Ken wrote: "There are still selves and others."

I guess it depends on how rigid your boundaries are. Tat Tvam Asi - That Art Thou, Thou Art That, would contradict your statement.  Diana

From:  Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: causality
Date:  Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:32:01 -0400
At 03:11 PM 9/11/2006, Diana Manister wrote:

>Ken, with respect to your question about the dissolution of the
>self-object duality in wave-particle perception,

  Thanks, but I actually don't know what that phrase means. I also don't know what Cartesian duality, in relation to self/other, means. From where I am sitting, by myself, it looks to me like there is me here and you there, and nothing Cartesian about it. Other than that, I didn't notice any dissolution. Really. I was just trying to get clarified what you meant by self/other. I'm doubtful that anything to do with selves and others is analagous to or determined by the physics of wave-particle perception (perception? not theory?)

>I can only say that self/other self would perpetuate the duality.
>The very phenomenon of wave includes the observer, as does the
>phenomenon of particle, since which phenomenon is perceived is
>dependent on the observation itself. The old Cartesian model does
>not obtain. The other cannot be separated from the self in this

   Still don't see how waves, particles, selves, and others compute. To say that self and other cannot be separated in this scenario does not mean much more to me than to say they are in a relation, a dynamic one if you like, and the relation is part of the scenario. I'm good with that. But there are still selves and others.

>You wrote: "I thought time in Einstein's theory was relative, not
>Einstein's relativity describes time as relative to the observer's
>speed. At very rapid speeds, time slows down. A twin returning to
>earth after time spent in high speed space travel would have aged
>differently from his sibling. Time is subjective in that sense.

   OK, but that is not what "subjective" is normally employed to mean. I still think your last sentence there would make more sense with the word "relative" than "subjective."

>There is no absolute time in Einstein's theory.

  Perhaps that is its deficiency? I'm just guessing. Absolute time is perhaps what occurs to me when I know I'm going to die, and not subjectively or relatively, but absolutely.

>I wrote:  At the speed of light, there is no time -- consciousness
> >travelling at that rate would be timeless. In a timeless state,
> >considerations of cause and effect do not obtain, since chronology
> >is a function of time.  Diana
>You wrote: Sounds like a faux eternity.
>"Eternity" is figure of speech. Forever is pure speculation.

    Well, sure, and what isn't a figure of speech. At bottom, all speech, all language is figurative. "Forever," however, and "eternity" do not reach for, or participate in, the same end.

  Ken A.