If you eliminate time and distance you are expanded t o being every where , totality becomes your realm. Allan
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > > "...Time and distance only limit the mind not allowing it to expand > to its > potential." - Allan > > In fact Allan, do not these two things add to mind's potential? Yes, > for some, who become attached to such relative things, it may be an > impediment...but, in the big picture, mind includes these subjective > things along with all you imply in the expanded state(s). > > On Apr 19, 11:23 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > * *I think true reality has neither time nor distance .--. it just is. > > Time and distance only limit the mind not allowing it to expand to its > > potential. > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Marco Afonso <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Wow... i loved to read these posts. Can't understand english so easy > > > as my motherlanguage - portuguese - but i got so many new ideas... > > > > > I like to think that in science, as in any other community, there are > > > 2 (discretizing) areas: the most inner side (conservative) and the > > > most outside (radical). I classify quantum physics as being the most > > > outside... > > > > > Evolution needs the radical side. It is the side that pushes up, while > > > the conservative side functions like a filter to consolidate the > > > 'good' parts of the radical side. Let the 'scouts' do their work... > > > > > Reality: > > > > > Logically and semantically, I question the sentence: "if N is > > > subjective, then N is not real". 'Subjective' and 'real' are > > > disjunctive? Can we define that one is the opposite of the other? > > > > > Senses can lead to error at some experiments, while they are the best > > > instruments in other situations. > > > > > Interdisciplinary studies are recent and do not fall exclusively in > > > the old fashion method of reductionism. Experiments (of Reality) can't > > > be isolated as they are a consequence of the whole. > > > > > On Mar 28, 5:53 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We actually seem to live in a world of massive containment. We can > > > > only meet because we are dominated by matter - otherwise a quick hug > > > > would blitz a large town. > > > > > > On 27 Mar, 19:35, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Why not,, new world to explore.. The last true frontier. > > > > > All things are possible. > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Molly Brogan < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Questions arise as to whether we can construct conditions > > > > > > for a very different human existence. > > > > > > > > Why couldn't we? We are only limited by our own constructs of > > > > > > limitation. > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 11:01 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We spend a lot of time in science excluding things and > explanations > > > in > > > > > > > trying to arrive at things that work reliably. In the general > run > > > of > > > > > > > life there is much we cannot exclude or even recognise in what > is > > > > > > > happening. Like Justin I can only admit to blundering along - > the > > > owl > > > > > > > of Minerva only taking flight in murky mud - to mix a few > > > metaphors. > > > > > > > In hot fusion the key is an exclusion boundary preventing the > > > plasma > > > > > > > from grounding out to a reality - contamination ruining the > > > experiment > > > > > > > and the conditions for its existence (though we hope to tap a > > > power- > > > > > > > line in). Questions arise as to whether we can construct > > > conditions > > > > > > > for a very different human existence. > > > > > > > > > On 27 Mar, 11:52, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, I am not sure what rubbing the lamp means to this > thread, > > > but, > > > > > > > > Justin, I certainly appreciate the way you lead us along the > > > lines of > > > > > > > > philosophical reasoning to arrive at the poignant place that > > > connects > > > > > > > > us all in a thread. Completely meaningful. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 1:18 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is that it is there and that it is not me. > > > > > > > > > > > I look at a teacup. Is it a teacup or is it just my seeing > a > > > teacup? > > > > > > > > > If it is a teacup it is real. If it is just my seeing a > teacup > > > then > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is not real. > > > > > > > > > > > This is the typical way of looking at reality. > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with this is revealed in the mystic traditions. > If > > > > > > > > > abstraction is the process of thinking of something that > cannot > > > exist > > > > > > > > > without something else, as existing without that something > > > else, then > > > > > > > > > the idea of reality becomes an abstraction. The experienced > is > > > not > > > > > > > > > conceivable apart from experiencing of some kind and > reality > > > and to > > > > > > > > > the extent that it is conceived of that way, becomes the > > > illusion of > > > > > > > > > worlds behind the scenes. > > > > > > > > > > > Now this abstraction lies so deep in our ideas that all of > us > > > are > > > > > > > > > capable of imagining the