans" that isn't diminished when the distance grows isn't that surprising, because the distance is, well, just an idea, so to speak.

Well, this is only one example. I think one can say that Jung did indeed explain his synchronicity principle but many of his explanations - about this and other issues - are not that explicit. One has to look through his eyes if one wants to understand the how and why of his statements. And biographical information often helps. In the case of the synchronicity principle his friendship with his former patient Wolfgang Pauli (a physicist), his personal experiences with synchronicity, his hesitations about publishing his conclusions, and so on.

 

[django]

Hi all
Martin states" So if Jung was right[ distance does not matter] [end quote]...I would take take it the natural step further and say that time, also does not matter.Is it drawing a long bow to state that Synchronicity operates from beyond the space-time continuum?

In page 325 of "the Great Treatise" [Wilhelm]It states.....The problem is whether, in view of the inadequacy of our means of understanding, a contact transcending the limits of time is possible-whether a later epoch is ever able to understand an earlier one. on the basis of "The Book of Changes", the answer is in the affirmitive. True enough , speech and writing are imperfect transmitters of thought, but by the means of "images"- we would say ideas and the stimuli contained in them , a spiritual force is set in motion who's action transcends the limit of time. and when it comes upon the right man, one who has an inner relationship with this Tao, it can forthwith be taken up by him and awakened anew to life. This is the concept of the supranatural connection between the elect of all the ages.
Django.

 

[martin]

Hi Django,

I agree, that would be natural and I think I have already done it - don't know when and where though, for obvious reasons *grin*.

My impression is that Jung's understanding expanded and deepened in his later years but he didn't write about that anymore, so it's hard to know what exactly happened.

Of course if time also doesn't matter we will have to find a new name for synchronicity.
And a new definition.

 

[martin]

What Wilhelm says about a spiritual force that transcends the limits of time reminds me of a teacher I had.
At the start of a period of intense inner work he would invoke all the teachers in his lineage. It felt - well, I will not try to put it into words.
I have no doubts about it that this supranatural connection - as Wilhelm calls it - is very real.
But I wouldn't use that word 'supranatural'.
For all I know, such connections are entirely natural. If we don't feel it that way it's because *we* are not natural.

 

[chrislofting]

Martin,

here is some text taken from my last post to the Shen Shu thread (which is getting too long! ;-)) you may find of interest in the context of THIS thread:


"... the dichotomy here is causality/synchronicity. Causality is differentiating and serial, syntax focused. B follows A. C follows B etc Synchronicity is more 'field' oriented where ALL of the expressions of causality are expressed at the one moment and the focus is on any patterns in this expression - of what goes with what, what stays away from what in these 'moments'.

Imagine standing in a crowd of people and the context pushes you at a moment such that half the crowd 'instinctively' takes a step back and the other half a step forward. There are no words here, the 'something' is out of consciousness. Our MINDS, our consciousness, unaware of the nature how context can set-off behaviours 'out of consciousness', can fire instincts at a VERY subtle level, will interpret this as a 'synchronous' moment - 'Wow! you step forward just when I did!' - Jung's concept covered the synchrony over hours, days, not just the immediate moment. Note in this the approximation focus, a focus that is very 'right brained' when compared to the 'dot' precision of the 'left brained'.)

I think a discussion of this is 'brewing' on the recent post thread of

"Marie Louise von Franz - On Divination & Synchronicity"

In that book von Franz covers the differences in perspectives of causal vs synchronicity and the IDM material would validate that dichotomy as reflecting a differentiation bias (western, dot oriented, serial, precise) vs an integrating bias (eastern, field oriented, parallel, approximate). IOW Jung's noticing of the differences where inevitable in that the distinctions are part of our brain makeup, they become noticable as we become more precise in our analysis of consciousness (and unconsciousness) etc.

Jung's focus is strongly on the "Collective Unconscious" and so our species-nature and that nature is integrating and with it comes its interpretation of time etc that LACKS the precision of causal time concepts, focuses more on the relationships between things as compared to a more differentiating perspective that focuses on the thing itself.

