Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Your Derivation Paper Sir

Expand Messages
  • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
    Your Derivation Paper Sir The Derivation of Subjective Experience from a Proto Experience and Three Gunas in a Dual-Aspect-Dual-Mode Framework. I have
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2010
      Your Derivation Paper Sir



      The Derivation of Subjective Experience from a Proto Experience and
      Three Gunas in a Dual-Aspect-Dual-Mode Framework.



      I have downloaded your paper Sir as requested, and have spent about one
      hour as yet speed-reading skimming it, just for a rough idea as yet as
      to what it is stating and theorising. It is however a very long
      paper; 140 pages; and very very heavy going. What with the Yuletide
      festivities coming up this month and so many other things that one has
      to do each day anyway, it is going to take a while to read and digest
      all this before I can comment on it and seek out correlations. I get
      many of these each year by the way, and ploughing through it all takes
      up quite a bit of time, and I haven't got much left now :- ) I
      mention no names here lest you do not want this public but you are
      welcome to put this PDF file in the files section of my two small
      groups if you wish to do so.



      Having had a very brief look through it then I have found some
      correlations as yet, true enough. But far more time will have to spent
      on it. As for me personally then I have three major problems with a
      paper of this kind; so I should point that out now. This paper is in
      part couched in physical formulas and maths and theories, and in part in
      ancient and modern Indian philosophical terminology. And I don't
      have a clue what the terms in the maths or the terms in Indian
      philosophy mean. I can of course look them up, but that is even more
      time consuming just to find out what this or that word means when
      translated into English – the only language I know a wee bit about.
      The other major problem for me is that it is so much interested in, and
      based upon, theories. But I am a very different kind of creature :- )



      Let me try and explain. For me, it is not a theory that I exist. I know
      damn well that I exist, because there it is and there am I. Fore me it
      is not a theory that I am made of three parts because I know I am, and
      have existed in them and it is all old hat to me, and it all works. To
      me it is not a theory that a timeless transcendent realm which contains
      my essential and unchanging nature exist, because I know it does, and I
      was in it for long enough, and I can describe it to a T. To me it is
      not a theory that a part of me exists on this world in time and space,
      because I know it does, and there it is every day, and I live it. (and
      I like it). To me it is not a theory that there is a third part which
      connects them, for I know it does, I was in it long enough and can
      describe it to a T. So, you can see as to how theories about all this
      stuff do not interest me at all. How could I say that I have this
      theory that I have just had a cup of coffee and a chicken sandwich when
      I have just had it and know that I had it and now it is inside the tum
      doing what it does there. And I don't care what it does there –
      IT WORKS, and it has always worked for seventy two years just fine.
      That isn't a theory either. So, you can perhaps guess that theories
      about all this stuff, to me, is about as interesting as watching paint
      dry. I am not a theory person. I am a `here it is so I had best
      get on with it', person. Folks can theorise until their brains blow
      up – if that is how they want to live their lives. But it isn't
      compulsory. I would rather sniff roses and watch the blue bells come
      up. And not forgetting a good pint of real ale when lady luck smiles on
      me :- ) I have a hunch that she might do at Yuletide :- )



      Now, given that you have a string of degrees and honours as long as my
      arm and have lectured in more universities than I have ever seen and
      probably have thousands of people reading your stuff, then what can I
      say? Good luck. But I have a somewhat different outlook on this, and
      a personal principle. IF, I am going to write something (and which I
      did decide to do) then I want to be able to throw it on the desk of a
      ten year little boy or girl and in such a way that they can read it and
      understand it. I write for the boy, the girl, the man, the woman on
      the street, the dustman the housewife the candle stick maker. What good
      is anything if they don't understand it? Never yet in all these
      years and with thousands of letters of feed-back, has anyone ever said
      that they did not understand it. Never ever.



      Thus, from the little I have read of this paper as yet then in all truth
      I think it would be quicker for you to read my book and see what it has
      to say than it would take me to reads this paper and come to understand
      it. And I am not ten years old :- ) What kind of feedback have you
      had as yet from young teenagers on the street who have not got a bat in
      hells chance of getting into a university? People, human beings, are
      my interest. Not their IQ's. They are all BEINGS. I like BEING and
      it would be nice if one could help a few others to like BEING. There is
      no harm in trying. But first and foremost they have got to understand
      what one is talking about. So, I can only reach a few English speaking
      youngsters. Unfortunately. But there it is. And the chances of it
      working are slim anyway. So I would not hold my breath on it working.
      But you never know :- ) But if you don't do it then it cannot
      happen.



