GENIUS FORUMS

Hello everyone,

I have decided to release the first part of my book on the net, partly for some feedback and partly to maintain a presence on the forum while I finish the rest of the book. You can either view it directly on the <a href="http://free.hostdepartment.com/w/wisdomoftheinfinite/" target="top">website</a>, or download it as an <a href="http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/wi ... finite.exe" target="top">ebook</a>.

For those after a smaller download than the ebook (490k) you can now download a zipped archive of the web pages (106k). Just unzip the [winzip] archive and load the index file in the browser of your choice <a href="http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/wi ... ">Download Archive</a>

Although I am presenting it as a final draft, I am happy to make changes if anyone has a worthwhile suggestion. If you think that a particular passage isn't clear enough, or that I've neglected to explore a certain area of thought, or simply want to make a comment, you are welcome to contact me at <a href="mailto:davidquinn@ozemail.com.au"> davidquinn@ozemail.com.au</a>.

Edited by: drowden at: 8/20/03 2:22 pm

Looks ok to me, though you may want to scrap the "smucks" and "knats" lingo as it tends to give
you away.

Leo

David Hume was an 18th century philosopher, not a 19th century one, as you state in chapter two.

Oh yes, so he was. Thanks for that.

Yeah, thanks a bunch :/

You would prefer comments in an email or open for discussion?

Whatever you think is appropriate.

Ch. 1 - Cause and Effect

I liked Chapter 1.

I thought that some of the audience may perceive a weak point in the argument by asking the something like, "But what caused the the Universe to be based in cause and effect?" With this thinking in mind, I printed out Chapter 1 and got my wife to read it (twice). She doesn't generally dwell on spiritual matters for too long and tends to lean toward monotheism, though she is also quite unpredictable. When she didn't respond the way I expected, I asked her directly.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "But what caused the Universe to be this way? God?"
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "Maybe cause and effect is like God." she said. "David said it is like the creative force behind all things, or the Tao, or the Ultimate Concern (her favorite phrase)."
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "It is pronounced 'Dow.' I am pleasantly surprised you see it that way. I expected something else."

So from that conversation, I really have no input to chapter 1. Well done.

Ch. 2 - Entering the Logical realm

Paragraph 9, 3rd sentence:

Quote:Quote:<hr> We have no means of isolating pure causal processes from uncausal ones...<hr>

Might read better as "We have no means of isolating causal processes from non-causal ones..."

Paragraph 10, 4th sentence: (it should read)

"...they no longer possess the skill to distinguish between those beliefs which cannot be proven by..."

9th paragraph of the section The Logical Proof of Cause and Effect:

Quote:Quote:<hr>To sum up, then, a thing cannot exist in the absence of other things existing both inside and outside of it. When these internal and external things are causally arranged in the appropriate manner, the thing in question comes into existence. But what exactly does come into existence in that moment? In the final analysis, nothing. Not a single sliver of anything extra. If anything does seem to arise in that moment, it is purely a conceptual projection on our parts.<hr>

This passage essentially disqualifies Gestalt psychology, the theory of emergent properties in biological science, and the advertising mantra "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."

2nd paragraph of the section Physical Creation:

Quote:Quote:<hr>...let us assume for the sake of argument that a particular thing, such as a positron-electron pairing, just pops into existence out of nothing whatsoever...Now imagine the existence of a hypothetical force which is powerful enough to prevent the pairing from arising...The creation of the pairing necessarily depends on this force not being there at the moment of its creation.<hr>

Does the postulation of a perceived absurdity rise to a sufficient level of relevance to be used in this manner? Would it not be adequate to merely assume causality in conjunction with human ignorance on specifics?

One could just as easily presume (along with some current evidence) a low-level energy field permeating the Universe that exists still below human perception to account for the seeming spontaneity of some particle creation.

7th and 8th paragraph of the section Physical Creation:

These passages seem to overlook the direct causal connections between two events. Your overall point is well taken, but there is at least a perceived distinction, at least for Western eyes, as relates to proximity between the direct and indirect. Possible elaboration?

