Symposium Great Neck 5

-Part 5-

-Part 1-

-Part 2-

-Part 3-

-Part 4-

-Part 5-

red: current video part playing

blue: the next video part (on-deck)

Speaker: We will take questions of the Chairman once it stops. I just want to say that I would actually agree with that part. My observation is a left Buddhism. I left Judaism for Buddhism. Ninety percent, I read something along these lines, that because they’re searching for trans, they’re searching for something that they’re not quite finding and on some level Judaism is a mistake whether my work promotes not embracing the whole group, a very dynamic group, seeking truth, willing to sacrifice and it’s frankly [inaudible 0:00:49.9], anyway, that being said.
Audience Member: Without getting into the philosophy, when you started this quest, did you have any idea where it would; did you have any idea that it would be the size of the spectrum?

Speaker: No, no, I just had a couple of questions frankly. I just had two questions, one or two questions. My main question was is classic Judaism compatible, there is this breakdown from the Holocaust, it doesn’t usually survive the Holocaust, that’s question number one and then question number two was, which I eluded to actually as a youngster I had astronomy as a hobby, the books at home and astronomy has the same problem, where did the universe come from as classic religion the parallel [inaudible 0:01:38.5] Theogony and Theodicy, at home, because I didn’t study astronomy in school which was eternal origins of vessels. So anyone lead, but I did feel that I felt perhaps quite strongly that to really solve any one of these, you’d solve all of them. I had a deep feeling in my gut. Two things in my gut, one solution was very subtle that it’s printed right in front of us, that sort of hiding in plain sight. You didn’t have to go to ancient class metaphysical text and you didn’t have to advance me in philosophy, perhaps the less I knew the better, frankly, keep it really simple, it’s right hiding in plain sight, the solution to all these problems and if you found the solution, the test would be, if it did indeed crack all these problems simultaneously. That was sort of my thinking, to answer your question.

Audience Member: The question is, have you thought about expressing this concept in a mathematical formulation?

Speaker: No, I’m not able to do, but I wrote that this is hopeful of fractals which I think if people so chose down the road that I think that will be an offshoot down the road. I think that if you deal in fractals such as iterations, or repeating numbers, my gut tells me it’s identical to what I’m saying. Identical. I don’t know the field, but intuition is that it’s identical. I have three sentence paragraph in the book [inaudible 0:03:38.7] that’s again beyond my level.

Audience Member: Yes please and grant by the way is a mathematician.

Speaker: Oh good.

Audience Member: I was wondering if you came across this, so the physics view certainly has this big bang similarity the beginning called the universe.

Speaker: I don’t think people can hear you, but I

Audience Member: But there is this critical density that the universe is higher density than this [inaudible 0:04:22.1]

Speaker: Some sir.
Audience Member: [Inaudible 0:04:25.6] the modern calculations are right around this number, you can certainly contract and re-explore the kind of changes that makes it from a singular event into periodic event

Speaker: I’ve looked; frankly I do follow that field very, very carefully.

Audience Member: Can you repeat the question.

Speaker: His question, I think, is that some astrophysicists believe the universe might implode upon itself, back upon itself so I’m answering that I do track it very carefully. I’ve kept track of this field since I was six years old, the whole astrophysics field and number one is some astrophysicist, as we both know, it shifts from year to year. One year, yeah it’s one year, no. Let’s take the worst case; it implodes back on itself, the worst case it can reverse again. So from a philosophical perspective, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t think it’s imploding into nothingness in my perspective, but that’s my perspective.

Audience Member: Certainly if it didn’t have to have a possibility of doing that, would your theory be

Speaker: It’s possible, everything’s possible. We’ve said the impossible might the end of our evening now.

Audience Member: Are there any more questions, yeah one last thing, Marjorie and I were at a program and seventy percent of all Buddhists in America are Jewish. An amazing number, seventy percent of all Buddhists in America are Jewish.

Audience Member: I’m not use to thinking metaphysical but it seems to me that word possibility inherent possibility

Speaker: Is what?

Audience Member: Inherent impossibility is conditionality and chance. Very dynamic.

Speaker: Everything is possible.

Audience Member: The word possibility is very dynamic and the tension in that speaking metaphysically to equate possibility with its dynamic that is inherent in it with eternity seems to me, again I’m speaking metaphysically, the tension would be too great for them to exist together. You spoke of this eternity which was preconditioned by possibility, of existing ions.

Speaker: Very simple, very simple. Possibility is a very, so let’s deal directly with this. This should be clear. Can possibility, I’ve always, let me answer that question. Is it possible that possibility always existed?

Audience Member: I don’t know.

Speaker: Okay, is there anything more likely to have always existed than possibility?

Audience Member: I have [inaudible 0:07:23.6]

Speaker: Okay, well that’s one more subject. I have thought about it and I don’t think so. I don’t think you can impose one concept or [inaudible 0:07:31.7] which is more creative than possibility has always existed, that’s why I wrote this book. Because using that, the other things work. So if you have another theme, tell us. Possibility means just that. It’s means possibly nothing happens and possibly you have an extraordinary chairman like this happening a few billion years later. Anything is possible, anything’s possible and [inaudible 0:07:59.5]

Audience Member: He was an extraordinary chairman immediately. It didn’t take an eternity.

Speaker: I have a couple of possibilities, second part of the one-two punch is extraordinariation that wasn’t why did we end up with high level Jewish young men studying the [inaudible 0:08:20.7] and not just a million variations on slugs? Why do they have to be extraordinary and not just the regular, why are we not into just survival? So come to my [inaudible
0:08:38.3] and there is a second tug on the equation, which I call extraordinariation and possibility effectuating towards extraordinariation and you and I with all our flaws, potential with our flaws end up on the mix. It’s not just possibility; it’s actual potential, because it would be all over the place. That it’s heading to an extraordinariation and who’s who to call that messy idea up, a scientist can call that brilliant. Scientific theories The young ladies would call that the perfect love. So in my schema combine two entities extraordinariation is pulling at the other end of the rope. That’s my quick answer to your important question.

Audience Member: Is possibility the same as potential? You said it was the first cousin, but it seems

Speaker: I think possibility is a much simpler, neater concept.

Audience Member: I like the concept of potential because then I can understand energy and that energy is as the doctor was saying, builds up such energy then you know we can go right into the whole creation aspect.

Speaker: What paradigm is calling the quest for potential hypothesis? Then they lose the quest for potential. With all due respect to that hypothesis, I think it’s a little more complex than a simple term of possibility.

Audience Member: Any more questions or any more comments or any other theories? Yes.

Audience Member: This has a rift on something that you said earlier and it’s a very insidious with middle English and the modern English with the [inaudible 0:10:24.7] and the teacher, a tough teacher, very, very tough teacher, name was Hecht, gave an exam and when we took the exam, there write the instructors name, Hahn, pen and paper, one student, who wasn’t that bright, asked the guy next to him how do you spell fink. So the guy says, Phink and the guy writes Phink. Fink is a really rough guy, comes to the next class, Fink walks in for the papers, where’s so and so, like Callahan you know, how do you spell Fink, Phinq. He said you dummy, it’s spelled Phinque.

Audience Member: I want to thank, first of all David for being here. I want to thank [inaudible 0:11:34.8]

For David Birnbaum philosophy, metaphysics, see also CodeBreaker1000