Swimming in murky water

[Linz]

Returning to academia after nearly 40 years of falling down nearly every hole in societies fabric I became exposed to the vagaries of Western philosophy that under pin the Western education system.
As a long term Vipassana meditator I find the intellectual mind games so greatly prized by the establishment interesting, but somewhat lacking in offering solutions.
Having just discovered this magazine I thought I'd check it out to see if anyone is coming up with any possible answers, other than the standard refrain that God is dead and science will cure all.

[chaz wyman]

Returning to academia after nearly 40 years of falling down nearly every hole in societies fabric I became exposed to the vagaries of Western philosophy that under pin the Western education system.
As a long term Vipassana meditator I find the intellectual mind games so greatly prized by the establishment interesting, but somewhat lacking in offering solutions.
Having just discovered this magazine I thought I'd check it out to see if anyone is coming up with any possible answers, other than the standard refrain that God is dead and science will cure all.

No one is saying that science will cure all.
Some are saying that god never was.
Some are still saying that 'God' will cure all.
I would say that most people here tend to think different things.
But few think it is not arrogant to pretend that there are answers to the big questions. Many think that the questions are not really questions at all in the sense that they have to have exact and precise solutions.
As an atheist I do not think that God is replaceable. God offers explanations for things that have no answers, and it is pointless to seek answers for questions that are meaningless.

PS - as for Vipassana, may I direct you to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

[Linz]

Glad to hear people are still happy to live in a Universe full of unanswerable mysteries and there is a wide variety of paths still being trod.
It had always been my view that posing unanswerable questions was an exercise in futility, and an entity that explained them simply shifted the problem sideways.
I should have used the term explain all instead of cure all in reference to science.

Experience may confirm the results of pure logic and rational thought.
Pure logic and rational thought cannot explain all life experience.

Thanks for referring me to Kant
Have downloaded it .

[chaz wyman]

Glad to hear people are still happy to live in a Universe full of unanswerable mysteries and there is a wide variety of paths still being trod.
It had always been my view that posing unanswerable questions was an exercise in futility, and an entity that explained them simply shifted the problem sideways.
I should have used the term explain all instead of cure all in reference to science.

I prefer "describe" all.


Experience may confirm the results of pure logic and rational thought.

Experience and Pure Logic at at opposite ends of the spectrum.
No pur logic requires ANY experience, by definition, this is it failing.
The results of pure reason and logic are by definition apriori, any resemplance to experience is likely to be self justifying.


Pure logic and rational thought cannot explain all life experience.

Thanks for referring me to Kant
Have downloaded it .

[Linz]

I agree that define is a far better term.

Question.
As the ability to repeat the results of a process is a main requirement of the scientific proof why should the repeated characteristics attached to a random event observed by experience be self justifying?

[chaz wyman]

I agree that define is a far better term.

Did you mean "describe"?

Question.
As the ability to repeat the results of a process is a main requirement of the scientific proof why should the repeated characteristics attached to a random event observed by experience be self justifying?

I'm not sure what you mean by a random event and in what way is it self justifying?

[Linz]

Did you mean "describe"?

I certainly stuffed that up but looking at it again I think being able to define things as opposed to describing them is what science aims to achieve. That I would think is the most desirable outcome from the logical thought process.

I'm not sure what you mean by a random event and in what way is it self justifying?[/color]

In your earlier reply you stated that if something resembled experience it was likely to be self justifying.
The random events I was referring to are the physical sensations within the body that are observed during Meditation. These are caused by the constant rising and passing away of sub atomic particles. Their activities can be observed but the observer has no control over what is manifested or when.
Experience in observing these enables a determination that they have specific characteristics. These characteristic do not change.
Observing them with total detachment provides the further experience that nothing at all is permanent.
Both of these outcomes only arise through experience, so by your definition are possibly self justifying.
As I have no contol over either the manifestation of the sensations or their passing away I do not see how any knowledge I have gained about them is self justifying.

[chaz wyman]

Did you mean "describe"?

I certainly stuffed that up but looking at it again I think being able to define things as opposed to describing them is what science aims to achieve. That I would think is the most desirable outcome from the logical thought process.

In a sense this is true , but the problem is that if you say the role of science is only to define, that would be to assume that the objects of their definition exists regardless of science. In fact what science does by describing is to place a focus upon particular observable phenomena in order to understand them. These are claimed as "natural" categories but the history of science has show that such definitions and descriptions have to be amenable to change according to the growth of science and old definitions and descriptions have to be discarded.
FOr example "Heat" was once thought of as a fluid "caloric", but now heat is not thought to be "real"; the flammable principle was once thought of as "phlogistan" which has now been discarded in favour of oxydation. SO, the more thourgh the description the more it has to change.