The section God Does Not Play Dice:

I liked this section. It speaks the truth about the attitude historically of the sub-atomic scientific community. Lately, it seems the professional particle scientist is moving away from the notion of pure non-causality in regards to the outcomes of high-energy collisions and spontaneous generation toward more of an expectation of multiple possible outcomes in some instances. This of course reinforces the point you are making. Otherwise, what is the point of studying it if not to find patterns? The Universe might look like Alice in Wonderland. Too bad, that might be fun (at first).

9th paragraph from the section The Limitations of Science:

Quote:Quote:<hr>One minute (Albert Einstein) was a great genius probing the outer limits of physics, the next just another bland bumbling shmuck, indistinguishable from all the other bland bumbling shmucks that grace this earth. The best philosophical insight he could come up with was a kind of vague awe at the vastness and complexity of the Universe. I mean, what an achievement! Any pimply adolescent who happens to smokes a joint has the same insight. It's nothing.<hr>

Perhaps not much but it is certainly not nothing.

This passage will cause a large portion of the mostly intellectual audience to put up emotional barriers to what you are saying. Give a little sugar with the medicine for better results. After all, the point of this writing is results. Especially considering the paragraph following the one quoted hits the mark efficiently without the embellishments.

According to the spellchecker "shmuck" has a "ch" like "schmuck."

And finally, the last paragraph of Chapter 2 was an excellent summary.

Tharan

I'll take your word for it that furtherest is a word.

Under "Fundamentals of Existence" you need to delete the word "the" from "the Nature"

Under Causality Does Not Mean "Fate" you need to add the word "what" in the 1st paragraph, last sentence.

I've read up through the Free Will chapter, and I'm with you so far.

I was not aware that quantum physics thinks that particles are uncaused. I thought they were focusing on nonlocal consciousness, or inherent awareness in the universe. I recently bought the Dancingt Wu Li Masters, which although a bit dated, looks like a good overview that will help bring me up to speed.

Thanks for all your input. Keep it coming!


Wolf wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ Book: To sum up, then, a thing cannot exist in the absence of other things existing both inside and outside of it. When these internal and external things are causally arranged in the appropriate manner, the thing in question comes into existence. But what exactly does come into existence in that moment? In the final analysis, nothing. Not a single sliver of anything extra. If anything does seem to arise in that moment, it is purely a conceptual projection on our parts.

Wolf: This passage essentially disqualifies Gestalt psychology, the theory of emergent properties in biological science, and the advertising mantra "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." <hr> It was not designed to disqualify these things. I'm obviously not saying that nothing ever emerges, only that whatever does emerege is merely a rearrangement of what is already there. Perhaps I need to make this clearer.

A car is only greater than the sum of its parts in the sense that when its parts are fitted together in the correct manner, new emergent properties arise, such as the engine firing up. The parts suddenly gell together to become a new functional item for us as human beings. However, this doesn't change the fact that nothing substantial is added in the process of putting a car together.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ Book: ...let us assume for the sake of argument that a particular thing, such as a positron-electron pairing, just pops into existence out of nothing whatsoever...Now imagine the existence of a hypothetical force which is powerful enough to prevent the pairing from arising...The creation of the pairing necessarily depends on this force not being there at the moment of its creation.

Wolf: Does the postulation of a perceived absurdity rise to a sufficient level of relevance to be used in this manner? Would it not be adequate to merely assume causality in conjunction with human ignorance on specifics?

One could just as easily presume (along with some current evidence) a low-level energy field permeating the Universe that exists still below human perception to account for the seeming spontaneity of some particle creation.<hr> I don't like to assume or presume anything. Since a lot of people like to entertain doubts about whether causality is a universal reality, it is important to demonstrate conclusively that non-causality is impossible.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Wolf: 7th and 8th paragraph of the section Physical Creation:

These passages seem to overlook the direct causal connections between two events. Your overall point is well taken, but there is at least a perceived distinction, at least for Western eyes, as relates to proximity between the direct and indirect. Possible elaboration? <hr> Well, the passages in question are directly challenging the idea that two things have a direct causal connection - or rather, that two things can somehow share a special causal connection that does not exist between each of those things and the rest of the Universe. That is precisely the illusion that these passages are trying to expose. I agree that Westerners will have difficulty with this point, but the onus is on them to free themselves from this illusion. It is all part of the process of freeing oneself from the narrow, blinkered mindset of empiricism, which is necessary to spiritual development.


