wandelaar

Sure - there is! Acting from a blank mind can have wonderful effects. Sort of wu wei. (How that works is another matter...)

Well - have a good time then, I will no longer bother you about factual matters.

It's foolish to simply copy a supposed quote from Einstein from New Age sites when no source for the quote is mentioned. Besides there actually is a large book of quotations from Einstein. See here: https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Quotable-Einstein-Albert/dp/0691160147 Einstein has also written a lot, so it shouldn't be difficult to mention at least some source if the quote represents what Einstein thought about it. No - he doesn't. He only talks about the well known formula E = mc2 , but says nothing about "energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses". The latter is typical New Age speak. But maybe you can point me to the exact time in the video where Einstein speaks about "energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses" ?

Did Einstein really say that? I did a quick search on the internet, and it looks like the "quote" only appears on New Age and alternative medicine sites. Do you have any source for the authenticity of the quote?

Well Zen Pig, that's rapidly changing these days: the internet has opened up the possibility for any idiot to post pseudoscientific nonsense and to promote the most bizarre conspiracy theories, and some of that is already acquiring a global following by means of videos on You Tube. Further Trump has become an admired model for many by showing how one can become hugely successful by systematically ignoring expert knowledge and by flatly contradicting proven facts that are not to his own liking. Finally in the field of academic philosophy postmodernism has succeeded in framing the accomplishments of science and rational thought as a form of western imperialism or even of rabid racism. We can already see what will take over if science and rational thought will lose their leading role in the West, and that will not be tolerance and an open mind...

From your website: Great interpretation! Indeed - meaning instead of mere facts or knowledge is to be found within oneself. Those who travel the world in search of meaning are just carrying themselves around, not realising that they should look inside oneself instead of outside. Do you also have an interpretation for the many (in)famous paradoxes in the Tao Te Ching? (Still miss Old Marblehead, particularly in topics like this... )

The same thing is said here: http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu38.html

It seems to happen to all spiritual philosophies and world views, as soon as they become mainstream they will lose their vigour and harden into empty forms and rituals. At that point people will even start to join them for social or political reasons. That's why I'm mainly interested in what the founders had to say.

Yes - it's extreme, but so good!

@ enuffing Good to see that you are interested in the application of Taoism in ordinary life. I like to read your ideas about that. I opened a topic about (philosophical) Taoism in daily life some time ago. See:

No. I have decided not to delve into Taoist religion. I made several attempts lately to appreciate Taoist religion, but I found out that I simply can't. Not my cup of thee!

That could well be the case - but if so than it should also be possible to understand what is happening on the basis of (western) science. Probably biofeedback and suggestion are involved, but I am not yet clear about that.

@ freeform Asking the right question is already half of the solution! Thus "What is chi?" could very well be the wrong question for understanding its use in the Chinese context. In the context of the (classical) Chinese world view the use of the word chi is considered correct when it positively contributes to living one's life and dealing with the world. The verification of the appropriateness of the term is thus purely pragmatic, and that's why the question whether there really is something called chi in the (classical) Chinese context becomes irrelevant. Thus for me there seem to be two approaches to get a handle on chi: 1. Adopting the (classical) Chinese perspective. 2. Analysing how operating with the term "chi" works out on living one's life within the context of the (classical) Chinese world view. Unhappily there is just too much nonsense and mumbo jumbo in the classical Chinese perspective for me to wholeheartedly adopt 1. I didn't stop to believe in Western fairy tales to switch over to the Chinese version of make believe. So for me it will have to be 2.

What it does for me is that it gives me more grip on what thought processes I actively follow and what thought processes I only observe till they go away. One becomes less caught up in one's own thought processes, and there's more space for creative approaches and reflection. Besides that it is an intense training in self discipline and in will power to just sit and "do nothing". Whether Zen leads to awakening? Don't know.

@ ViYY Complete bullshit. As usual. One big waste of time and energy. I see no sign whatever that you are able to learn from the mistakes that have been pointed out by me and others. But I will have to stop now, or I will end as a grumpy old man myself. So I'm switching back to IGNORE.

You don't need to take up the challenge. You can just believe in ViYY as your sage of choice if you like to. There are many uses for the complex numbers: quantum mechanics, electrical engineering, solving algebraic equations, Laplace transforms, etc. That's another subject. I like to deal with one thing at a time. That's all besides the point. I have read many of the links of ViYY and they fall in two categories: 1. Pseudoscience. 2. Legit science, but irrelevant to the claims that ViYY is making. So I have stopped wasting my time on reading those links. As I already said you don't need non-commutative geometry or Clifford algebras to understand and work with the complex numbers. Needlessly bringing in such advanced subjects is only obfuscating the issue. Nonsense! Read my explanation. Again, irrelevant. You are playing the same tricks as ViYY, continually avoiding to answer criticism by bringing in all kinds of highly advanced but irrelevant other stuff. Again - Nonsense! The complex numbers are commutative. It's easy to prove. Indeed - the quaternions extent the complex numbers and are non-commutative. That means that the complex numbers can be interpreted as a special type of quaternions. But you are saying that the quaternions are complex numbers which is the wrong way around, for if the quaternions simply were complex numbers than they would not extend the complex numbers. Quaternions are an extension of the complex numbers, which means that all complex numbers can be considered as being quaternions but not all quaternions can be considered as being complex numbers. The quaternions have three different "imaginary units". For some pairs of quaternions u and v (for instance when u en v are complex numbers) we have u.v = v.u, and for some other pairs of quaternions u and v we have u.v ≠ v.u. The quaternions are called non-commutative because the commutative law doesn't hold for all pairs of quaternions (although it does hold for some). So again - even the example of the quaternions only obfuscates the issue, and doesn't prove that the complex numbers are non-commutative. Nice that you found your sage of choice in ViYY. I will not bother you any further, as you are not interested in the mathematical facts of the matter.

@ JamaicanBushman Well - whoever you are, at least it's possible to communicate with you in a way that seemed impossible with ViYY. But complex numbers are much more basic than Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry. They can even be introduced as simple arrows in the Cartesian plane (as I did in the linked topic). The proof that the complex numbers are commutative is straightforward, and no amount of talk about Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry will undo the provable and well known commutativity of the complex numbers. You will have to point to errors in the construction of the complex numbers and/or in the proof of their commutativity to refute the claim that the complex numbers are commutative. It would also be nice when you would present an example of two complex number u and v such that u.v is not equal to v.u .

Now this suggests an interesting experiment! Some time ago I explained the complex numbers, and ViYY jumped in claiming that the commutativity of those numbers is false and that they actually are to be understood as non-commutative. Now ViYY never succeeded in pointing out any error in my explanation nor in making clear why the complex numbers should be seen as actually non-commutative despite their obvious commutativity. Now I ask JamaicanBushman to answer my question: What is wrong with the (provable) commutativity of the complex numbers?

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more to discuss. I have given my reasons why I think that it's logically and physically ruled out that anything is possible. You completely ignore my arguments, and your arguments are too subjective and too vague for me to make any sense of. So there is nothing more to say.

Could you be more specific?

That may be so - but what makes the difference for me is how open one is to legit criticism.

Well - there's another one for my Ignore List: JamaicanBushman If that isn't ViYY himself, it has to be a very faithful disciple.

Sure - that's why waking up believers is so hard!

Saying that everything is possible also puts a limit on the "universal infinite intelligence", because that rules out the case that in our world not everything is possible. But I have learned my lesson by now. Dream on, brother...