I'm not sure what you mean by a random event and in what way is it self justifying?[/color]

In your earlier reply you stated that if something resembled experience it was likely to be self justifying.
Did I? I wonder what I meant?
The random events I was referring to are the physical sensations within the body that are observed during Meditation. These are caused by the constant rising and passing away of sub atomic particles.

WHoopps! I think your description has failed on empirical grounds.

Their activities can be observed but the observer has no control over what is manifested or when.
Experience in observing these enables a determination that they have specific characteristics. These characteristic do not change.
Observing them with total detachment provides the further experience that nothing at all is permanent.

Observation with total detachment is a contradiction in terms.

Both of these outcomes only arise through experience, so by your definition are possibly self justifying.
As I have no contol over either the manifestation of the sensations or their passing away I do not see how any knowledge I have gained about them is self justifying.

I think you are talking about something entirely different. What is your evidence for these odd assertions?

[Linz]

In a sense this is true , but the problem is that if you say the role of science is only to define, that would be to assume that the objects of their definition exists regardless of science. In fact what science does by describing is to place a focus upon particular observable phenomena in order to understand them. These are claimed as "natural" categories but the history of science has show that such definitions and descriptions have to be amenable to change according to the growth of science and old definitions and descriptions have to be discarded.
FOr example "Heat" was once thought of as a fluid "caloric", but now heat is not thought to be "real"; the flammable principle was once thought of as "phlogistan" which has now been discarded in favour of oxydation. SO, the more thourgh the description the more it has to change.

I was saying that the most desired outcome would be to be able to define, not that it was sciences only role. As you say it may take many descriptions to reach a point of definition.

In your earlier reply you stated that if something resembled experience it was likely to be self justifying.

Did I? I wonder what I meant?
No idea.


The random events I was referring to are the physical sensations within the body that are observed during Meditation. These are caused by the constant rising and passing away of sub atomic particles.

WHoopps! I think your description has failed on empirical grounds.
Definition of empirical : relying on experiment or experience,not on theory
As I have personally experienced the phenomena of the sub atomic particles, I did not deduce these from theory or require the quantum physicists to confirm their existence.


Observation with total detachment is a contradiction in terms.

Why? Are you saying a scientist reviewing data to establish connections is biased towards proving their pet theory? You obviously have no concept of non judgemental concentration which I guess you will also see as a contradiction in terms.


I think you are talking about something entirely different. What is your evidence for these odd assertions?


I was referring to your self justiying statement regarding experience.
My knowledge of the existence of sub atomic particles predated my knowledge that quantum physicists had confirmed their existence. I certainly have no concept of them in the mathematical sense but I am aware of the role they play in the mind / matter matrix.
As the whole concept of a self is an obvious illusion by the time you experience this it can hardly be called self justifying.
Quantum physics will eventually discover all matter is in a constant state of rising and passing away which will alter their whole perception of the state of reality.
What laws govern this process I have no idea of, but it is an observable phenomena within the framework of the mind /body.
Evidence of this can only be gained by personal experience so it will obviously not satisfy your intellectual criteria at all, but as I've spent in excess of 15 months in silent observation of the mind / matter phenomena I am quite happy to draw my own conclusions about its processes without interpreting someone elses theories about it.

[chaz wyman]

In a sense this is true , but the problem is that if you say the role of science is only to define, that would be to assume that the objects of their definition exists regardless of science. In fact what science does by describing is to place a focus upon particular observable phenomena in order to understand them. These are claimed as "natural" categories but the history of science has show that such definitions and descriptions have to be amenable to change according to the growth of science and old definitions and descriptions have to be discarded.
FOr example "Heat" was once thought of as a fluid "caloric", but now heat is not thought to be "real"; the flammable principle was once thought of as "phlogistan" which has now been discarded in favour of oxydation. SO, the more thourgh the description the more it has to change.

I was saying that the most desired outcome would be to be able to define, not that it was sciences only role. As you say it may take many descriptions to reach a point of definition.

In your earlier reply you stated that if something resembled experience it was likely to be self justifying.

Did I? I wonder what I meant?
No idea.


The random events I was referring to are the physical sensations within the body that are observed during Meditation. These are caused by the constant rising and passing away of sub atomic particles.

