And what IS that, Molly ? As THAT, how does IT see itself as ? What is in it 's AWARENESS ? Does it have desires, and the tendency to act ?
We individuals, from THAT reference, are merely looking through a pin hole. We do see something, but what we see is not the whole. I am only trying to take our discussion forward, the way I know. I very much would like to listen to what you may choose to share. The paths are many. I would like to invite OM on this matter, if he favour us. On Jun 29, 4:43 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > all we will ever know at the same time for all time... or ...knowing > (and being) everyone and everything that ever was and ever will be and > all that is... > > On Jun 28, 8:09 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Isn't that cosmic consciousness, Vam? > > > On Jun 28, 6:24 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jim, really speaking beyond mere more terms and thoughts, I do not > > > even know how the dog derives many, many times more from the bone I > > > discarded as nothing ! The fact is empirical. But do I understand > > > it ? I do not know. > > > > The other day, a journalist academic analysed racism and opined : We > > > are not racists. Just that some among us are ignorant and, hence, > > > display their prejudices which seem racist. That, I found, was a mere > > > explanation of racist behaviour. It was irrelevent to the question : > > > Are we racist ? > > > > I believe that alongwith science, which indeed we might know > > > everything of, we need to know the answer to such questions, which is > > > what I am afraid we ALL will never know ALL at the SAME TIME, for ALL > > > TIME. > > > > On Jun 28, 1:20 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Looking back over recent decades it seems clear that we (mankind) is > > > > coming to know, in a scientific sense, more and more about more and > > > > more, and faster and faster. Will there ever come a time when we will > > > > know everything about everything? > > > > I’ve asked a number of people this question, and all say “no.” > > > > But it > > > > seems to me that the correct answer is “yes.” Why? > > > > First, I’m talking about knowing all the scientific laws > > > > governing > > > > the physical universe – nothing more, nothing less. The physical > > > > universe is immense, but finite. Science has long assumed that the > > > > laws governing our small bit of it are universal; they apply > > > > everywhere in the universe just as they apply here. Given then that > > > > the physical universe is finite, it would seem that the laws governing > > > > it are also finite. And as we come to know them here faster and > > > > faster, at some point it would seem that we will know everything about > > > > everything. > > > > This also seems to me to be consistent with what Einstein and > > > > others > > > > have long sought – the ultimate theory of everything. (This effort is > > > > well described by Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe.) If > > > > knowing everything were obviously not possible, surely this group > > > > would never have begun pursuing that ultimate theory. > > > > How might we tell when we are approaching the point where we > > > > know > > > > everything? I expect the growth of knowledge is gaussian. As we > > > > approach knowing everything the rate of knowledge growth will > > > > gradually slow. So by monitoring this rate of growth we should be able > > > > to predict when we will know everything. Right?- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