The 'right brained' form of thinking will identify things IMPLICITLY, through rough linking of a pattern of events all happening in synchronous time and 'implying' something, some meaning. The focus here is on pattern matching - the realm of, the specialisation of, the parafovea in vision.

Imagine for all individuals each causal line as represented by a lightbulb. Imagine all of these lines packed together into a circular form. As each light goes off or on so a pattern will emerge in the WHOLE set of light bulbs. Those patterns can be interpreted as reflecting 'synchrony' where there is no apparent 'logical' link but the oberservation of some 'meaning' shared. Implied in this is that an archetype can 'set off' causal activity that creates a unique pattern tied to the archetype. Get in tune with the parallel and you can sense the patterns - patterns that PUSH individuals and so enable predictions of events, behaviours at the general level.

This gets into flocking behaviour in flocks of birds, swarms of bees, crowds of people, and neural networks. All of the individuals will make LOCAL distinctions in relation to their immediate surroundings (and so context). Those distinctions will reverberate, be amplified and dampened across the collective such that a pattern will emerge in the collective not necessarily related to the actions of any ONE individual at that moment.

Any benefits from this activity can feedback to encourage the individuals to make the same local distinctions such that out pops 'magic' in that ONE individual believes their actions elicit the expression whereas it is the interactions of all that does this. A PART is treated as if a WHOLE and from that can develop all sorts of belief systems if the individual/collective does not know about these sorts of dynamics in nature. "

AND

"For any moment in time, the WHOLE of the I Ching is applicable, IS applied, and so reflects the parallel focus. But our consciousness is serial oriented, particulars focus, and so zooms in on a PART of the I Ching, a hexagram. We are not explicitly aware (without learning about it) of the WHOLE that is active, we are trained to focus on the PART, the 'best fit', for us, of all of the parts that apply to any moment.

When you ask a question through divination techniques (as in coins, marbles, yarrow sticks etc) what you get is ONE of the PARTS of the I Ching for that moment. You may get the 'best fit' hexagram, you may get the 'worst fit' hexagram but whatever hexagram you get will elicit meaning in some way in that the I Ching is our filter of reality such that it describes 'all there is' - or we make so ;-) (if the hexagram comes across as 'no way!' then convert it to its opposite, you have probably picked-up the 'worst fit' hexagram! ;-))

The advantage of the divination method, the use of 'randomness' is that the WHOLE is unconscious to you and as such your decisions can be 'clouded' by local judgements (yours included). The randomness can give you a perspective out of 'left field' that you may not have considered in reflecting on 'the situation'. In more ancient times this act was to reflect the 'thoughts of the gods', of determinism.

Determinism is strongly 'right brained' and is reflected in such concepts as archetypes, instincts etc. Free will is 'left brained' as reflects the ability to break-free of an archetype/instinct/habit by (a) intentionally moving to another archetype or (b) by backing away from the current (and so backing into another archetype). As such, archetypes are operating as contexts all of the time, your free will is the ability to switch from one to another ;-) (or try to assert your own version to 'replace' the existing - charisma etc allows for this). "


To add to this note that the moment you go 'within' a whole concepts of time and distance break down - all is conserved throughout the whole and correlations 'rule'. This is the 'struggle' that QM is having with interpretations in that the moment you move to a wave interpretation so all is automatically connected. These issues reflect differences in perspective from PART to WHOLE analysis, serial to parallel, causal to synchronous etc etc

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

I sometimes wonder where Pauli was when Jung finally decided to publish about synchronicity and referred to it as an acausal principle. Because when Jung wrote that the (according to Ernst Mach) "clumsy" concept of causality was already banned from physics quite some time ago.
The synchronicity concept itself is also a little bit odd because simultaneity is relative in relativity theory. What is simultaneous for one observer need not be simultaneous for another.
It's not that important in daily life - unless you have a really fast car or a black hole in your cellar - but still.

