The Source of KHTK


KHTK Mindfulness is a product of the Unknowables.

It is incorrect to think that KHTK is a product of Vinay or Vinaire or any one person.

The source of KHTK is unknowable.

KHTK is available to be used freely by anybody just like the knowledge of science is used freely. It cannot be copyrighted.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM


    ~ The Unknowables.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM

    KHTK Axiom #0: The Absolute is unknowable. You cannot pin it down.



    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 10:23 AM

      like this one


      • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 10:25 AM

        It is only probabilistic like the location of an electron.


        • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 1:53 PM

          I always thought of electrons like swishing water around and around in a glass.
          Sort of.
          BTW. I’m not offended, just drawing out opinions and explanations. Being an instigator.


  • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    Unknowable or unknown? To make a STATEMENT that anything is unknowable seems foolish.


    • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM

      I prefer to be foolish.



    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM

      ouch! Get out the popcorn ’cause here we go. (sigh)


      • 2ndxmr  On November 8, 2013 at 1:32 PM

        Oooh.. the grouch wise old-guy forgot his patience pill this morning! 🙂


        • 2ndxmr  On November 8, 2013 at 1:34 PM

          And I see that I don’t know the correct way to implement “strikethrough” on wordpress. “Grouch” was supposed to be struckthrough. So much for my morning attempt at comic relief. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:23 PM

          I got it anyway! Good one.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

          LOL you are right. Since this unknowable is Vinay’s responsibility I think he should write an entire OP for just UNKNOWABLE. Then we in turn can chime in with a plethura of smart-ass remarks and sort of round the entire non-thing up! hahaha


        • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

          Oscar And Visitor


        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:52 PM



        • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM

          Maybe I should change my name to Oscar.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:52 PM

          er, uh, I think that would be me. LOL


  • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    The word ‘absolute’ seems analogous with ‘perfection’. It is said perfection is unobtainable, “but if you don’t reach for perfection, you’ll never get close.” MNR (me)
    I have always thought in terms of workable perfection. If a proximity switch is placed next to a machine arm in such a position that it reads the position of the arm EVERY TIME IT’S NEAR, it is , for all practical purposes, perfect.


    • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM

      It seems that there are relative “absolutes”. 🙂



      • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 10:19 AM

        I have always been a bit of an inventor. I once built a small machine that will last indefinitely. The base plates are made from unobtanium. The manipulating arms are forged from fictionite. It will last as long as you want it to.
        Sorry for the bad humor, it’s my trademark.


      • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        I have met others who react to the term “unknowable”. It seems to offend their sense of logic.


      • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        ‘Unknowable’ tells me that logic has limitations.


        • Rafael  On November 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM

          Yeah, logic exists only at the level of mechanics.


        • 2ndxmr  On November 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

          To me, the ultimate logic-defier was demonstrated by the Wheeler Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment which showed that entangled electrons behaved consistent to the rule of collapse (if observed, though wilt collapse as a particle, if unobserved though wilt collapse as a wave) even when to two electrons “collapsed” at different times.

          This “collapse rule” has more the flavor of a “defined rule” than a logical outcome.

          To really simplify (by omitting some data, so see the Youtube vid of the experiment explained) and summarize the phenomena:
          – single photons (meaning just one photon at a time) are generated
          – a double slit is used to “hide the path” of the “single” photons (did I come through door(slit) #1 or door #2?)
          – that photon strikes a target
          – two entangled electrons are generated from that strike
          – each takes a separate path to a target.
          – one path is short and defined
          – of the pair, electron “A” will always strike this target before its entangled partner, electron “B”, strikes a more distant target.
          – electron “B” goes through a series of gates that allow it to either be identified(which initial “door” [slit] it came through) or remain unknown
          – since there are two possible sets of A and B electrons, they are known as A1 and B1 (form door #1), and A2 and B2 (from door #2)
          – 4 detectors are placed individually at the various possible points of collapse – the possible quantum outcomes of A2 and B2 collapse
          – these collapse points basically say “I know who you are and where you came from” (“You’re an A2”, “You, sir, are a B2”), or “I can’t tell who you are”

          Uniformly, and without fail, the identifiable A2’s and B2’s collapse as particles (a non-interfering pattern) whereas the unidentifiable A2’s and B2’s collapse as interfering wave patterns. (“Interfering wave pattern” is old-speak and not quite correct, but descriptive for the phenomena.)

          The “illogical” consequence is that the A1, B1 electrons from the corresponding entangled pairs form the same pattern on the detector they fall on as did the later-to-collapse A2 and B2 electrons.

          This means, in essence, that a future event can define present reality – or so it would appear.

          The way I prefer to see it is that there are two conditions for time, both always possible, i.e. superposed (both possible at the same “time”).

          These two possibilities are:
          – time as we know it
          – a non-existence of time

          We consider time as a dimension.

          Time “as we know it” may be the unit value (like a second is a unit value) on that “as we know it” vector or dimension. The Planck second is probably that unit value.

          “A non-existence of time” may be that – a non-existence – or it may be the zero point of the “time as we know it” dimension. Both a “non-existence” and a “zero” value of time may be equivalent.

          If they are equivalent, it would mean the Time dimension has a cyclic aspect (time equals “unit value” or “time equals zero value”).

          If they are not equivalent, it means that time and no-time are superposed possibilities.

          The Wheeler experiment faces us with this dilemma – is time a single, unchangeable vector? (in which case the outcome of the delayed-eraser experiment is illogical and unknowable) or is time a dimension that is cycling at a very fast interval? – so fast that like a video we can’t tell that it’s made up of individual frames of information with a period of no-information between successive frames.

          I’ll go with the latter.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

          2x: I’ll go with the latter.

          Chris: Me too. Now I wonder what to do about it. We cannot measure something so small by an order of magnitude of about 10^ -17th. Give or take a few quad-trillion hahaha


        • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 8:52 PM

          The fundamental lesson of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment is that the result depends on whether the experiment is set up to detect waves or particles. ~ Wikipedia


%d bloggers like this: