--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> <snip>
>> In the above "Person Of Interest" scenario, would "X" 
>> be God? It's an outside agency acting upon the world. 
>> It has the ability to direct the team to an event before
>> it happens and keep it from happening. That sounds 
>> pretty omniscient and omnipotent to me.  :-)
> <snip>
>> 
> [Xeno wrote:]
>>> So far, I take Robin's 'X' as the outside agency view, but 
>>> I have to remain open since I find him difficult to 
>>> understand half the time.
>> 
>> I don't bother to try. Which is why at this point I should
>> interject to point out that I'm replying to Xeno, about
>> his and Jason's exchange above. The Robbster just ain't
>> in the equation. :-)
> 
> Ooooopsie! Yes, he is, if you're asking about "X." That's
> one of Robin's original ideas. (That's why Xeno refers to
> "X" above as "Robin's 'X,'", don'cha know.)
> 
> And no, to answer your question about "X," while you
> could call it an "outside agency," it's not God. Robin has
> made that very clear, and there's been quite a bit of
> discussion about it. But I guess you didn't read any of
> those posts, right, Barry?

The symbol 'x' usually lower case and italicised typically represents an 
unknown variable or a placeholder variable in an equation. That Robin uses this 
unknown value and captalises it seems to belie something about what he 
considers it. If 'x' represents something we know nothing about, then we can 
deduce that we know nothing about it, and can say no further. It also might 
represent a value we have some inkling as to what it is but have not yet 
defined it. An example of this might be quarks. Never observed, but they 
explain something about the internal structure of a proton, and even if they 
are not real, they provide a provisional means to explain something that can be 
observed in a practical way that can lead to further discovery.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that Robin's 'X' is something he has definite 
ideas about. It seems to be something metaphysical, which means no one will 
ever observe it, because that requires physical interaction, and that which has 
no physical properties is unobservable in any way.

I wonder if Robin has ever thought of making diagrams, as some people can 
visualise things better with pictures rather than with extended descriptions 
and puzzling queries. This does not mean the diagrams are 'true', they are a 
visualisation aid. [Note: must be viewed with a monospaced typeface.]

Example 1. A person with brain activity in the universe, a scientific view.

|---------------------------------------------|
| [universe: 'laws of nature'                 |
|  equally functional throughout]             |
|   -------------------------------------     |
|   | [person, body]                     |    |
|   |                                    |    |
|   |   -----------------------------    |    |
|   |   | [brain]                    |   |    |
|   |   |                            |   |    |
|   |   |    -------------------     |   |    |
|   |   |    | [brain-activity] |    |   |    |
|   |   |    -------------------     |   |    |
|   |   |                            |   |    |
|   |   -----------------------------    |    |
|   |                                    |    |
|   --------------------------------------    |
|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|

Example 2. Duality.
|----------------|----------------|
|                |                |
|                |                |
|  absolute      |  relative      |
|                |                |
|                |                |
|----------------|----------------|

Example 3. God and Creation.
|----------------|----------------|
|                |                |
|                |                |
|  God           |  Creation      |
|                |                |
|                |                |
|----------------|----------------|


Example 4. Judy and Barry.
|----------------|----------------|
|                |                |
|                | |              |
|  Judy          | | Barry        |
|                | |              |
|                |                |
|----------------|----------------|


Example 5. Monism.
|---------------------------------|
|                                 |
|        [ all existence =        |
|        single substance ]       |
|                                 |
|                                 |
|---------------------------------|

Example 6. Non-duality.
|---------------------------------|
|                                 |
|   [ 'absolute' = 'relative' ]   |
|        both experienced         |
|         simultaneously          |
|                                 |
|---------------------------------|

Example 7. Robin's 'X' Theory and
personal ontology:
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
|      ?????????                              |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|

Reply via email to