your mail

[Dominik Wujastyk]

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Girish Beeharry wrote:

> I could not agree more! So let us take a concrete example and see how
> you paNDitas think: Suppose you read that Goraknaatha says that if one
> gazes at one's nose tip, the flow of thought is arrested. How do you
> understand this statement? 

Gorakhanaatha is part of a tantric/alchemical milieu in which
mystical/mantric/magic interpretations are de rigeur.  Your previous
example was of the "ra" in Ramayana, which is a different genre entirely. 
You have to use interpretative techniques which are appropriate to the
subject matter under discussion.

>> And quantum mechanics doesn't come into it at all. 

> Yes it does. An electron has a finite probability of going through a
> piece of matter, although classically it is not 'supposed' to do that.
> All trnsistors are based on this fact.

Oooohhh no it doesn't.  I wondered whether you would fall for this line
when I wrote what I wrote: you have missed my point about the difference
between technology and science.  The theoretical physics of quantum
electron behaviour has nothing to do with the technical and engineering
developments which have made email a practical reality.  The history of
20th cent. science shows the distinction between scientific and
technological development clearly in many fields. The computer networks
and so on have been developed using transistor technology, certainly, but
they *assume* the solution of necessary theoretical problems, and do not
re-solve them as part of technological implementation. 

> I agree, and a very careful study of the akshara 'ra' will involve
> formal and empirical thought as well as this third 'piTaka'. 

This is getting too bizarre.

I'm signing off on this topic now.  

\Bye.

Dominik