WHoopps! I think your description has failed on empirical grounds.
Definition of empirical : relying on experiment or experience,not on theory
As I have personally experienced the phenomena of the sub atomic particles, I did not deduce these from theory or require the quantum physicists to confirm their existence.


This must get the kook of the week award. Let me state this as clearly as possible. You may well experience something but one thing is for sure, you are completely incapable of experiencing sub atomic particles. If you want to be taken seriously pelse look up "sub atomic particle" and then revise your claim.




Observation with total detachment is a contradiction in terms.

Why? Are you saying a scientist reviewing data to establish connections is biased towards proving their pet theory? You obviously have no concept of non judgemental concentration which I guess you will also see as a contradiction in terms.


Why? Because it is impossible to observe a thing without some attachment, interest, and anticipation. There is no non judgemental judgement. You really have a long way to go, if you believe this fantasy.




I think you are talking about something entirely different. What is your evidence for these odd assertions?


I was referring to your self justiying statement regarding experience.

WHo me??


My knowledge of the existence of sub atomic particles predated my knowledge that quantum physicists had confirmed their existence. I certainly have no concept of them in the mathematical sense but I am aware of the role they play in the mind / matter matrix.

You area talking bollocks.

As the whole concept of a self is an obvious illusion by the time you experience this it can hardly be called self justifying.
Quantum physics will eventually discover all matter is in a constant state of rising and passing away which will alter their whole perception of the state of reality.

And your evidence for saying this is what???


What laws govern this process I have no idea of, but it is an observable phenomena within the framework of the mind /body.
Evidence of this can only be gained by personal experience so it will obviously not satisfy your intellectual criteria at all, but as I've spent in excess of 15 months in silent observation of the mind / matter phenomena I am quite happy to draw my own conclusions about its processes without interpreting someone elses theories about it.

You are just being ridiculous

[Linz]

WHoopps! I think your description has failed on empirical grounds.
Definition of empirical : relying on experiment or experience,not on theory
As I have personally experienced the phenomena of the sub atomic particles, I did not deduce these from theory or require the quantum physicists to confirm their existence.

This must get the kook of the week award. Let me state this as clearly as possible. You may well experience something but one thing is for sure, you are completely incapable of experiencing sub atomic particles. If you want to be taken seriously pelse look up "sub atomic particle" and then revise your claim.

I'll accept kook of the week award. Being taken seriously takes all the fun out of life. Won't alter what I know I experienced. As you are so keen on evidence what is yours that I am incapable of experiencing sub atomic particles?
Taking this stance is equivalent to telling a cancer patient.
"I can't feel any pain. Unless you can describe it to me in empirical terms it is impossible for you to be in pain."
The whole procedure of Meditation is to progress from the grossest to the subtlest awareness. And the sub atomic level is pretty dammed subtle.


Why? Are you saying a scientist reviewing data to establish connections is biased towards proving their pet theory? You obviously have no concept of non judgemental concentration which I guess you will also see as a contradiction in terms.

Why? Because it is impossible to observe a thing without some attachment, interest, and anticipation. There is no non judgemental judgement. You really have a long way to go, if you believe this fantasy.

This is obviously true in your case. You are correct that there can be no such thing as a non judgemental judgement but I never stated that. If you had read my response correctly I said non judgemental concentration. I will provide a scenario which may provide you with some idea of what detached observation actually is. It most certainly is possible, but you obviously have a long way to go to develop the skills.

Three men were asked to stand beside a road, observe the first car that went passed, then report their observations of the event as they saw it.
Observer 1
“ The car was a metallic blue Ford sedan, possibly a Sierra. I'd guess five or six years old. Registration plate was PWT 4 something. The driver was a white male, grey hair, wearing a dark jacket, tie and sunglasses. There was a younger female passenger, late twenties or early thirties. Dark hair, streaked blond, wearing a bright, multicoloured, tank top and also wearing sunglasses.”

Observer 2
“It was just a commuter can but it had a cool metallic blue paint job. An old guy was driving, trying to look hip by wearing shades. A hot chick in a bright tank top with good tits was the passenger. Probably his mistress or second wife.”

Observer 3
“ A car went passed. It had two occupants. One was male and the other was female.”

In these examples observer 1 has produced a fairly detailed account, observer 2 a highly subjective account, and observer 3 a minimalist account.

What personal value has the absorbed information been to each of the observers?

