bridge between the worlds

This post refers to one (important) part of my overall TOE. It's the part about how language prevents us from realising there are no substantive differences, only diagreements about the application of labels.

ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA

The following hypothetical conversation between Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Arjuna, Buddha and Zarathustra is in three acts. Act 1 is about the Thing (‘the Signified’). Act 2 is about the Qualities (‘the Signifiers’) of the Thing. Act 3 is about ...

How small is small? How big is big? How long is the longest Planck? All qualities (qualia, if you must) are relative. Nothing is big, absolutely. Nothing is small, absolutely. Nothing is red, absolutely. Some things are bigger than others. Redder than others. Smaller than others.

The fact is, there is no such a thing as the biggest or reddest or shortest or longest or smallest thing. At one stage, atoms were supposed to be the smallest thing. Then electrons. Then protons. Now quarks ...

Imagine you are making a cup of tea, and some boiling water drips onto your hand. You feel pain in the part touched by the boiling water. You are aware of your hand, and you are aware of the part of your hand that hurts.

In one sense, part of your hand is talking to you (conveying a message of pain) and you know how that part is feeling (sore). In other words, you and a whole bunch of your cells are having a conversation. But you don’t know anything at the level of, or about each, ...

OK, here it is. 35 years in the making. So be nice.

By definition, everything that is, has been, will be and could be comprises that which I name "Everything That Is" (ETI). "Everything" includes everything: hard things, soft things, real things, unreal things, material things (such as rocks and trees and human beings), immaterial things (such as souls and thoughts and dreams and mathematical formulae), and everything in between.

By definition, ETI ...

There are a number of unwarranted assumptions underlying the discussion of the so-called "binding problem", and an overall flavour of circularity in the discussion. Not to mention the strong possibility that the innate treachery of language may be contributing to the creation of a non-issue re this issue.

Consider, for example, the Revonsuo and Newman (1999)* definition: The binding problem is "…the problem of how the unity of conscious perception is brought about by ...