      I will endeavour, Sir, to get my head arround what this paper is
      claiming and theorising; but owning to my slowness and being busy it
      might take a while. I am also trying to write a novel, just for fun, (I
      like a bit of fun occasionally) but I have not written one word in
      the last two weeks. The joys of being retired from work – working
      was easier :- )



      Yours Sincerely



      Dick Richardson

      West Somerset, Britain (that is a little island in the north Atlantic
      Ocean






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
      Re: Your Derivation Paper Sir [Re: Your Derivation Paper Sir Dear Dick, Thanks for clarification. It will be nice to get comments from readers: Vimal, R.
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 2, 2010
        Re: Your Derivation Paper Sir



        [Re: Your Derivation Paper Sir



        Dear Dick,

        Thanks for clarification. It will be nice to get comments from readers:

        Vimal, R. L. P. (2009). Derivation of Subjective Experiences from a
        Proto-experience and three Gunas in the Dual-Aspect-Dual-Mode
        Framework.Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
        Research [Available:
        <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Guna-LVCR-2-5.pdf
        <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Guna-LVCR-2-5.pdf\
        > >], 2(5), 1-140.

        Readers, please feel free to download. OR you can upload the copy (I
        emailed you) for readers.

        Since you are not theory type person, perhaps, when you immerse
        yourself in your mystical state, please try to investigate if you are
        able to reduce (or derive) all innumerable subjective experiences (SEs,
        such as redness, greenness, and so on for color, and other senses,
        painfulness, happiness, sadness, etc.) into (or from) smaller number of
        SEs.

        For example, can you reduce (or derive) all color experiences (over
        700,000 to million) into (from) just three SEs say redness, greenness,
        and blueness, in analogy to red, green, blue colors in TV? Yogis seems
        to claim that they can do it. My article is a
        mathematical/neuroscience/metaphysical model for their claim. Your
        effort will be very helpful as evidence that verifies the claim in
        mystic way (if you are successful in this endeavor).
        Cheers! Regards, Ram 2 Dec 2010
        ----------------------------------------------------------

        Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Ph.D.

        Professor (Research)

        Vision Research Institute,

        25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton,
        MA 01720, USA

        Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

        Emails: rlpvimal@...
        <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychognosis_Archive/post?postID=BxE\
        3nk0vdxLdA9kc4vuMWAh6xcd5fy_r3aQMa4re0BPzAm9z0qheFbeOcAFJJKXEE7vxET7OyRX\
        3NIXx2eA> , rvimal@...
        <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychognosis_Archive/post?postID=ki7\
        Asjq3z1xqafYyj-IJwkuhHnmnWhl9426IFyn0pIiSh0PkmVnn3WP4muxqYgjheqytLiQAJtG\
        kzmx2AnIyHfL1WMM>

        URLs: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
        <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home> ]



        Here you go Sir, I am doing some free advertising for you. A cigar at
        Yuletide would be fine – preferably Cuban and big :- )



        Well, this one is predominantly about vision and colour; so here we go.
        I have not got the faintest idea of as to how many colours and shades
        of each colour which I can see with my physical eyes. Neither do I have
        any interest in trying to count them :- ) I can see what I can see and
        that is it. Nor can I change the way I see it, and neither do I want
        to change the way I can see it, for it is just GREAT mate :- ) I could
        not even begin to count the shades of green which I can see. I don't
        see any point in counting them. I would rather look at them than count
        them. Go out on Exmoor any day where there is sun and you will see
        shades of green beyond your wildest dreams. To be there is ENOUGH.
        Neither have I ever counted the number of trees in a forest. I have
        three apples tress in the front garden, but I can know that without
        counting them; I can just see that there is three :- ) I cannot just
        see that there is ten of something, so I would have to count them. But
        up to about six of something then I would not have to count them. Tis
        funny you know, for I hardly ever remember peoples names, but I never
        ever forget a face. And let us face it, the face IS more interesting
        than the name they call it :- ) If people could swap faces and bodies
        then by what would you remember them? I would remember them by the face
        and the voice; not the body.



        As for the Mystical and Transcendent States then I do NOT immerse
        myself in them – nor can I. I don't even want them. I like it
        here best. So, when they have happened then they just happened, I did
        not do it, and neither would I. What would I want to do that for?



        I am happy to talk about both vision and colours in the transcendent
        states if you want me too. Let me know. But that is not done with the
        physical eyes. I discovered that I had `eyes' elsewhere;
        leastwise I could see; and in three dimensions and in colour; fantastic
        colours which the physical eyes cannot see. Have you ever seen that
        transcendent timeless paradise of the Ground of our Being, and the
        colours there? Tis amazing and wondrous. But once is enough, you never
        forget it. Never met any gods there though – just me. Neither did I
        meet any of them on the way there. And I have never met any here
        either. So I do not talk and write about things which I have not known
        and lived through. Other folks seem to do enough of that :- )



        Dick Richardson

        Stogumber Parish

        West Somerset, England

        07:22 GMT Friday the Third of December 2010 of the common era.





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.