Anna wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> I was not aware that quantum physics thinks that particles are uncaused. I thought they were focusing on nonlocal consciousness, or inherent awareness in the universe. I recently bought the Dancingt Wu Li Masters, which although a bit dated, looks like a good overview that will help bring me up to speed. <hr> The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which has been the standard interpretation used by quantum physicists over the years, does reject the idea that subatomic particles are caused. Einstein couldn't accept this and spent the last thirty years of his life trying to prove them wrong (without success). Nowadays, there are a lot of differing views on the matter, but as far as I am aware, the standard Copenhagan interpretation is still the main paradigm.

Dancing Wu Li Masters is not a very good book, in my opinion. It is wishy washy in a New Age sense and doesn't reflect the standard scientific view. You would be better off reading some of Paul Davies' stuff. He is much more conservative and conventional, and far more representative of what scientists actually think.

I'd like to add my thanks to those offering grammatical ideas. Obviously my proof reading skills are not what they could be. But then, I suspect this is so because I am "too close" (i.e. not objective enough) about the material in question.

Too damn busy dancing in the fountain of wisdom to notice the occasional pigeon turd floating by ;)



Dan Rowden

So, Mr. Quinn, in all seriousness, and in the interests of clarity...

- There may be some confusion here...You say there is a "hidden void" which, amazingly enough, is neither a thing nor the totality of things? And that it, like the construction, is a manifestation of the one Reality, and they co-exist, manifest simultaneously, is that right?
Ok, then you say you have no idea how things (consciousness, the construction) came in to existence in the first place? Finally, you maintain that this constitutes a full and complete understanding of UR??

- Alright, maybe you would present your definition of "manifestation" here, tanx.

- Is the hidden void real or not according to you, according to what "real" means to you? Or is it that you're making two uses of the word "real"?


- Lastly, the enlightenment that you speak of, is it anything more than the full comprehension and complete acceptance by way of ones reason of the material in your book? That is, if someone sees the world just as you explain it, then they're enlightened according to your definition?

Leo

ps. Tell you what, lets give Dan a shot at this one, after-all, he proofed the thing and it met his approval, besides, it's a great chance for him to demonstrate his attainment. What do you say, Danny?

(Now dont cheat and ask David! ;)

A growing idea is that particles are caused, but that the cause happens after the effect. This would only be possible in reversed time, or maybe in geometric twisting. Perhaps mentioning this would clear up the seemingly nonsensical proposition of non-caused particles in physics.

Ok, I gave the book a quick read and I think it's really good. Very unique.

I kind of agree with Leo about the "hidden void" part. It is kind of confusing. You say creation is equivalent to a married bachelor, then proceed to talk about it, even going so far as labelling it, as though it somehow makes sense. I think maybe you should avoid introducing the new term "hidden void" there, even if it ends up making it verbally awkward. You could probably just stick with the generic term "creative agent" or something and just use "hidden void" in a more passive adjectival sense.

I didn't see it anywhere, but I think it would be cool if you addressed the problem of how if everything is an appearance, mustn't there be a non-appearance somewhere to perceive the appearances? That seems like an obvious problem to me.

That's all I can think of for now as far as suggestions. Thanks for the book!

Leo Bartoli wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> There may be some confusion here...You say there is a "hidden void" which, amazingly enough, is neither a thing nor the totality of things? And that it, like the construction, is a manifestation of the one Reality, and they co-exist, manifest simultaneously, is that right? <hr> They exist in the appearance of their existing.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Ok, then you say you have no idea how things (consciousness, the construction) came in to existence in the first place?<hr> I was being ironical. Consciousness is obviously created by the hidden void, which necessarily possesses the capacity to create it.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Finally, you maintain that this constitutes a full and complete understanding of UR?? <hr> Realizing that the hidden void cannot be experienced is part of comprehending the nature of reality.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Is the hidden void real or not according to you, according to what "real" means to you? Or is it that you're making two uses of the word "real"? <hr> Like anything else, the hidden void is simply an appearance.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> I kind of agree with Leo about the "hidden void" part. It is kind of confusing. You say creation is equivalent to a married bachelor, then proceed to talk about it, even going so far as labelling it, as though it somehow makes sense. I think maybe you should avoid introducing the new term "hidden void" there, even if it ends up making it verbally awkward. You could probably just stick with the generic term "creative agent" or something and just use "hidden void" in a more passive adjectival sense. <hr> Well, I think you may have read through that section are little too quickly. Read through it again and have another think about it and see whether you have the same questions after that.