universe with no one in it, no one > > > > > > > > > experiencing it. We do that easily and we ascribe the term > > > reality to > > > > > > > > > that abstraction. That is "the universe" and the fact that > it > > > is > > > > > > > > > experienced is considered a contingent fact that might have > > > been > > > > > > > > > otherwise. It is just luck that we experience the universe. > If > > > > > > > > > evolution had gone the other way then .... Its simple, just > > > imagine > > > > > > > > > the world before people or sentient beings evolved or > imagine > > > it > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > > they are gone. We are almost completely unaware of the how > our > > > real > > > > > > > > > absence (not just a temporal structure with a point that > has us > > > > > > arrive > > > > > > > > > and end - but complete absence) would erode the > hypothetical > > > nature > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > "it". It is easy to see how its color would be undefinable > but > > > much > > > > > > > > > harder to see how its spatial material structure, the stuff > of > > > set > > > > > > > > > theory and mathematical modeling, would become equally > > > meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > Only in the mystical traditions are the notions of reality > > > > > > appreciated > > > > > > > > > and the presenting of already-merging-originally is > > > experienced. The > > > > > > > > > world is correctly experienced as a verb and the meaning of > its > > > > > > > > > reality -or perhaps better "reality-ing" becomes clear. > Here > > > the > > > > > > > > > notion of reality is seen as being meaningful, as having > > > meaning and > > > > > > > > > therefore is not separate from, nor reducible to, mind. It > is > > > > > > meaning- > > > > > > > > > ing itself around us and throughout us. This does not then > > > exclude > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > temporalizing and spatially abstracting the essent, of > > > recognizing > > > > > > > > > material structures and of understanding the relationship > of > > > those > > > > > > > > > structures to our own incarnation, but all of this becomes > > > essential > > > > > > > > > material and is not the One reality at the center. It is > just > > > > > > > > > contingent structure. > > > > > > > > > > > Those states of conscious are hard to come by but their > insight > > > is > > > > > > > > > invaluable in comprehending the meaning of reality. > > > > > > > > > > > While the notion of reality as being that which is "other > than > > > > > > > > > thought" has uses the problem with it is that it cannot > handle > > > the > > > > > > > > > mystical experience of reality. It is ignorant of the Tao. > > > > > > > > > > > Consider these two statements: "When we say something is a > > > fantasy, > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > mean that it isn't a part of the world of our natural > senses. > > > It > > > > > > > > > exists soley in the subjective mind." "When we say > something is > > > real > > > > > > > > > we seem to be implying that the object is perceived through > > > senses > > > > > > > > > other than pure thought" > > > > > > > > > > > The first problem is that reality as it is usually meant is > not > > > > > > > > > ascribed to something that is seen sensually as opposed to > > > > > > > > > cognitively. For example if I induce the sight of a cow > > > electrically > > > > > > > > > by stimulating the right neurons (or even by projecting > light > > > in a > > > > > > > > > realistic way into our eyes, we would usually say that the > cow > > > that I > > > > > > > > > experienced is not real even though I saw it. Alternatively > we > > > may > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > that it was a "real experience" but not a "real cow". My > "just > > > seeing > > > > > > > > > it" means that it was subjective and therefore not real. So > the > > > > > > > > > distinction between mind and senses is not the key. It is > the > > > > > > > > > distinction between that which is "purely subjective" and > that > > > which > > > > > > > > > is not that is the key. > > > > > > > > > > > However, the problem is that in reality itself the meaning > and > > > being > > > > > > > > > are kind of the same thing. It is the meaning-ing of being > and > > > the > > > > > > > > > being of the meaning-ing of being originally as one > experience. > > > > > > > > > Otherwise being becomes roughly "that which is not > meaning", or > > > at > > > > > > > > > least "that which is not just meaning" - something again > other > > > to > > > > > > pure > > > > > > > > > meaning - and becomes something other, something > necessarily > > > > > > > > > meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure that I am being clumsy here but the essence of my > > > comment > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > that a notion of reality that makes distinction between > either > > > > > > sensory > > > > > > > > > vs cognitive content or objective vs subjective entities > will > > > not > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > because of its failure to realize the Tao. > > > > > > > > > > > Being in reality is completely meaningful. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ( > > > > > ) > > > > > I_D Allan > > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