Observer ones account is factual, but knowing that degree of detail is of no consequence to the observer unless a third party requests the information from him. It is then only of value to the third party. Unless there is some likelihood to trade, recording it does nothing except cluttering up his mind with unnecessary details.
Observer two has given an account which tells more about the observer than the observed. Absorbing information in this manner reinforces the habit of judging every event through his own prejudices.
Observer three's account is that of detached observation. By taking in no more than the basic information he extrapolates no added emotive content. He retains no information he doesn't require.


My knowledge of the existence of sub atomic particles predated my knowledge that quantum physicists had confirmed their existence. I certainly have no concept of them in the mathematical sense but I am aware of the role they play in the mind / matter matrix.

You area talking bollocks.

I could say the same but I'd get my spelling correct.
As the whole concept of a self is an obvious illusion by the time you experience this it can hardly be called self justifying.Quantum physics will eventually discover all matter is in a constant state of rising and passing away which will alter their whole perception of the state of reality.

And your evidence for saying this is what???

I came across an article in an old National Geographic (March 2008) about CERN and it included this:
"The big bang theory tells us that the known universe once had no dimensions at all-no up, no left or right, no passage of time,and laws of physics beyond our vision."
This I found to be quite intriguing as it accurately described the 1ST Jhana of absorption meditation. There are 3 higher levels but I don't know about them. They are going to all the trouble of building CERN and if it is sufficient for the task they will get closer to understanding the nature of the sub atomic particles.[/color]
What laws govern this process I have no idea of, but it is an observable phenomena within the framework of the mind /body.
Evidence of this can only be gained by personal experience so it will obviously not satisfy your intellectual criteria at all, but as I've spent in excess of 15 months in silent observation of the mind / matter phenomena I am quite happy to draw my own conclusions about its processes without interpreting someone elses theories about it.[/color]

You are just being ridiculous[/color]

Knowledge can be studied. Wisdom can't. This only arrives through experience.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[chaz wyman]

WHoopps! I think your description has failed on empirical grounds.
Definition of empirical : relying on experiment or experience,not on theory
As I have personally experienced the phenomena of the sub atomic particles, I did not deduce these from theory or require the quantum physicists to confirm their existence.

This must get the kook of the week award. Let me state this as clearly as possible. You may well experience something but one thing is for sure, you are completely incapable of experiencing sub atomic particles. If you want to be taken seriously pelse look up "sub atomic particle" and then revise your claim.

I'll accept kook of the week award. Being taken seriously takes all the fun out of life. Won't alter what I know I experienced. As you are so keen on evidence what is yours that I am incapable of experiencing sub atomic particles?
Taking this stance is equivalent to telling a cancer patient.
"I can't feel any pain. Unless you can describe it to me in empirical terms it is impossible for you to be in pain."
The whole procedure of Meditation is to progress from the grossest to the subtlest awareness. And the sub atomic level is pretty dammed subtle.

This is nothing like it. Speaking as a cancer patient. I was told that my body had been bombarded with heavy doses of Radiation. But no matter how hard I tried I was not able to experience this during the event. Nevertheless, the red and peeling skin that I later suffered from and the painful throat as the treatment progressed for 7 weeks was evidence that I had indeed been bombarded with Radioactivity. Nonetheless it would simply be an abuse of language to say that I experienced radioactive particles. What I experienced was the effects to the tissues in my neck that had been caused by the disruption to the genetic code in the cells of my skin. Any claim that I was somehow able to detect the radiation with my senses as no such sensation was present during the time when the machine was focussing its fields on me.




Why? Are you saying a scientist reviewing data to establish connections is biased towards proving their pet theory? You obviously have no concept of non judgemental concentration which I guess you will also see as a contradiction in terms.

There is no such thing. If you think you can concentrate on a thing without judgement then you are deluded. And Hey Presto - you have convinced yourself of the delusion that you have experienced sub-atomic particles. What an idiot you are!




My knowledge of the existence of sub atomic particles predated my knowledge that quantum physicists had confirmed their existence. I certainly have no concept of them in the mathematical sense but I am aware of the role they play in the mind / matter matrix.

Observer: Oh I get pretty patterns when I meditate. I bet I can see interesting stuff that is really cool and nothing to do with my imagination. I haven't got a clue what sub-atomic means but because I am really smart cool and clever I can tell everyone that I knew all about them before I knew that such things existed. LIke because no one can refute what each of us experience.

WRONG!

I don't know what bullshit you dreamt up , but it has fuck all to do with sub-atomic particles.

