From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 13:02:49 GMT
David M,
> Platt
>
> My point is that there is a difference between
> reading,say, a mathematical proof and understanding
> it. Understanding goes beyond readin the words out
> or just repeating them. Or to understand say relativity theory
> one has to really discover its meaning as much as Einstein did
> originally. Luckily, good books on the subject make the
> sudden non-dualistic leap of understanding easier for us than
> Einstein.
I don't understand why understanding is a "non-dualistic" leap. Seems to
me understanding depends on patterns, and patterns require a dualistic
inside/outside to become a pattern at all. There is mystic understanding,
of course, which bypasses patterns. But I don't think understanding
Einstein requires some mystic experience. Where have I go wrong?
Thanks,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 23 2004 - 13:00:30 GMT