Lovely.

There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. It's the same difference as between a philosopher and a mystic. The philosopher argues about spiritual reality using just his intellect. The mystic experiences spiritual reality directly in meditation. The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.

It's like an astronaut trying to explain weightlessness. He can write or speak in explicit detail what it is but he can never give the actual experience to another.

And no, I don't think the weightlessness analogy is valid. This is simply obscurantism: an appeal to a type of experience which most people have not had, and may thus be assumed to be ignorant of. But these non-astronaut non-weightless folk aren't really missing out on some ineffable essence of weightlessness.

True. Therefore the mystic usually resources to marketing.

This is very true. It seems that some people turns to mysticism just because they cannot find reality as it is fascinating enough.

Thus every wonderful process of the matter becomes a "mere" phenomenon, not incredible enough. You need to pile up UFOs, gods, fairies, dwarfs, invisible friends and that sticky shapless mass of new age potpourri of religions on top of everything.

click for larger view

I have no idea about general principles, even less about concrete tactical issues (I'm a patzer, that's it), but I find 31...d4 much sexier. I feel beyond this point Black never gets to get anything from the central pawns.

32. Qg4 dxe3
33. Qxg5 exf2+
34. Kxf2 ...

<ajile> -- <There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. > Is there, really? What about mathematics? I know a cast-iron proof that says the square root of 2 cannot be a rational fraction -- which seems to be both an experiential and an intellectual conclusion. What's the supposed difference between the two?>

Here is another analogy. Try to explain what "horny" is to an 8 year old. You KNOW what it is because as an adult we experience the result of hormones in the body that an 8 year old doesn't possess. The 8 year old will say "horny" isn't real since he can't experience it or perceive it.

Spiritual realities beyond physical measurement are wonderful as long as you don't try to sell them. Too bad it is almost impossible to find one of those mystics not trying to sell you a book, making concrete money out of the intangible.>

I'm using the term "mystic" for the very rare type of enlightened being that has no attachments to money or fame. This doesn't mean a person of this type doesn't have and use material tools in their lives. They just aren't attached to them. For your definition I would use a term such as fraud guru perhaps. I agree the vast majority are fakes whether they realize it or not.

The problem is there are so many frauds that a lay person might suppose they are ALL frauds which isn't the case. The second problem is the real mystic doesn't broadcast their insights because they aren't attached to fame, money or power.

Lastly as far as the brain this is a key point in the discussion. There are 2 basic First Premises that are foundations that logic can proceed from.

1. The brain Produces consciousness.
2. The brain Channels consciousness.

Perfection is null, it needs nothing, it gives nothing, therefore it needs no transfer. Being a personal experience, a unique kind of perfection suits a unique being, so transfer is even more useless.

A perfect human being does not have to be a guru, it may well be anybody. It may even be that dumb guy laughing with a beer and a hoagie. He may enjoy the enlightment I lack, who knows?

Perfection? That's a damn word for an ignorant like me. Define it, picture your perfect guru.

<The wise student hears of the Tao and practises it diligently.

The average student hears of the Tao and gives it thought now and again.

The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.

If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.>

<ajile The idea that the human intellect is the pinnacle and the top is not only ridiculous but arrogant in the extreme>. Could not agree more, trust me. It's just prejudice and old-fashioned dogmas which keep managers relying more on human programmers than chimpanzees, or even fishes (fishes cannot type, true, but this is just our lack of ergonomic integration efforts).

But in the end I agree with you: only the human being is <actively> idiotic. As some guy said:

<We wouldn't take ideas so seriously only if we considered for a moment the fact that they came from mammals.>

I will give you that this is an interesting idea. Can perfection be a dynamic concept? A path rather than a state? Good. But still you have to fill the blank: evolution towards what?

Not even in chess can we still know what a "perfect", or "ever improving" game is; much less in life. Too many criteria, too slippery.

For instance: I evoluted to the point of being perfectly me right now. You cannot beat me at that, mind you. Not much of an achievement, you'd say, and I would agree. But again, which is then the "golden criterion"?

Most often I am given to rather more tact, but there are occasions where I reach the end of my tether and let fly.

<....Then again, <perf> knows whereof he speaks....>

You are more certain of that than I. (laughs)

<....And I'm sure he could score 30-0 in a simultaneous against a whole tribe of Ulhumbri.>