You are talking bollocks.

I could say the same but I'd get my spelling correct.
As the whole concept of a self is an obvious illusion by the time you experience this it can hardly be called self justifying.Quantum physics will eventually discover all matter is in a constant state of rising and passing away which will alter their whole perception of the state of reality.

And your evidence for saying this is what???

I came across an article in an old National Geographic (March 2008) about CERN and it included this:
"The big bang theory tells us that the known universe once had no dimensions at all-no up, no left or right, no passage of time,and laws of physics beyond our vision."
This I found to be quite intriguing as it accurately described the 1ST Jhana of absorption meditation. There are 3 higher levels but I don't know about them. They are going to all the trouble of building CERN and if it is sufficient for the task they will get closer to understanding the nature of the sub atomic particles.[/color]


Dahh - Read it in a magazine!!!

[

What laws govern this process I have no idea of, but it is an observable phenomena within the framework of the mind /body.
Evidence of this can only be gained by personal experience so it will obviously not satisfy your intellectual criteria at all, but as I've spent in excess of 15 months in silent observation of the mind / matter phenomena I am quite happy to draw my own conclusions about its processes without interpreting someone elses theories about it.

You are just being ridiculous[/color]

Knowledge can be studied. Wisdom can't. This only arrives through experience.
e]

Not ANY experience. You dont get wisdom from delusion.

[Linz]

[quote="chaz wyman"][quote="Linz"][quote="chaz wyman"]



This is nothing like it. Speaking as a cancer patient. I was told that my body had been bombarded with heavy doses of Radiation. But no matter how hard I tried I was not able to experience this during the event. Nevertheless, the red and peeling skin that I later suffered from and the painful throat as the treatment progressed for 7 weeks was evidence that I had indeed been bombarded with Radioactivity. Nonetheless it would simply be an abuse of language to say that I experienced radioactive particles. What I experienced was the effects to the tissues in my neck that had been caused by the disruption to the genetic code in the cells of my skin. Any claim that I was somehow able to detect the radiation with my senses as no such sensation was present during the time when the machine was focussing its fields on me.


I am sorry to hear of your cancer experience. I hope the radiation treatment has cured it for you.
A deluded idiot I may be but as practising this delusion has enabled me to wake up every morning happier, more contented and not getting my knickers in a twist about the shit life throws at me and the general social malaise then I'll settle for it.
I don't happen to think I am very cool or clever (at least that's something you may agree with). I am still only a few steps along a very long path.
If what I have experienced; most of it has been dealing with what an absolute arsehole I am, extremely painful and not pretty pictures, is a delusion but has enabled me to appreciate a richness and depth to the human experience that goes way beyond the physical realm then once again I'll settle for this.
For you this will all be bullshit, but it has everything to do with sub atomic particles, because bottom line that's all each and everyone of us is.

[chaz wyman]

This is nothing like it. Speaking as a cancer patient. I was told that my body had been bombarded with heavy doses of Radiation. But no matter how hard I tried I was not able to experience this during the event. Nevertheless, the red and peeling skin that I later suffered from and the painful throat as the treatment progressed for 7 weeks was evidence that I had indeed been bombarded with Radioactivity. Nonetheless it would simply be an abuse of language to say that I experienced radioactive particles. What I experienced was the effects to the tissues in my neck that had been caused by the disruption to the genetic code in the cells of my skin. Any claim that I was somehow able to detect the radiation with my senses as no such sensation was present during the time when the machine was focussing its fields on me.


I am sorry to hear of your cancer experience. I hope the radiation treatment has cured it for you.
A deluded idiot I may be but as practising this delusion has enabled me to wake up every morning happier, more contented and not getting my knickers in a twist about the shit life throws at me and the general social malaise then I'll settle for it.
I don't happen to think I am very cool or clever (at least that's something you may agree with). I am still only a few steps along a very long path.
If what I have experienced; most of it has been dealing with what an absolute arsehole I am, extremely painful and not pretty pictures, is a delusion but has enabled me to appreciate a richness and depth to the human experience that goes way beyond the physical realm then once again I'll settle for this.
For you this will all be bullshit, but it has everything to do with sub atomic particles, because bottom line that's all each and everyone of us is.

[/quote][/quote]

Its been two years since the end of treatment, that means I stand a good chance to last a bit longer.
It has been a painful experience, and getting a simple cold can now be something of a major event, but life goes on.