Quote:Quote:<hr> I didn't see it anywhere, but I think it would be cool if you addressed the problem of how if everything is an appearance, mustn't there be a non-appearance somewhere to perceive the appearances? That seems like an obvious problem to me.<hr> I'll have a think about that. Thanks for bringing it up.

Leo managed to ignite enough brain cells to type:

Quote:Quote:<hr>ps. Tell you what, lets give Dan a shot at this one, after-all, he proofed the thing and it met his approval, besides, it's a great chance for him to demonstrate his attainment. What do you say, Danny?

(Now dont cheat and ask David! ;)<hr>

Now, Leo, remember in another thread recently that I called you a fucking idiot? I wasn't kidding.


Dan Rowden

Ok, thanks for the response, nevertherless your answers are or at least seem incomplete, either you were short on time or you're being deliberate, and im sure you think that's the best thing to do, but maybe not, you encouraged readers to challenge you, so here i am, but for gods sake take the time to consider, and call off that distrating Rowden if you will...

Leo Bartoli wrote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There may be some confusion here...You say there is a "hidden void" which, amazingly enough, is neither a thing nor the totality of things? And that it, like the construction, is a manifestation of the one Reality, and they co-exist, manifest simultaneously, is that right?
-------------------------------------------------------
DQ:
They exist in the appearance of their existing.

LB:
Maybe Dan could take a moment from his fondness of vulgarity and expand upon this "of their existing" idea(I doubt it). This is the first time i've encountered this language, incidentally why isnt it in your book?

Anyway David, you must have missed my question about your definition of "manifestation" as utilized in your book. I would really appreciate it.

I realize the inconsistencies that appear may not really be there but for the sake of clarity why dont you make an effort to show that's the case, in the end it may perfect your book and make it more effective.

It's not always good to switch the meaning of important words from one idea or paragraph to another without indicating a change, if that's what you've done, makes it a hard read and brings your credibility into question (which i realize is of no import to you, which is reasonable). I understand the limitations of language when it comes to these things, but still i think there's room for improvement.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, then you say you have no idea how things (consciousness, the construction) came in to existence in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DQ:
I was being ironical. Consciousness is obviously created by the hidden void, which necessarily possesses the capacity to create it.

LB: Ironical? Sorry i missed that but to tell you the truth it didnt appear that way, as i recall you simply said "I have no idea, and no one knows" or some such thing, i'll get a closer look later on. Anyway, there is no confusion in my mind that you are saying the hidden void creates consciousness, that is very clear, it creates everything.
But can you say how it is that something which is 'less than' nothingness possesses the capacity to create anything? No one can, right, its a mystery with no answer, and to think there is an answer is to be irrational, i understand.
My point is that i think you could do more to help the student understand why this should satisfy.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, you maintain that this constitutes a full and complete understanding of UR??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DQ:
Realizing that the hidden void cannot be experienced is part of comprehending the nature of reality.

LB: I realize that, makes perfect sense to me, but could you say how you are defining "experience" here?
And is its meaning the same throughout your book?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the hidden void real or not according to you, according to what "real" means to you? Or is it that you're making two uses of the word "real"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DQ:
Like anything else, the hidden void is simply an appearance.

LB: I know that, everything is appearance, no arguement, but could you please answer the questions about your definitions, thanks.

And again i'll ask you in different words, If a student grasps everything in your book then is there anything he is lacking to be "enlightened"?

Leo

Leo wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: They exist in the appearance of their existing.