Perhaps it's a good idea to replace the (clumsy?) causality/synchronicity dichotomy by what seems to be the underlying more fundamental dichotomy: time/space.
We can then say that the east/right half of the world/brain is more attuned to spacial relationships and patterns while the west/left part is more attuned to linear time sequences. If the alarm goes off in your left hemisphere upon hearing this statement, yes, it is a gross generalization and you may go back to sleep again.

Time in the east - reminds me of what happened once in India. I entered a shop to buy a camera, ended up drinking tea and chatting with the shop owners, left the shop about four (!) hours later without a camera but I had - quite accidentally - sold my watch!


I see now that the conversation has continued in the thread about shenshu after your post and there is apparently an issue of fundamental beliefs or assumptions that is not easy to clarify.
One of your assumptions is - I think - that what we experience as our mind /consciousness /intelligence doesn't and cannot exist apart from our nervous system and the processes in that system.
That would be a stronger assumption than for example "For scientific purposes I don't need to assume that it does and can exist apart from our nervous system".
I don't know how far you want to go, it's not clear from your posts, but I would like to know and other posters would also like to know, I guess.

So, If I may ask, what exactly is your credo?

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

you wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I sometimes wonder where Pauli was when Jung finally decided
> to publish about synchronicity and referred to it as an
> acausal principle. Because when Jung wrote that the
> (according to Ernst Mach) "clumsy" concept of causality was
> already banned from physics quite some time ago.

Neither Pauli, Mach, or Jung were 'up to date' on the current finding in neurosciences and as such their perspectives were 'limited' if but insightful.

> The synchronicity concept itself is also a little bit odd
> because simultaneity is relative in relativity theory. What
> is simultaneous for one observer need not be simultaneous
> for another.
> It's not that important in daily life - unless you have a
> really fast car or a black hole in your cellar - but
> still.
>

There are issues here. The time distortion in relativity is manifest at the level of mental states where increase in energy to focus attention will elicit subjective time distortion. This reflects the inverse relationship of time experience and energy usage but at the level of the physiology of our brains and at metabolic rates not running at anywhere near light speeds! [a change in metabolic rate from 1.2 Joules per Kg per sec to 1.25 can reflect a subjective time distortion of 5 seconds per minute] This behaviour reflects a fractal perspective - same patterns, different scales such that there is more going on then what is reflected in relativity theory.

See my comments on brain/mind relationships in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html and our senses on our map making - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html

> Perhaps it's a good idea to replace the (clumsy?)
> causality/synchronicity dichotomy by what seems to be the
> underlying more fundamental dichotomy: time/space.
> We can then say that the east/right half of the world/brain
> is more attuned to spacial relationships and patterns while
> the west/left part is more attuned to linear time sequences.
> If the alarm goes off in your left hemisphere upon hearing
> this statement, yes, it is a gross generalization and you
> may go back to sleep again.
>

BOTH sides of the brain are sensitive to spacetime, it is the precision in that sensitivity that makes the difference. In the IDM material is identified the 'dimension of precision' that spans the unary (integrating, implicit, species-nature) to the binary (differentiating, explicit, consciousness-nature). Every point on that dimension is a starting point for a particular perspective of reality that reflects 'meaning'. Thus move a little from the unary towards the binary and fibonacci patterns form the foundations of meaning - as we find in ancient perspectives on getting close to 'god' using geometry etc. perpendicular to this point develops the SAME dimension such that the fibonacci perspective will reach 'binary' levels of meaning WITHIN the context of the root point and so can 'transcend' to the next point on the dimension and so on to the position our current culture is at, the extreme end of, and the high energy expenditure of, the binary as root.

(Note that the 'dimension' seems to be created through recursion and as such is 'lumpy' in that the recursion give us a dimension that is made up of PAIRS - but then we see that in the brain through 'banding' patterns, interdigitations etc - see the diagram and associated text http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/btree.png - finer details 'links' the pairs into a continuum and so a seemingly 'smooth' line that can hide the 'interdigitations', the weaving, of the characteristics of the two 'poles' of the dimension)

The properties of the dimension of precision are reflected in all dichotomies in that this dimension of binary(left)/unary(right) [zoom-in and we find interdigitations of these concepts, as we find in the PAIRS of the I Ching etc] reflects the underlying determinism of differentiation/integration. Thus concepts of time will overlay this dimension to give us 'western' time and 'eastern' time where the latter is more focused on parallel, holistic, uniting and so integrating perspectives when compared to the former that is more focused on serial, partial, differentiating perspectives.

