I'll grab a Fabulous Mary and start writing my limerick right now.
On Jan 18, 9:24 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree there as well with the referencing quantum physics as saying
> time and space are just leisures of perception and using that as a
> basis to conclude "therefore our bodies cannot truly be reality if
> they occupy this space", doesn't seem plausible. I would think that
> mental images and subconscious activity may fall into the category of
> illusion but I feel the body itself is a physical manifestation of
> consciousness, therefore our bodies are in that sense reality. At
> nearly 2 minutes he states that consciousness shapes our reality which
> dismisses the claim of illusion. Later it infers a brain washing of
> society through education, lack of holistic brain function leading to
> "what is known as suppression of the feminine", at which point I
> wonder what circles of though it that "known as"
> Although it all starts out with innuendo, I think that is a way of
> using suppositions to create the "Mystique" quality which in a way is
> very creative. I don't think the video was put together for the
> scientific community. It seems to start coming together with the idea
> that the body is merely a vessel that contains our spirit to gather
> experience for the divine mind but then basing evolution possibilities
> on that gets shaky. The innate knowledge portion doesn't take much to
> understand as it is easy to see that quality of life because it is so
> obvious. By this time in the video I would think that the first
> segments are forgotten and the rhythmic drone by now has the viewer in
> somewhat of a trance.
> I see that at this point there is at least one connection of dots,
> that being the two references to collective consciousness, in the
> first minute and shortly after 5 minutes. I'm totally lost on the
> Chakra stuff and so I can't comment on it. But I can see that there
> is this tendency to establish some direction and cohesiveness in the
> presentation. Enough for now!
>
> Well fabulous Ms. Molly, I thought you might like to know that I've
> acquired a piece of property and I'm going to establish the first
> "Mollywood". I'll expect you to be there for the Grand Opening, for
> autographs and book signing. There will be Irish Coffee as part of
> the refreshments along with some Dublin Coddle, Corned Beef and
> Cabbage, Mutton Stew, Boiled Boxty and Potato Farls . Aside from
> various forms of entertainment there is going to be a Limerick
> Recital.
>
> On Jan 17, 9:37 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > No, no, not bloody marys - FABULOUS Marys - same recipe, better name.
> > (As Molly is a proper Irish nickname for Mary, I speak from
> > experience.)
>
> > The large leaps in logic of the presentation did make me wonder at the
> > maturity level of the author. He started with the bit of the reality
> > of the body being "illusion" and I do not agree with that at all,
> > being more of the mind that all aspects of being require integration.
> > In fact, I think that feeling with the body is really a key component
> > in the awakened imagination, so never really subscribed to the
> > "illusion" thing.
>
> > One thing I liked very much that the author presented briefly was the
> > idea of "innate." Our innate wisdom is the premise that modern
> > chiropractic was founded on. D D Palmer based his whole philosophy of
> > Chiropractic on this notion of innate, and it is taught in the Palmer
> > schools to this day. Our body's innate wisdom is also the basic tenet
> > of Kinesiology. The author did a pretty good job of placing this idea
> > in the right place of his presentation.
>
> > On Jan 17, 9:07 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > For those who didn't do their homework..........
>
> > > Say 3 Hail Mary's followed by a Act of Contrition
>
> > > OR
>
> > > Drink 4 Bloody Mary's followed by a Act of Perdition.
>
> > > Slip {;-]
>
> > > On Jan 17, 12:15 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > MEA CULPA!!! MEA CULPA!!! MEA CULPA!!!
> > > > :-)
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 8:15 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > No need for apology everyone!!
>
> > > > > It's all good!
>
> > > > > On Jan 16, 10:13 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > As Molly said "A very bold move, Slip, to introduce this video to a
> > > > > > group based on rational discussion".
> > > > > > But then again "PS Thanks Slip, for this reference".
> > > > > > It's just fodder for discussion.
> > > > > > Thanks for your contribution!
>
> > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:34 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Sorry Slip. Didn't mean to be dismissive, but when the intro sets
> > > > > > > the pace
> > > > > > > for great leaps of fallacious logic, I pretty much know what to
> > > > > > > expect of
> > > > > > > what's coming next. And it's clear from my postings here that I
> > > > > > > fall into a
> > > > > > > very materialist, rationalist mind set. I don't discount the
> > > > > > > wonders of
> > > > > > > imagination...I simply don't base my science on it.
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I knew the background string repetition would be annoying to
> > > > > > > > say the
> > > > > > > > least, I found it hard to bear. Overall I'm happy with the
> > > > > > > > responses
> > > > > > > > but was hoping some could get over the A.D.D. and see what other
> > > > > > > > content offerings were being presented. I had a feeling that
> > > > > > > > much of
> > > > > > > > it was loose purporting without substantiation, as some of you
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > pointed out. Molly seemed on target with "The author's final
> > > > > > > > attempt
> > > > > > > > to quell the argument that everyone must come to this leap in
> > > > > > > > consciousness for the world to move into a collective higher
> > > > > > > > resonance
> > > > > > > > is not clear." In fact it seemed that the author really didn't
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > what to do and it all get's frayed at the end. I do understand
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > Archy's coming from with "As researchers, we are supposed to
> > > > > > > > listen to
> > > > > > > > everything, yet this is not realistic - bull gets in the way of
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > clarity and direction we can glimpse, yet our bull-detectors
> > > > > > > > can also
> > > > > > > > get in the way". Exactly, the bull detection sets a barricade
> > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > road of further exploration. One minute of a 20 minute video
> > > > > > > > is only
> > > > > > > > 5% and as I said I do understand to a degree. The first
> > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > for some most likely is, if you've seen one you've seen them
> > > > > > > > all, as
> > > > > > > > Chris point out with "I've been inundated with enough "The
> > > > > > > > Secret"
> > > > > > > > type pseudo physicists lately that I'm utterly put off on the
> > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > thing". The point most importantly, though, is that this was
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > about you but more so that I needed clarification on this video
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > I thought I could get from my esteemed friends, of whom I highly
> > > > > > > > regard as a valuable resource beyond my own personal capacity,
> > > > > > > > so it
> > > > > > > > was really for me. Not to say that I am less than satisfied but
> > > > > > > > waiting to be satiated as of yet.
> > > > > > > > The reference to quantum physics and Rutherford were vague at
> > > > > > > > best and
> > > > > > > > tugged at my cerebral gray matter for understanding or lack of,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > leaves me in a quandary with Chris's first paragraph as well.
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > hoping that Pat, Gruff, Ian, KC, and everyone else will pop
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > heads into the window for a look see. I guess I'm a bit taken
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > curiosity as to how different personalities view this video,
> > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > guess you all have seen Zeitgeist?, another intriguing video
> > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > your opinion.
> > > > > > > > I agree with Fran that the film contains some interesting, nice
> > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > and his more in depth analysis reflects my first impression, as
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > lacked continuity as a whole and I felt it was a bit sporadic.
> > > > > > > > Regardless of the fallacies within the video, I believe that if
> > > > > > > > it can
> > > > > > > > get people to drop the fear and pick up the love we all have
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > to gain from it. Remember the majority of people in the world
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > don't know anything about quantum physics and scientificThe
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > idea of the video and what it is trying to present doesn't seem
> > > > > > > > negative and I would think that is the attraction for many
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > unaware of content validity.
>
> > > > > > > > OK so all in all I'll give a 50/50 split on responses. However
> > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > not forget Molly's most inciting comment.............
>
> > > > > > > > "OK MindsEye, let 'er rip"
>
> > > > > > > > Well?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
