[WithoutMe]

So u mean that yur cheif interest in "knowing" & not feeling.... even the same holds for all scientists (& i dont blame them for that)...

Knowing without feeling that which one knows is like reading loads of books of the Himalayas & knowing every nook & corner of the hills, but never going there & experiencing it..... that person may be able to tell someone who lives in the Himalayas, more than the one who lives there, but inspite of all this living, he would never be able to experience any of the beauty that comes not by doing anything or becoming anything, but just by the very presence of something!

If one carries on like this with equations & ideas without ever experiencing it (as a feeling that creeps into yur very system, creeps not as something u can talk abt or write books on, or bore ppl with, but as something that u kinda feel while in presence of it), then one day that person may reach a stage where he can equate a whole lot of his world which he can never experience, like for eg writing books on Geology without seeing a single lake or a land-slide!!! What good will such a "unfelt of knowledge" serve to him?
Give him the sense of security that he now "knows"!!!

Here I will paste something I wrote in another forum....
__________________________________________________ ___________
Having a cup of coffee is much more revealing to the mind that reading a hundred pages on coffee. Only in being one with the phenomenon of being alive is life felt most intensely, not by equating or theorizing about it.

All theory, equation is based on "measure"; infact physics is the science rotating in & around measurement, wheras reality is actual, reality is immesurable... try, for instance, measuring this moment, yes, the moment that you are reading this very spot! You can try over a million ways to measure everything present in this moment, but nonetheless you will miss loads of other things, not to mention the one thing which is always beyond measure, that is the one who is measurig it -- the eye can see everything except itself, however, it can use a mirror to see its reflection, but that wouldnt be "seeing" with all its variations, rather that would be seeing the reflection of the eye, & it is the reality of the eye that is always escaping itself, coz, may be, reality receded to itself... huh!

The eye can never watch itself, but can it watch itself?

The fact of being alive, the very experience of it & not the theory or verbalizing of it, -- how can that be more true than the way it is, that is by living it, going thru the process???

Infact, there is no such thing such "life". But yes, there certainly is this thing called "living". Now, "living" is a process, is a going-thru-it, a phenomenon, whereas "life" is a noun, something which has a value, a measure, whereas, me believes, we are almost always mistaken there, mistaken at our linguistic compulsion to use words in such a fashion!

Take, for eg., "I am watching this PC", whereas in reality, as a fact -- "I really my in this experience of being in some relation to this phenomenon, which we term it as 'PC'" ... yes, it may well be a linguistic impossibility to talk in verbs only, but aint verbs the only thing that connotes mostly to reality, whereas nouns are like the "necessary mistakes" (if I can use such a word) we commit to speak.... its like the necessary mistakes making the correct ones work, that is, the nouns needed to actualize the verb, or even, viceversa!

May be, Buddha would have said it: "Nouns are crystallized verbs, & Verbs are leaky Nouns"..... huh!

Here I am, using so many words to create an idea in yuour very mind, which on contemplation would lead to a realisation, which in turn may lead you to act in a certain way, as in to reply to this, or even ignore this -- which part of all this an illusion & which part of it is a reality?

Then writing for me is a reality to me & an illusion to me (u have not experienced my very writing), whereas, reading/ignoring this or replying to this is a reality to you & an illusion to me! For me, what I have then, is the fact of checking TOEQuest & seeing the replies, & not the experience of acctually writing the replies.... Your cause, my effect! My cause, your effect!

Then what is this "consensual reality"? Something intermediate of the cause & the effect, or something beyond this cause & effect, or as Nagarjuna would have said it, something of a "co-dependent arising" sort!!!

Let me ask you, "what time is it now?" By the time, I make up this question & by the time I speak up, the "now" of the making-up-the-question has gone, & by the time you have recieved it, my making-up-the-question now has long gone, & even by the time you speak up the answer, the making-up-the-answer now has long now! So even I donot have access to my now, even you donot have access to your now!!!

By the time we get any signal from our environment, even from inside us, the moment of the birth-of-the-signal has passed, so by the time we cognize the signal as being part of an experience, the moment has passed, & trying to know how much time has passed would lead us to an ad infinitum, a paradox!

Only, in the case of "non-local behaviour" (Einstein, Podolsky wud have freaked out), will we be able to access the "now", otherwise, we are always living in the "now" of the past -- which past, now that will real back to a bottomless pit, - a dangerous paradox!!!! So, unless the Law of Non-locality is maintained, one's existence is always inaccessible... Puff!!!

Now, if the Non-locality principle is maintained, can there be a "consensual reality", otherwise, there cannot be the question of a TOE???
__________________________________________________ ___________

My pt: "Knowing devoid of feeling" would be like -- say -- I know that it hurts to kill, but I just cannot feel the "hurt" of of the one I am killing & hence, inspite of this "knwoing", I continually kill!!!

Had we based knowing firmly on feeling, we would have never have a "should be" or "ought to be" world as against this world of "is"!!!! I believe this whole aim of most of humanity to "become" something ("something" as depicting the "ought to be" world) is just sooooo absurd.... wat say u ?

Had we based knowing firmly on feeling, we would have had just this & only this world, -- no imaginary world of physics, chemistry, & all the rest of it!

A theory exist as an idea, but what actually exists is that which is theorized about, for eg., the my experience of being pulled down to earth exists, but the explanation of it by gravity or space-time warp or whatever, exists as an idea of to me, coz I can directly feel the pull (even if I am illiterate), but the theory, I have to learn..... Is theory then an approximation of the reality??

Why live with an approximation? What wrong with the reality we have? Why this so much of striving to become (become knowlegable or whatever)?

Btw, what is stupidity? & what is the problem with it? Our Survival chances -- is it?

Regards,
wM.

PS. Can the limited be the door to the unlimited? What was Camus pointing to when he uttered: "Reality cannot be summed up"??
Also, I never did say that Kant was right or wrong, that is not my pt. Kant was just a bait in my writing!