LB: Maybe Dan could take a moment from his fondness of vulgarity and expand upon this "of their existing" idea(I doubt it). This is the first time i've encountered this language, incidentally why isnt it in your book? <hr> Most of Chapter 6 was devoted to this point.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Anyway David, you must have missed my question about your definition of "manifestation" as utilized in your book. I would really appreciate it. <hr> A manifestation is any appearance.


Quote:Quote:<hr> LB: Ok, then you say you have no idea how things (consciousness, the construction) came in to existence in the first place?

DQ: I was being ironical. Consciousness is obviously created by the hidden void, which necessarily possesses the capacity to create it.

LB: Ironical? Sorry i missed that but to tell you the truth it didnt appear that way, as i recall you simply said "I have no idea, and no one knows" or some such thing, i'll get a closer look later on. <hr> The irony is implicit because I had already elucidated a full understanding of what lies beyond consciousness. It is the same kind of irony that was expressed when I described the hidden void as a "mystery".


Quote:Quote:<hr> Anyway, there is no confusion in my mind that you are saying the hidden void creates consciousness, that is very clear, it creates everything.
But can you say how it is that something which is 'less than' nothingness possesses the capacity to create anything? <hr> It would be wrong to think of the hidden void as less than nothingness. The hidden void has no relationship at all with nothingness, nor indeed with somethingness. It is wholly unlike nothingness and wholly unlike somethingness.


Quote:Quote:<hr> My point is that i think you could do more to help the student understand why this should satisfy. <hr> I believe that what I've written in the book will satisfy anyone who values reason.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Realizing that the hidden void cannot be experienced is part of comprehending the nature of reality.

LB: I realize that, makes perfect sense to me, but could you say how you are defining "experience" here?
And is its meaning the same throughout your book? <hr> Of course. Experience is any perception of consciousness.


Quote:Quote:<hr> And again i'll ask you in different words, If a student grasps everything in your book then is there anything he is lacking to be "enlightened"? <hr> If a student does nothing more than grasp everything in the book, then he will remain unenlightened. He needs to take what is in the book a step further and pierce maya completely. The book propels the reader's mind to the brink of enlightenment, but not into it.

David, on his book: Quote:Quote:<hr>If a student does nothing more than grasp everything in the book, then he will remain unenlightened.<hr>

Hah!

Quote:Quote:<hr>It would be wrong to think of the hidden void as less than nothingness. The hidden void has no relationship at all with nothingness, nor indeed with somethingness. It is wholly unlike nothingness and wholly unlike somethingness.<hr>

But it would not be wrong to think of this 'hidden void' as nothing would it? I can't help but think of nothing as less than nothingness (which only ever approaches nothing) and that nothing could never be wholly unlike nothingness, for nothing is not only wholly like nothing, it is nothing!

Can you grasp everything in this sentence?

Well, i've seen enough.

One needent be a genius to see that this book (so far) is not very much more than a condensed version of van der Leeuw's book, and in many ways very much less.
Though I wouldnt go so far as to suggest plagerism the lack of originality is shocking.

I think this means that your editor thinks your thoughts are much more "mediocre" than you might think he thinks.

I'm attahere....

Leo

Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, I think you may have read through that section are little too quickly. Read through it again and have another think about it and see whether you have the same questions after that.<hr>
Ok, you are comparing the contents of the hidden void, not the hidden void itself. But I have a question, does cause and effect extend into the hidden void or not? If c&e is infinite, then it must, but if there are no things, then it can't. If c&e is an appearance only, then it can't be infinite, unless "infinity" cannot extend there either.

Thanks to David Quinn and anyone who contributed to the book.
I printed out the first 6 chapters+into and FYI it came out at 66 pages.

Thank you.

Who the fuck are you?

He's 'David Truth,' aka 'David Wilson,' aka 'David Uganda,' aka 'Kookooburra,' aka 'OggyBear.' He's a lunatic, but he occassionally has some insights. I believe he has been here before under the Kookooburra name, and perhaps others.

Now, the obvious question... who the hell am I? ;)

Some know, others may soon. In any case, I enjoyed DQ's book, and may have some feedback relating to it soon. Edited by: Naturyl at: 7/7/03 1:14 pm