boundary quandaries

From: Hanataiyouame

"Cul-de-sac" is an interesting phrase, both poetic and ugly at the same time (it literally means "butt of the bag"); a dead end; the terminus that brings us up short, in a quandary, in a state of gridlock—where do we go from here?
     To our sensibilities movement is all—stasis is death. Apart from stopping to smell the coffee, or the roses, (most of us see this "stopping" as a pause, a hiatus; by its very nature a "pause" is temporary) we all know that when we reach the "butt of the bag" it's game-over.
     The end.
     But the very notion of "end" suggests a boundary of some kind. And the understanding that there's a transition from one condition to another; that there's something beyond the boundary—and the acknowledgment of this distinction is, in itself, a continuation of what supposedly ended. A boundary paradox. If the journey is a personal one, and the end is reached (truly the end, and not a passing over into another reality), the boundary should cease to exist as well. And the cul-de-sac is something else altogether: a through street that goes nowhere.

Maybe this article will help... or not.

"Physical reality is not absolute. This can be shown experimentally. Two colliding protons pass right through each other in total violation of all physical rules, if their spins are exactly parallel. [In vector equilibrium, waves pass through waves without interference]. Protons are the central building blocks of all matter, the fundamental constituents of everything solid and concrete. Yet, they go right through one another, without any effect whatsoever when their spins are aligned properly, simply cancelling physical reality.
     There is no independent existence to mental phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we think. There is no independent existence to physical phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we observe physical phenomena. Furthermore, it takes a finite piece of time for boundary of exact opposites, all that is necessary to identify opposites is to lose all perceptual distinction between them. And that is accomplished by multi-ocular perception--perceiving the presence of both at once unseparated, hence the absence of either exclusively present." — Iona Miller, Scalers
Read more...