The precision issue is where the unit of measure for differentiating is ONE, the unit of measure for integrating is a PAIR. As such we will get differences in perspectives due alone to these issues of precision.

I does not matter what concepts you try to focus upon, you will use the SAME methodology to derive 'meaning'. That is why the I Ching works so well in that it reflects the dimension of precision in the form of yang (differentiating) to yin (integrating) and as such can be 'overlayed' on any other concepts that we use to derive meaning. Same method, different concepts, different contexts. LABELS make the differences, underlying is sameness.

> Time in the east - reminds me of what happened once in
> India. I entered a shop to buy a camera, ended up drinking
> tea and chatting with the shop owners, left the shop about
> four (!) hours later without a camera but I had - quite
> accidentally - sold my watch!
>

Locally, ANY form of interaction can cause subjective time distortion due to the intensity, the interest, of the moment. At the general level the COLLECTIVE can develop from one of those points on the dimension of precision and so be 'slower' or more 'casual' in attitudes to time etc. WITHIN that perspective will exist the dimension operating at the level of particulars such that increased focus on something will slow/stop time and even allow for time to be considered reversible and even ignorable (as in the sense of the 'eternal' that comes with these distortions).

>
> I see now that the conversation has continued in the thread
> about shenshu after your post and there is apparently an
> issue of fundamental beliefs or assumptions that is not easy
> to clarify.

Pedro and Candid have their perspectives and are obviously not into going through the data that suggests otherwise - which is fine, they probably feel there is no need in that they feel secure in their positions. The IDM material and associated reference lists, abstracts, etc etc are given in the posts to that thread so the access to the data is available, the issue is the expenditure of energy ;-)

> One of your assumptions is - I think - that what we
> experience as our mind /consciousness /intelligence doesn't
> and cannot exist apart from our nervous system and the
> processes in that system.

No. the material on neurosciences etc suggests there is no NEED for such concepts to explain the development of consciousness etc etc etc. Science, unlike Religion, has not stopped, is not closed, it is an ongoing enterprise, making new discoveries every day (and that includes neurophysiological activities that get misinterpreted to be treated in a 'religious' manner) - all part of our evolution. MY IDM model covers our approach to deriving meaning and covers the full range from idealism to materialism in that that dichotomy is reflected in the IDM model (as is Science/Religion in that all of these 'sharp' distinctions are relabelling the root distinctions our brain makes in deriving meaning)

As a SPECIES we reflect the METHODOLOGY used in the neuron to process information, all meaning is determined, is defined, by the method used to derive it. The ROOT method is that of the neuron. All other methods are relabels of that root method such that all specialisations reflect the linking of the root method to a unique context and the creation of labels that form a language to use to communicate about that unique context.

This creation of languages reflects the development of consciousness. Anatomically, that part of the brain that focuses on high precision develops AFTER that which is more general - 'left brained' development follows from right, the particular from the general, the individual consciousness from the species-nature, consciousness from the collective unconscious.

This development marks the sharp differences between species-nature that operates holistically but also mindlessly (instincts/habits) and consciousness-nature that operates in serial, mindful but parts oriented.

Our specialisations stem from our consciousness that treats them as if wholes and as if 'the thing' rather than recognise these specialisations are metaphors for what the underlying, species-nature, deals with - objects and relationships, differentiations and integrations. that is not idle speculation, that is more fact. Go through the IDM material or just the references/abstracts ;-)

Working from the IDM model so the I Ching is a specialisation and is applicable to any moment as a WHOLE - IOW all hexagrams are meaningful for any moment in general but the particular dynamics of the moment will sort the hexagrams into an order of 'best fit' to 'worst fit'. Coin tossing will elicit ONE of these hexagrams, not the whole list nore the 'best fit' (1 chance in 64 using 'random' methods). To get the whole list you have to derive the 'best fit' and that requires a more proactive perspective - no use of chance, more use of consciousness.

