I guess that's a new take on my dreams, manfraco, the tuning in to cosmic record. Therefore, my dream could be a simple manifestation of my subconscious, a quantum travel experience in another universe or this universe, a tuning in to another person's experience in real time or possibly in any point in time, or the tuning in to cosmic record. This raises another question in the case of premonitory dreams and cosmic record when considering that the future may be a matter of cosmic record. Spinoza's intuitive sense may indeed be the tapping into the realm of cosmic knowledge and perhaps you have, after all, in a unintentional sense, make comment on infinity, as in cosmic knowledge being all that ever was and all that ever will be. The infinite knowledge of the cosmos.
On Mar 7, 7:50 pm, manfraco Frank the Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Slip and members of “Minds Eye” group > > Today I seem to have found a little time to post, although what I am > going to say here is not an answer to what is infinity, but I want to > say it because runs in a parallel way with SD ways of thinking, in > fact I believe that whatever happens in this world may be recorded in > the cosmos, as it shows in SD dreams. You may even laugh at my idea of > the cosmos recording everything, but really it is possible, because if > we are able to record things so is the cosmos, even if it is done in a > different way to the way we record things. It has to be possible > because we humans are not able to create things from nothing and > whatever we discover is already pre existing in nature. > > I believe that a few of us humans may be able to feel or dream about > these records and SD is one of them, as SD is able to tune in during > his dreaming stage to the cosmos records. Sometimes I believe that > while dreaming I have been able to tune in to these records too. > > There have been a few people that are even able to tune in during > their waking time, look at this philosopher Spinoza and what he says > about Human Knowledge. > > Spinoza: Unity > > Human Knowledge > Spinoza maintained that human beings do have particular faculties > whose functions are to provide some degree of knowledge. I typically > assume, for example, that there may be some correlation between > thought and extension with regard to sensations produced by the action > of other bodies upon my eyes, ears, and fingertips. Even my memory may > occasionally harbor some evidence of the order and connection common > to things and ideas. And in self-conscious awareness, I seem to > achieve genuine knowledge of myself by representing my mind to itself, > using ideas to signify other ideas. > Near the end of Book II, then, Spinoza distinguished three kinds of > knowledge of which we may be capable: First, opinion, derived either > from vague sensory experience or from the signification of words in > the memory or imagination, provides only inadequate ideas and cannot > be relied upon as a source of truth. Second, reason, which begins with > simple adequate ideas and by analyzing causal or logical necessity > proceeds toward awareness of their more general causes, does provide > us with truth. But intuition, in which the mind deduces the structure > of reality from the very essence or idea of god, is the great source > of adequate ideas, the highest form of knowledge, and the ultimate > guarantor of truth. (II Prop. xl) > In my opinion Spinoza must be able to feel the cosmos knowledge, which > could be described as intuition, otherwise how could he be so sure of > himself and state that intuition is the highest form of knowledge? > > What do you think about that? As for myself I believe that reason is > the highest sense that should be relied upon. > I have no more time to write anything else now. > Kind Regards > Manfraco. > > On Mar 7, 10:30 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A soul is a memory, fran, that retains information about ones life, > > about ones talents, about ones intellect, and about ones nature. I > > have always found it strange that people believe that something can > > travel through airwaves and appear on a screen, sound out of a radio, > > transport a voice through a cell phone, become part of a massive > > computer data base but don't understand that a soul could exist. > > Don't you think that IF we simpletons of humanity can gather and store > > massive amounts of data onto a chip the size of a microdot that > > somewhere out there in the cosmos there is the ability to have a > > soul? Having an old soul is not in any way a means of overcoming the > > flaws inherent in humanity but it is a way of gaining life experience > > which is conducive to growth in spirit, intellect, and growth in the > > many other aspects of the living soul. Sure it is true that > > reincarnation is pure theory but so is and are many a theory presented > > by mankind. As I have stated in many other posts we, as a species, > > continue to search for answers as to who are we, where are we from, > > what are we doing here, have we been > > here before, does life have purpose, does life have meaning, is there > > a god, is there a heaven, is there a hell, how will I die, when will I > > die, did George Bush destroy America, why are we bailing out private > > enterprise corporations and many other important questions. {;-) > > > On Mar 6, 12:54 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, that > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have no > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves space- > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason not to > > > assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not be > > > reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my next > > > life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. > > > > Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. > > > > Francis > > > > On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As to theory when it comes to things like reincarnation....theories > > > > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > > > > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers experiencing > > > > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been answered by those > > > > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > > > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps growing, > > > > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of > > > > > > reincarnation > > > > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new souls must be > > > > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls exist, of > > > > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls reincarnate? > > > > > > Is > > > > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm guessing > > > > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually die each > > > > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? Is there > > > > > > some > > > > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, 200 > > > > > > million > > > > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, > > > > > > non-reincarnated > > > > > > souls are generated each year? > > > > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it decided whether > > > > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new soul? > > > > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of people dying > > > > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not every new > > > > > > birth > > > > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation theory think > > > > > > about this? > > > > > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit > > > > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the lifeforms in > > > > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see how full > > > > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your point, an > > > > > Earth- > > > > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a huge > > > > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate (or re- > > > > > invegetate, for that matter!). > > > > > Although there IS the Jewish view of 'The Guph', or 'Hall of Souls' > > > > > where souls wait for (re-)incarnation. There is also a belief that > > > > > the Guph can be emptied and soulless individuals born. This is > > > > > explored in the Juergen Prochnow/Demi Moore film "The Seventh > > > > > Sign" (Great film!). > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Slip, can you clarify what you mean by saying "Thought, as I > > > > > > > > see it, is not physical or tangible<<<<<MB > > > > > > > > Simply for me thought is not something that you can put in a box > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > ship out or place in a zip lock bag for storage. I feel thought > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > imagination are homologous but not identical in that thought > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > may be considered more of a process, which imagination uses to > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > ideas, concepts, theories etc. > > > > > > > > though it is the subject of multiple scientific experiments." > > > > > > > ?<<<MB > > > > > > > > I may have hastened to use the expression scientific experiments, > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > intended reference to "thought experiments", but more so leaning > > > > > > > towards the nature of thought, it's use as in telekinesis, > > > > > > > telepathy, > > > > > > > clairvoyance, the overall power of thinking, and the law of > > > > > > > attraction, much of which admittedly, is speculative and/or > > > > > > > hypothetical. > > > > > > > Discovering the physical nature of thought is aside from what I am > > > > > > > projecting because once thought takes place it becomes > > > > > > > independent of > > > > > > > it's originating source as does the light emanating from a dead > > > > > > > star. > > > > > > > > > As I understand you, you posed that perspective in opposition > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > contention that "all thought > > > > > > > > and consciousness dies with the death of the physical mind." > > > > > > > > Are you > > > > > > > > arguing that when a person is alive, his thoughts are > > > > > > > > extra-physical, > > > > > > > > or are you also arguing that consciousness / soul survives > > > > > > > > death?<<<MB > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing as much as I am suggesting that thoughts are not > > > > > > > confined to our physical being. As I posted early on, we do see > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > from stars that are physically non existent. I believe thoughts, > > > > > > > imaginations > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
