1
   

Balance....

 
 
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 06:25 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The map is not the territory.



Polarity is not a map, but a principle.

Rado
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 07:03 am
@PhilosophyForum,
Call it what you will.

I call it a map, a product of the mind.

You may then choose whether or not to see the point, to suit whichever map you prefer. That is up to you.

-- RH.
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 08:43 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Call it what you will.

I call it a map, a product of the mind.

You may then choose whether or not to see the point, to suit whichever map you prefer. That is up to you.

-- RH.


How do you distinguish between map and territory?

Rado
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 09:23 am
@rado,
rado wrote:
How do you distinguish between map and territory?


Ultimately you don't. There is no way to. That is the point.

All you have to go on is the map.

"Territory" is an attempt to explain the differences in the attempts to map. It is assumed as a conjecture that a variety of maps attempt to describe the same territory, insufficiently surveyed, hence the "not the territory" maxim, which makes sense for as far as it goes but you are stilll left to fight over the territory, so to speak.
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 10:47 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Ultimately you don't. There is no way to. That is the point.

All you have to go on is the map.

"Territory" is an attempt to explain the differences in the attempts to map. It is assumed as a conjecture that a variety of maps attempt to describe the same territory, insufficiently surveyed, hence the "not the territory" maxim, which makes sense for as far as it goes but you are stilll left to fight over the territory, so to speak.


Yes, but if you study the different maps, you'll usually see some common denominators. These are the key points to the ultimate map. The most fundamental common denominator or key point is polarity. All things in this physical universe without exception exist by virtue of polarity. You can apply it 100% consistently to any phenomena in physics, for example. Or you can understand any medical problem, e.g. cancer, by this principle. It's all extremely simple and straightforward.

Despite its simplicity it can be difficult to grasp though if you're used to see things in a different way. But when you first "get it", it becomes the most obvious thing the world. It's the key that unlocks the secrets of creation, literally.

Rado
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 11:10 am
@rado,
rado wrote:
...All things in this physical universe without exception exist by virtue of polarity. You can apply it 100% consistently to any phenomena in physics, for example.


What an ignorant nonsense!

They have struggled ever since Albert Einstein over whether or not his God plays dice.

Try as they may to make it all fit together with their precious equations, in good order, there is always pesky particle to come along to fail to behave itself.

There is no way even to apply the polarity principle to Universe itself to begin with.

You may supppose an anti Universe with which to polarise the one you think you know, and metaphysical scientists have on occasion attempted to do so, but they have yet to show us the proof of it.

The supposed polarisation is a subset of determinism. If you own a choice, if you believe in free will, as a good number of people do, then by definition that choice is independent, not polarised, ...your own doing, not an inevitable reaction.

--- RH.
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 11:51 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:

They have struggled ever since Albert Einstein over whether or not his God plays dice.
--- RH.


Polarity has nothing to do with God playing dice or not.

perplexity wrote:

Try as they may to make it all fit together with their precious equations, in good order, there is always pesky particle to come along to fail to behave itself.
--- RH.


Because they never understood polarity. Ohsawa, Schauberger and Russell did, and all of them demonstrated independently their knowledge experimentally, by accomplishing things that were or still are considered impossible or even unthinkable by conventional science.

Rado
0 Replies
 
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 12:18 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:

The supposed polarisation is a subset of determinism. If you own a choice, if you believe in free will, as a good number of people do, then by definition that choice is independent, not polarised, ...your own doing, not an inevitable reaction.
--- RH.


You haven't understood what polarity means in this context. Read some of Walter Russell's books, e.g. The Universl One.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 02:22 pm
@rado,
rado wrote:
You haven't understood what polarity means in this context. Read some of Walter Russell's books, e.g. The Universl One.


What a cheap way out, to assert a negative, knowing well enough that it is not then possible to prove or disprove a negative!

With regard to polarity your claim was that "you can apply it 100% consistently to any phenomena in physics, for example".

To be more positively helpful then, please, to demonstrate consistently that you have understood, it ought to be straighforward enough to explain how the concept of polarity would apply to quantum uncertainty, a far more convincing way, surely, to refute my argument.

-- RH.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Balance....
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 12:23:42