Material things are hold by time and space. I think absolute imaterial things are infinite on time and space. How much material is mind, thoughts, memories, etc...?
On Apr 21, 12:23 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > No, if one eliminates time and distance, one can not be in the world > of appearances...a limitation in apprehension. > > On Apr 20, 11:18 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