I really don't know what it is exactly that you think you experienced but whatever it was it was not sub-atiomic particles.
Humans are not capable of experiencing atoms let alone smaller things. In a very really sense atoms don't exist except as models with which we try to understand the world we live in. But in whatever way they might exist they lie beyond what our senses are capable of as all receptors are made of macro-atomic stuctures. Sight relies on light which cannot "see" atoms, hearing relies on the vibration of atoms and cannot hear atoms, touch relies on the field of pressure that is exerted when atoms try to occupy the same space, and cannot feel atoms, taste relies on the encounter of chemical atoms in contact with taste buds.
None of this allows for subatomic particles.

[Linz]

Its been two years since the end of treatment, that means I stand a good chance to last a bit longer.
It has been a painful experience, and getting a simple cold can now be something of a major event, but life goes on.

I really don't know what it is exactly that you think you experienced but whatever it was it was not sub-atiomic particles.
Humans are not capable of experiencing atoms let alone smaller things. In a very really sense atoms don't exist except as models with which we try to understand the world we live in. But in whatever way they might exist they lie beyond what our senses are capable of as all receptors are made of macro-atomic stuctures. Sight relies on light which cannot "see" atoms, hearing relies on the vibration of atoms and cannot hear atoms, touch relies on the field of pressure that is exerted when atoms try to occupy the same space, and cannot feel atoms, taste relies on the encounter of chemical atoms in contact with taste buds.
None of this allows for subatomic particles.

I'm glad to hear the prognosis for your treatment is positive. It must have been an horrendous experience to go through and you have my heartfelt sympathy.
I hope you can totally avoid some of the 'flu strains that are going around nowadays. I had one that wouldn't go away for months this winter.

I will attempt to explain what has been my experience and you can make of it what you will.
The difficulty arises in describing it in words that make sense. As an artist it is equivalent to trying to reproduce a water colour with a kids crayon.
As you say atoms pre se are really only a model, it would appear that they are in some way a combination of sub atomic particles, and I agree with your description of how the senses operate at the macro level.
But the macro receives its information from the micro level and my experience is that this is in the form of wavelets. They are so subtle and last so briefly that experiencing them seems only possible because there are so many of them. When you can feel the root of every hair on your body and they are simply wavelets in a constant state of arising and passing away it is somewhat odd.
I know you discount the possibility of detached observation, but the mind is capable of very powerful states of concentration (or delusion if you prefer). Personally I have been able, at times, to maintain a single pointed observation without any thought processes for periods
of up to ninety minutes. This is not any sort of claim at expertise, the universe probably thinks my thoughts aren't worth having so shut them off. At this stage there is another total contradiction in terms. The observer and the observed are inseparable. This leads to the Jhana state "I read about in a magazine" and the whole concept of a self is thrown out the window.
The sensations of which you become aware of prior to these circumstances could easily, and perhaps correctly, be argued as imagination from sensory deprivation. Whatever the cause they range from horrendous solid pain to subtle wavelets. By remaining detached and observing the solid pain this in turn eventually dissolves in to wavelets and disappears.

Most people assume that meditation is all about blissing out and groovy visuals. This has not been my experience. The technique is simplicity itself but has been the hardest thing I have attempted in my life. During the process I get confronted with every psychological hangup I've ever had. In the early years of my practice the sensations were all horrendous and sometimes made me think I was losing my sanity (maybe I did). On one twenty day course I attended, whenever I sat down, and closed my eyes, my body was instantly thrown to the floor where I thrashed around like an epileptic for 2 or 3 hours. This went on for nine days before it stopped. And yes it ended in a cloud of subtle wavelets.

So why do I bother? It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't done it. My best attempt would be to say it's like having a troublesome tooth removed. The process is unpleasant but the result of the relief is lasting. Gradually over the years I've lost an enormous amount of my hangups etc. As bizarre as it may sound I feel myself getting constantly lighter and hollow.

Several years ago when I got somewhat freaked out by what was happening I nearly quit. Instead I decided that as life was just an experiment I'd stick with this proceedure and see where it lead. I'm glad I did. Each year it just gets better. I have no idea of where it's all leading, but the experiences have convinced me (deluded if you wish) that there is no difference between me and the universe. What drives it drives me, so the concept of death holds no sense of apprehension.

Sorry about the long rave, you may be right and what I've described is all delusion and nothing to do with sub atomic particles. But what I have experienced makes me think that the physicists will discover that electromagnetics is the main glue throughout the Universe. Another unprovable assumption just to prove my delusions.