Anthropomorphism ensures we will project ourselves into that which we do not understand - as Religion has shown us. We are now learning about ourselves in detail and so our understanding is becoming more refined but in doing so 'old' perspectives need to be re-appraised and that includes our approach to, our understanding of, divination processes.

Chris.

 

[davidl]

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Einstein

 

[pedro]

Einstein was a Buddhist

Going a little back, modern science already had to account for acausallity, with the "spooky action at a distance" paradox. I seem to remember reading recently that it was even proved experimentally (at CERN?). So if there is indeed the possibility of events being linked regardless of distance, then not only Buddha's law of causality but even the whole relatvity theory may need to be revised. Spooky action can theoretically be used to "send" information across the universe instantaneously, that is, not even travelling at the speed of light, but at the very same instant. Not that I understand it beneath this simplistic approach, but it surely bends conventional reasoning, even for quantum physiscs.

But my point is, if even physiscs is starting to unveil such interconnections between points of the universe regardless of distance, something that defies all logic, then how sure can we be that it isnt all much broader than we envision today?

Let me just offer another paradox I was thinking the other day. I was running, and I thought, "my soul", let us assume that feeling in the middle of the chest is the soul, "is travelling through space like myself". But I realise that what I call space is merely the input from my senses, I feel the wind, the ground I step, but these are all feelings, I dont know if they are real or just a dream. Actually I realise that matter itself is basically empty. 90% of the universe is empty space (nothing, nada, zilch), and when we inspect the "solid" matter close, we see that itself is composed of mostly empty space (for instance the atom is like a miniature solar system, mostly empty space, and if we could look at the neutron or proton at very close range, we would probabbly discover it to be another small solar sytem, and the same ad infinitum in some probable self similarity. So in the end there is only void, and what makes us think there isnt ,is just the ilusion we experince. Like the electron, we collapse the whole of the possibilities into one single "reality" by observing with our consciousness. So the universe is basically just one big cloud of void probabilities, that each mind transforms into her own physical reality, by observing it.
But back to my jogging soul. So Im moving through space, and my soul, inside my chest, is moving along with me. But on the soul's plane, it isnt moving through space but through void, through nothingness (cause the soul is in the REAL world, not the ilusory one). So picture the soul (like a spark or a flame or some little star), travelling through nothingness (imagine deep space, just darkness and void), as I travell through physical space. But if the soul is travelling through void, how can we know its travelling at all? Without reference points, moving and standing still are the same. So actually the soul is standing still in the void, while at the same time it is travelling through space with me. And without reference points how big is this soul? Imagine the whole universe. Now imagine I take out the whole universe and leave just the empty space. How big is this space? We dont know, it can be a universe's size, or the tip of a pin. Without reference points size and position are irrelevant. So this soul in the void is simultaneously infinitely small and infinitelly big.
But wait a minute, what about the other souls? They must be in this void too, and infinitelly big (or small) also, so since my soul is still there, then all the souls must be one same thing! So here we are, individuals in the material world, but one same soul in the real world.

And I think that the soul must have an entry point in the body (a point in time and space when it encarnates) as well as an exit point. This exit point cannot be predetermined (free will must exist), so it lloks like for some reason souls NEED this experience, entering some body that they know will go through their necessary lessons, and see where they come out. Souls must NEED this journeys, otherwise they wouldnt leave the confort of their divine existences to come to the pains of this material world.

And think about this universe, this whole system of souls. Why is it like this? What is beyond it? I cant accept that this is all. Why would it be? Have we ever found a limit, either to the big or to the small? Is there any limit at all? I think this whole universe must be just a grain of sand in the beach of all universes. What would make this universe so special that it is THE universe?

Oh boy, I need a rest...

