Here is perhaps the longest Reader letter I got so far. Awesone stuff!
Amazing reading, as usual! I'm not sure what other praise I can give your work that I haven't already. I think I've said everything. Maybe I should repeat myself every now and then. I'm sorry I took so long to respond. School's about to start again and I've been preoccupied with other things. Because of this I haven't gotten the chance to go to the library to check out the books you referenced. However, I have checked the online source and it has mostly passed my inspection. the only issue is that it hasn't been updated since 1997, and I read some complaints about that below the article. Nonetheless, it is a huge improvement over the last online article you referenced so I am going to consider that one to be an oversight and likely an exception. I sincerely apologize for questioning your scientific background. The truth is, I'm far more into social and life sciences, and I don't really know that much about quantum mechanics. In fact, even though I'm a college student, I'm also still in High School. So you can imagine that your credentials are a lot more than mine. I had an automatic reaction to something I considered absurd, and for that I am most ashamed and must apologize. I've been told my entire life that nothing we know of can go faster than light without a wormhole, and the universe of duality is extremely contrary to my life experiences. Again, I apologize for my reaction, and I will try to be less judgmental in the future. And now, here is a humble, more respectful presentation of my thoughts on the universe of duality and faster-than-light-cognition: First, if somebody asked me to describe the nature of the universe (attempt, to at least), I would probably do it based on a type of operation(s), rather than a number. The closest description I can think at the present is a universe of summations of (combinations of exponentials and exponentials of combinations). Although like you I consider that kind of statement to be really iffy, because we don't know enough (and probably never will, I think) about the universe to make an accurate estimate of it's overarching nature. Also, this is something I've been thinking of for a little while; while the Narth say there is a third way, I definitely wouldn't say that there are ONLY three ways. If one way is the way of the dark one, another is to ignore and reject that legacy entirely, and the third is love, which is the dual way. But I say there is a fourth way, a NEITHER way. It could often be considered as a miscellaneous way. While love is connecting and felt in groups of two or more people, this way would be separating, and individual. In the case of the CHOICE, it would be to not make a choice at all and commit suicide. But the fourth way wouldn't always be a bad thing. For instance, in the case of gender, it would be to not define oneself as male or female, and to not develop a gender identity. (I speak of that from firsthand experience. I'm completely opposite of Erik in that regard. Instead of both, I'm neither.) In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are at least several people with dual gender identities alive right now. Your estimate of only one in hundreds of trillions of sentient species in the universe seems rather unlikely to me, since gender isn't such an inflexible thing. It's made less flexible by culture. I don't really believe in these four ways, though. In my opinion, it's just a human form of classification. Classification involves categories and hierarchies, and all that stuff. But there are often more than one way to classify things. For instance, in the classification of organisms on Earth, we use three main categories ("kingdoms") for the Eukaryotes: Fungi, Plant, and Animal, and anything that doesn't completely fit in just one of those categories is bunched together with other leftovers as Protists. (though I'm pretty sure you already know that, I'm just going through my thought processes, so bear with me.) The Prostists are then divided by which of the other kingdoms they most resemble. The kingdom Protista (also called Protoctista) doesn't have any universally defining characteristics of its own, other than that its members don't fit into the other Eukaryote kingdoms. Other than being separating and individual, I think the fourth way that I have described is pretty much like the kingdom Protista when it comes to classification. However, I do think it is a very interesting concept, and I think it can resolve the inherent imbalance between the duality of chaos and order represented by having a rule about them. Since chaos would be represented in the "dark one" way and the NEITHER way, even though it is contained by the LIGHT/ORDER way, they would still be equal. It could be imagined like a fight, where chaos is surrounded by order. Chaos is trying to fight his/her way out, trying to escape, while order is fighting IN trying to keep Chaos contained. And sometimes chaos gets the upper hand and starts to grow outward, and order has to expand with it to keep it contained. But when Order succeeds in pushing Chaos back, it shrinks, because the extra order isn't necessary to contain chaos at that time. We normally think of authority as a dominating force. Authority belongs to the ORDER way. But there is also rebellion. An example of this may be a parent's attempts to deal with teenage rebellion. Furthermore, if the LOVE way is the DUAL way, then what about hate or indifference? In fact, I would say that since Love is a connecting force, it is probably slightly closer to the LIGHT ORDER way. While hatred would be more in the Dark One way, or perhaps halfway into the DUAL way, since hate can be connecting in a way, sometimes. Then it becomes "we'll fight each other forever" or "I'm going to chase you until I can get my revenge". But other than that, I would say hate is Dark one way. While normally hate is considered the opposite of love, in a sense one could argue that the true opposite is indifference. (Love: I want everything to do with you." Indifference: "I don't want anything to do with you." Hate: "I want something to do with you, and it is something that involves hurting you.") Now that I think about it, I think someone said that before. I can't remember who though. Unfortunately, I'm being interrupted now, so I'll have to save my thoughts on faster-than-light cognition for another time. Thank you so much for such a wonderful read! I can't wait for more! etc. Update soon, most of the online works I've been reading lately are taking forever! Since I've written longer reviews for you than any of them, (except one and I've written more super-long reviews for you than him) be considerate enough to keep me waiting a long time so that my enjoyment makes up for the wait! Bet you weren't expecting me to say that, were you? In any case, I can't wait! Yet I must. Well, I guess I found more ways to praise your work after all. I just need to be creative. Thanks!