“The Great Way is not difficult for those not attached to preferences. If you wish to know the truth, then hold to no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.
When the fundamental nature of things is not recognized, the mind’s essential peace is disturbed to no avail. The Way is as perfect as the vast space, where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our grasping and rejecting that we fail to see the true nature of things. Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in ideas or feelings of emptiness. Be serene and at one with things and erroneous views will disappear by themselves.”
Jianzhi Sengcan, from Xinxin Ming
NOEMAYA 
Hello! — Thank you for your website. You might be interested in a comment that I have posted today on the website of ww.philosophyforlife.org (http://www.philosophyforlife.org/exploring-the-multiverse-of-spiritual-pluralism/)
Kind regards from Alec in Switzerland
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment. I did check the link and read the article and your comment; all of it is interesting; I would appreciate it if you elaborate on your perspective a bit more here.
LikeLike
Hello Tomaj – Thank you for your kind reply. Since you are into the foundational issues of quantum physics, quantum entanglement, and the indistinguishability of elementary particles, I will elaborate on my perspective in that direction. After all, the approach that I have developed is strictly universally applicable.
The fundamental problems in the quantum approach stem indeed from wanting to perceive reality through its smallest appearances, presupposing that reality must consist of little (but still measurable) pieces (‘elementary particles’) – for having to discover that somehow this idea does not really work out, being shaded by the cloud of complementarity and nonlocality. So one has been trying to formulate reality in other ways, for example in terms of energy and information – which does not solve the issue either since both concepts are not really fundamental (energy connects force and a spatiotemporal vector, and cybernetic information does not contain the information that distinguishes it from mere noise).
It is not very clever to want to address reality in terms of appearances because these can never reveal the intrinsic law by which they arise, exist, disappear, and are being recycled, since their appearance follows that law (this is why Asians rightly say that appearances are Maya). Nonduality is a perilous idea because it is conceptually ambivalent. The observer is a useless concept of oneself because one inevitably acts mentally (even in choosing to merely observe), which happens through concepts and has results. One should clarify the mental instrumentation before judging the world. Unfortunately physicists don’t usually approach and handle the conceptual realm in a systematically fundamental and complete way (nor do most philosophers and other scientists, by the way).
In meditation one can learn not to attribute meaning to the imagery passing by. In sorting it out it is useful to set out on the idea of the intrinsic nature of things and their becoming manifest in appearances according to specific conditions. Today’s philosophers call this essentialism and abhor it because they can’t come completely to grips with the respective conceptual necessities. But that does not mean that the idea itself is wrong. It is no coincidence that today’s ‘fundamental’ concepts (time, space, law, mass, cause, explanation, etc.) are not strictly universally applicable. Yet a really complete understanding requires just that.
In physics the point is in the type of query because any mental gesture in addressing totality has corresponding results in the possibilty of conceiving the facts: querying the conditions for measuring the smallest ‘parts’ led to quantum theory, investigating movements of bodies led to relativity theory, the study of patterns led to the theory of nonlinear dynamics, etc.. The point is to understand that the perspective in approaching reality evokes the corresponding theory. So one should study quite generally the relation between types of query and the corresponding conceptual necessities for a completeness of understanding.
This is what I propose in my approach, which operates in strictly universally applicable concepts in relation to general query perspectives, and leads to a secure heuristics – at the same time totally precise for a given query perspective and leaving open the choice of query. Freedom is warranted while not sacrificing precision. One can discover for example that counting ‘pieces’ does not make sense for inanimate objects but only for alive entities. This is why elementary particles are indistinguishable – and where things are distinguishable, they are never strictly identical but have their own intrinsic nature and location in space-time (besides, in todays’s mainstream neither space nor time are fully understood).
The trouble with inanimate objects shows up only on the infinitesimal level, which is why it goes largely unnoticed. In the quantum approach the inner connection of materiality leads at the infinitesimal level to complementarity and nonlocality. This is true also in the relativity approach: whether you move the match or the matchbox, or the car or the road, is convertible, but when you move the match or the car against the universe, things become different. And one should consider also the inner wear and tear in the match and the car that limits their life span. Following the line of measuring further down one always ends up being haunted at the infinitesimal level.
Indeed, measuring is not an activity that can theoretically justify itself since measuring is inevitably a comparison, and human beings must posit the unit of reference because there is no elementary natural constant that could theoretically be absolutely relevant – as is believed to exist for example in the Planck quantum, the velocity of light in vacuum, the elementary charge, the electron mass, or the mass of the proton. Time can never be measured in an absolute way, it always lags behind the apparatus. These magnitudes believed to be secure are mere fruits of wanting to measure, as an approach to reality as a whole – producing bricks in an attempt at building the tower of Babel (the ToE). No wonder it can’t be done in that way.
Yet not all is lost, completeness in understanding and self-understanding is possible. Probably you will enjoy some parts of the book that I mentioned, whose text can be found also in the internet. In the pdf you can operate by search words. It would be nice if the proposed thoughts would be discussed some more.
LikeLike