 

[chrislofting]

Pedro,

Reading your last post I think you *really* need to got through the IDM data on interpretations of reality in QM. your comments below suggest either you have not read the material or you have not understood it in how it applies to our interpretations of reality. In particular I note your comments re 'spookyness' proven experimentally at CERN etc.

The IDM material identifies the fact that the structure of our experiments reflects the structure of our minds in that we must mold experiments to give us results we understand and so the results always fall within the bounds of our senses (or appear to but in the form of paradox). The 'action at a distance' reflects issues of interpretations of reality from a PARTS perspective, differentiating, our consciousness that is discrete, and our WHOLE perspective that only operates at the level of our species-nature, integrating.

With these differences comes such properties as all is conserved within a whole such that issues develop re time and distance interpretations and only correlations 'work'. Gets into the primitive tribal perspective that what matters is the value of relationships, correlations, integrations.

The 'double slit' experiments, regardless of their particular form, focus on the recursion of a dichotomy (the A/B distinctions be they slits, half slits etc etc) combined with indeterminacy. This process guarantees the detection of wave interference patterns - you can create it using the hexagrams of the I Ching where they get reduced to 28 symbols, 19 of which are composites, 8 of which remain unique, constants.

As to the dichotomy of spirit/soul, spirit differentiates (associated more with the activity of consciousness) and soul integrates (associated more with the activity of the unconscious, the species-nature).

pages of note re QM interpretations and paradox processing -

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/bits.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/svector.html

Those who came up with the interpretations of the data in QM (1900s to 1970s) had no idea what they were talking about/dealing with in that they operated out of their consciousness-nature totally unaware of the neurocognitive processes at work in their 'observations'. Their intuitions were close but whent against their 'logic' and so out popped 'paradox'.

Between our observations and 'out there' is a set of filters that need to be understood prior to any assertions re what the data says about reality. The main distinctions re the filters is the consequences of PART/WHOLE interpretations where reality for our species-nature is reflected by the state vector of QM. Reality for our consciousness-nature is more precise, more parts-oriented, and so one step 'down' from the vector, we are, as conscious individuals, EITHER/OR rather than BOTH/AND.

Chris.

 

[pedro]

Dear Chris,
I seem to be understanding what you mean, but I admit Im not that well at ease with the concepts you defend. I may be too either/or, and I agree I need to study your materials in more detail in order to see where do our paths separate.
I have been over your site many times though, perhaps just reading sideways (or avoiding the more dense stuff I cant really figure out), but still I admire your work and your determination enormously

I'll do some browsing now

ps: love the visual ilusions on the paradox page, I'll mail you a couple funny ones I received through mail recently

 

[tashiiij]

wow pedro you're really cooking!

one tibetan prayer pays respect to all of the buddhas, uncountable as grains on the sand of the ocean, present in the tips of each of one's hairs. of course, you are buddha. the task is to realize that.

another of the four immeasurables is the beginning of time. by immeasurable, the buddha said, (in effect),you cannot quantify it. it is not solvable by a mental concept. so tibetans say "beginingless time". since beginningless time, we have been doing this. what we do. one lifetime, three lifetimes, a million, the same. yet, one human life, so rare to obtain a human body. this human life, so precious. a blind man with a lasso stands on the shore of the ocean. every 300 years a turtle raises his head out of that ocean. as often as that blind man ropes the turtle is how often the human conciousness with it's sense doors and perception arise.

and yet, there are no sentient beings.

i asked a monk in burma once where was the "i" who thought of "i". he had a very low laugh. he said, -oh, that begins very early. when your heart first beats.- in the womb. this is why tibetan practice aims at the heart drop in the center. "tig-le".

buddhist teaching is vast and wonderful. i am in love with the teachings. i cannot express how in love with the teaching i am. and so many vehicles, zen, chan, theravada, tantric. so many. good in the beginning, good in the middle good in the end.

and everywhere, compassion and love and emptiness.

gosh what a wonderful run you had.

 

[martin]

Someone mentioned a book to me that might be relevant to the topic of this thread:
"An experiment with time" by JW Dunne.
I think I have read that book, or at least part of it, a long time ago but I don't remember much about it. So I Googled and found a few links, this is one of them.

Dunny believed that our dreams contain elements of the past as well as of the future. His experiments led him to the conclusion that time is not a simple unidirectional flow, from the past to the future.

 

[chrislofting]

Martin,

you wrote:
>
> Someone mentioned a book to me that might be relevant to the
> topic of this thread:
> "An experiment with time" by JW Dunne.
> I think I have read that book, or at least part of it, a
> long time ago but I don't remember much about it. So I
> Googled and found a few links, this is one of them.
>
> Dunny believed that our dreams contain elements of the past
> as well as of the future. His experiments led him to the
> conclusion that time is not a simple unidirectional flow,
> from the past to the future.
>

yes, I have this book as well as some others on our experiences of time. The issue here is that our metabolism is such that focusing attention on any concept, and time itself, will distort the perception!. That is a problem, or more so a side-effect of focusing attention that needs to be considered in our analysis of time concepts.

The main issue with this side-effect is that it affects our reflections such that we will impoverish the notion of thermodynamic time where nothing is reversible, stoppable, slowable to a mechanistic notion. Dunne's reflections occured at a time where the understanding of these effects of metabolism affecting our thinking was lacking.

High precision thinking will FORCE perspectives where we try to 'freeze' what we observe so that we can label it 'forever'. That is useful to us as a species but does not reflect reality that is dynamic - as reality runs at 40-80Hz so our brains will gear-down through 20Hz to 10 to 5 to 2 to 1 and each will serve as a foundation to represent reality!

Our precise thinking, our idealism, has developed its own little world over thousands of years of ignorance of how we function. ALL of that world is now under review due to the work in neurosciences. Much is, and will be, validated but a lot will need 're-interpretations'.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

Quote:
"Neither Pauli, Mach, or Jung were 'up to date' on the current finding in neurosciences and as such their perspectives were 'limited' if but insightful."

I don't know about the others but I wouldn't underestimate Jung.
He didn't need neuroscience. He looked directly into his psyche.
And we all have this ability. But it requires training to develop it.
I think we need more Jungs, not more screens on which we can watch our brain waves.
On the other hand, those screens can maybe help us to find our way back to what is most near to us, our own psyche. Estrangement of self seems to be one of the main problems in our culture. Anything that can help to remedy this state of affairs is welcome.

Quote:
"The time distortion in relativity is manifest at the level of mental states where increase in energy to focus attention will elicit subjective time distortion."

Of course, but the observers of Einstein might as well be simple measuring devices. Relativity is not about subjective effects in human observers.
However, I agree with you that physics - and especially QM - would benefit if the experts in the field were more aware of the workings of their minds.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

We posted nearly at the same ... time.

Reading your last post now, will respond later, if I have something sensible to add, that is ..

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote "The issue here is that our metabolism is such that focusing attention on any concept, and time itself, will distort the perception!"

Yes, I'm familiar with that side effect.
I don't know if it's relevant in this case, though. What I get from my Googles (I don't have the book) is that Dunne was not talking about the *experience* of time (i.e. of duration).
He was talking about events in the future and the past (past and future according to clock time) and their appearance in dreams.
Of course even then his experiments meet with all kinds of methodological problems - and he was well aware of that, I think.

 

[cal val]

Pedro...

I wasn't aware that Einstein was associated with any organized religion other than the Jewish faith into which he was born and which he embraced as a youth. From my understanding (based on my very meager knowledge of the man), he took very much the same position I did early in my spiritual quest, which was to reject organized religion and embrace only whatever wisdom he found in any religion.

I understand that many people have drawn parallels between his religious views and views of Buddhism, Hinduism and Daoism. I'm sure there are other spiritual thoughts that paralleled his own as well. But I did not know that he personally aligned himself with any religion and that he became a Buddhist.

Would you mind directing me to your source(s) of information or any source(s) of information about this conversion, so that I can learn more about him. He was indeed a major influence in our world, and I'm very curious about him and would like to turn my meager knowledge into not-quite-so-meager knowledge.

Thanks!

Val